Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Apparently Doesn’t Believe Trans People Exist
Jun 18, 2025
Mark Joseph Stern, a legal analyst from Slate, joins to dissect the Roberts Court's recent ruling on gender-affirming care for trans minors, effectively banning it in over 20 states. The discussion delves into the stark legal barriers being imposed, particularly in Tennessee, where similar treatments remain available for non-trans minors. Stern critiques the Supreme Court's framework, linking it to broader implications for transgender rights and even drawing parallels with recent abortion rulings, showcasing the ongoing struggle for recognition and equality.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
SCOTUS Rules on Transgender Care Ban
- The Supreme Court ruled that banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- This decision allows similar laws in over 20 states, impacting trans rights broadly.
Selective Ban on Trans Treatments
- Laws ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones only for trans minors, while allowing these treatments for other medical conditions.
- The discrimination targets transgender youth's ability to access gender-affirming care but allows same treatments for non-trans medical uses.
Roberts' Legal Justification
- Chief Justice Roberts used rational basis review by framing the law as age- and medically-based, not sex- or transgender-based discrimination.
- He denied that the law discriminates against transgender people despite its clear intent to restrict gender-affirming care.