The Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti permits Tennessee's law that prevents minors from receiving treatments for gender dysphoria. The law's implications extend beyond transgender rights, threatening established gender equality and anti-discrimination protections. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice Roberts, references the outdated Geduldig v. Aiello case to justify discrimination based on biological differences. The Court ruled the law does not warrant increased scrutiny, asserting that it differentiates based on age and medical treatment rather than sex or gender identity, highlighting a conservative shift in legal interpretation.
The implications of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti are profound, potentially reversing advancements in both transgender rights and gender equality.
The majority opinion argues that the law does not amount to sex discrimination, emphasizing that it differentiates based on medical treatment and age rather than gender.
Collection
[
|
...
]