The Rundown: The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up L.W. v. Skrmetti, a landmark case challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors. The decision could determine whether such bans are constitutional and set a precedent for trans rights across America. With similar laws in at least 26 states, the stakes couldn’t be higher for trans youth and their families.
In a surprising twist during oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett—a staunch conservative and Trump appointee —appeared caught off guard when faced with evidence of gender-affirming care dating back over a century. The revelation not only challenges the anti-trans narrative framing such care as experimental but also introduces a potential wild card into the court’s deliberations.
What’s at Stake?
At the heart of the case is whether Tennessee’s ban violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause1. Advocates argue that the law unjustly targets trans youth, stripping them of healthcare based on prejudice rather than evidence. Tennessee, meanwhile, defends the ban as necessary to “protect children,” despite consensus from leading medical organisations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association that such care is safe, effective, and often life-saving.
If the court upholds Tennessee’s law, it would embolden other states to enact or expand similar bans. But a ruling against the ban could send a strong message that trans rights—and access to healthcare—are protected under the Constitution.
Barrett’s Reaction: A Rare Moment of Uncertainty
During oral arguments, Barrett’s questioning took an unexpected turn when lawyers challenging the ban presented historical evidence of gender-affirming practices, including early 20th-century hormone therapies and surgeries dating back to the 1920s. This evidence directly counters Tennessee’s claims that such care is a modern, untested phenomenon.
The history of gender-affirming care isn’t just a counterargument—it’s a direct challenge to the narrative of those trying to legislate trans people out of existence.
Known for her originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, Barrett seemed genuinely surprised by the historical context. This moment of hesitation—rare for a justice firmly aligned with conservative values—could influence how she and the court evaluate the case.
The Bigger Picture: A Global Battle Over Trans Rights
The Skrmetti case isn’t happening in isolation. Across the U.S. and beyond, trans rights have become a cultural flashpoint, with lawmakers pushing legislation that targets healthcare, education, sports, and even self-expression. This legal assault is fuelled by misinformation and fearmongering, portraying trans people—particularly youth—as political pawns rather than individuals with the right to exist and thrive.
In Canada, while access to trans healthcare remains more secure, anti-trans rhetoric is gaining traction 2 3 4. Protests against school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students and efforts to restrict gender-affirming care highlight how these battles are increasingly crossing borders. The outcome of Skrmetti could have ripple effects internationally, influencing both legal challenges and cultural narratives.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Skrmetti by the summer of 2025. A decision upholding Tennessee’s ban would open the floodgates for more anti-trans laws, further marginalising an already vulnerable community. Conversely, a ruling against the ban could offer a powerful legal shield for trans rights across the United States.
TML’s Take
The history of gender-affirming care isn’t just a counterargument—it’s a direct challenge to the narrative of those trying to legislate trans people out of existence. Justice Barrett’s moment of surprise underscores how disconnected anti-trans advocates are from reality. But let’s not mistake this as a sign of victory, not just yet; the judgment is yet to come.
Even with a favourable ruling, the damage done by these laws—families uprooted, youth denied care, and a rise in anti-trans violence—won’t be undone overnight. This is a fight for survival, and it’s far from over.
The message is clear: trans rights aren’t up for debate, and history is on our side. For those watching from Canada and beyond, this isn’t just an American issue. It’s a reminder to remain vigilant and push back against hate wherever it rears its head. – TML
- Read more about the 14th Amendment here: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment ↩︎
- https://globalnews.ca/news/9972437/anti-lgbtq2-rallies-canada-counter-protests/ ↩︎
- https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/appalling-anti-trans-policy-changes-in-alberta/ ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_713 ↩︎