When the Law Excludes Us: What the Skrmetti Decision Means for Trans Rights and the Future of Legal Advocacy

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti cast a dark cloud over Pride Month. In a sweeping decision, the Court not only rolled back decades of progress toward equal justice and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community, but also reinforced this country’s long history of erasing  LGTBQ+ people– starting as early as childhood. We have to ask ourselves: What is so unlawful about the existence of LGBTQ+ people?

The Bill Heard Across The Nation

Three Transgender minors, together with their parents and a physician, challenged a Tennessee law known as SB1, which prohibits minors from accessing gender-affirming medical care.  SB1 states: 

“As enacted, prohibits a healthcare provider from performing on a minor or administering to a minor a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”  

The plaintiff argued that SB1 violates transgender children’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause mandates that all people must be treated the same under the law; therefore, making discrimination against certain groups of people  unlawful. Let’s take a closer look to see how this bill discriminates against Trans people, especially Trans youth.

Bill of Loopholes

Tennessee’s SB1 carefully avoids explicitly naming transgender children as the bill’s target, instead relying on generic language like “minor” and “sex.”  This wording is intentional. When lawmakers don’t name the group they are targeting, it creates legal loopholes that allow for a selective interpretation of the law. Think of the infamous 13th Amendment: 

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, [except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted]…shall exist within the United States”

Take a moment to think about what the 13th Amendment is actually saying. How does this same strategy show up in SB1?

SB1 creates a loophole with the phrase “a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” Gender dysphoria—the experience of having a gender identity that does not match your biological sex— is often associated with being Transgender. On the surface, the bill may look vague, but it clearly targets transgender children by focusing on the medical practices and procedures they rely on to transition.While the bill does not outline any criminal penalties, the fact that providing gender-affirming care could be treated as a civil offense sets a dangerous precedent.

It sends the message that there should be some sort of punishment for trans people who seek healthcare that supports their well-being. Furthermore, Tennessee's law makes it even harder for trans youth to receive such vital care because physicians may be afraid of offering those services out of fear of liability.  

The Implications of a Skrmetti Ruling 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee's Ban did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority concluded Tennessee's law was not  discriminatory on the basis of sex because they did not view transgender people as a group historically subjected to discrimination.  While the majority of the Supreme Court tries to portray their decision as neutral, at its core, the ruling uses dog whistles that signal to other states that it is acceptable to discriminate against transgender people. The ruling also raises questions about whether transgender people are seen as humans with rights, considering the debate over suspect and quasi-suspect classes. The Court’s unwillingness to recognize transgender people as an oppressed group is deeply concerning. This ties back to the issue of legal loopholes. By framing  the bill without directly naming trans people, lawmakers created enough ambiguity for the Court to avoid confronting the real harm. 

The Court’s role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of SB1, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. It does not. Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

These are the same arguments that the Supreme Court  majority used to justify the overturn of Roe v. Wade, rooted in the majority’s belief of “leaving it to the states,” also echoed by the Trump Administration. Since then, we have seen in real-time consequences of what “leaving it to the states” looks like, such as medical disasters like the case of Adriana Smith.  In this ruling, the Court has once again targeted bodily autonomy, only this time casting a wider net of people/groups who will now be vulnerable to  state-sanctioned discrimination.  

Consequently, the Skrmetti ruling handed over a big win to conservatives who have historically opposed the existence of trans people to justify conservatives’ hardcore beliefs on  “tradition.” However, there is nothing untraditional about gender affirming medical care and practices. Gender affirming care is not just a “trans” issue.  In fact, many of us engage in gender affirming practices, like seeking  medical procedures to enhance certain features of our bodies to either present more feminine or more masculine (e.g. Botox, Brazilian butt lifts, Breast augmentation, etc). Yet, when bills like SB1 are enforced, they send a clear message that there is only one  “right” way to exist and that we, as individuals, do not have control over decisions over our bodies. Pushing Forward With Pride

The Supreme Court’s ruling can feel defeating, and in many ways it is a major defeat to trans people’s rights.  However,  if we remain silent, Zora Neal Hurston reminds us  “If [we] are silent about [our] pain, they’ll kill [us] and say [we] enjoyed it.” Part of the beauty of Pride month is the loud celebration of community and diversity. The beauty also lies in the community’s rich history of resistance. In challenging times, we owe it to our trans comrades to uplift and support them. Whether support means contacting your local senator and or congressional representative to voice your opposition to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, donating to mutual aid funds for trans people, or showing up to protests, there is still so much more we can do to continue the fight for liberation.  Together, we can weather any storm when we show up collectively.