The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti has significant implications for transgender rights, particularly regarding access to gender-affirming care for minors. Leah Litman, a constitutional law expert, critiques the ruling as indicative of the Court's conservative majority operating with political motives rather than objective legal standards. Upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming treatments, the Court employed a lenient rational basis review, a stance Litman argues is inconsistent given that such treatments are permissible for cisgender minors with certain medical conditions. This decision raises concerns of precedent being cast aside in favor of partisan objectives.
Litman argues that the justices in the Court's conservative bloc routinely dispense with precedent and consistency in favor of legal-ish reasoning that advances Republican priorities.
The Court's decision confirms a shift from being a neutral arbiter to a participant in a partisan project targeting vulnerable groups, particularly transgender people.
Collection
[
|
...
]