Listen to this article Listen to this article

Key Takeaways: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on transgender youth care

Ruling impacts similar laws in 26 other states

Court says Equal Protection Clause doesn’t resolve medical debates

Dissent criticizes abandonment of transgender children’s rights

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a stunning setback to transgender rights.

The justices’ 6-3 decision in a case from Tennessee effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by President Donald Trump’s Republican administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to the one in Tennessee.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a conservative majority that the law does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.

“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.”

In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

The decision comes amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, President Donald Trump’s administration sued Maine for not complying with the government’s push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports.

The Republican president also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming medical care for those under age 19 — instead promoting talk therapy only to treat young transgender people. In addition, the Supreme Court has allowed him to kick transgender service members out of the military, even as court battles continue. The president also signed another order to define the sexes as only male and female.

Trump’s administration has also called for using only therapy, not broader health measures, to treat transgender youths.

The justices acted a month after the United Kingdom’s top court delivered a setback to transgender rights, ruling unanimously that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. That decision is not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

But the justices on Wednesday declined to apply the same sort of analysis the court used in 2020 when it found that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Roberts joined that opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also was part of Wednesday’s majority.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on social media called the ruling a “Landmark VICTORY for Tennessee at SCOTUS in defense of America’s children!”

There are about 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 and 1.3 million adults who identify as transgender in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The Williams Institute is a think tank that researches sexual orientation and gender identity demographics to inform laws and public policy decisions.

When the case was argued in December, then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and families of transgender adolescents had called on the high court to strike down the Tennessee ban as unlawful sex discrimination and protect the constitutional rights of vulnerable Americans.

They argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tennessee’s law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but it allows the same drugs to be used for other purposes.

Soon after Trump took office, the Justice Department told the court that its position had changed.

A major issue in the case was the appropriate level of scrutiny courts should apply to such laws.

The lowest level is known as rational basis review, and almost every law looked at that way is ultimately upheld. Indeed, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati that allowed the Tennessee law to be enforced held that lawmakers acted rationally to regulate medical procedures, well within their authority.

The appeals court reversed a trial court that employed a higher level of review, heightened scrutiny, which applies in cases of sex discrimination. Under this more searching examination, the state must identify an important objective and show that the law helps accomplish it.

Mark Sherman reports for The Associated Press.

(The Center Square) – The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a Tennessee law banning minors from receiving transgender medical treatments.

In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the high court analyzed a state law which prevented healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors with the intent of “enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”

Tennessee Attorney General Johnathan Skrmetti, defendant in the case celebrated the high court’s decision.

“A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,” Skrmetti said. “I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”

The law did not prevent minors from accessing the treatments in order to treat a congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease or physical injury.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the court. In the opinion, Roberts addressed the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which prohibited employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Roberts said the 2020 ruling did not apply to this decision because the restriction for medical treatment is not based on sex, but rather age.

“Unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor’s sex or transgender status does not alter the application of [Tennessee’s law],” Roberts wrote.

Roberts also pointed out Tennessee’s recognition of several consequences which occur from allowing minors access to transgender care.

“The [Tennessee] legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of some treatments may not be known,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts argued state legislators representing constituents should make decisions regarding transgender care for minors based on the evidence.

“Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito concurred with Roberts’ opinion.

“Today Tennessee secured a historic victory for common sense and the rule of law,” said Katherin Green Robertson, chief counsel for the Attorney General of Alabama.

Robertson referenced Justice Clarence Thomas concurring opinion. “Justice Thomas soundly put to rest the persistent sham that we should quiet down and ‘trust the science’ when it comes to life-altering experimentation on minors,” Roberston said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissent. Justice Sotomayor filed the dissenting opinion for the court.

“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” Sotomayor wrote.

Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, a transgender rights group, criticized the decision and its impact across the country.

“Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death for our trans siblings in Tennessee, and this ruling has just approved the transphobic legislation of 25 other states. It has greenlit a nationwide attempt to infringe on personal medical decisions and violate constitutional rights to privacy. The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,” Hack said.

Sotomayor took issue with Tennessee’s application of the law against puberty blockers and hormone treatments specially for transgender minors. She pointed out the allowance of puberty blockers and hormone treatment for minors with precocious puberty.

She said the specific ban of treatment for minors seeking to identify with a sex different than their assigned at birth sex requires a heightened level of scrutiny in the court.

Sotomayor equated the Tennessee law to a hypothetical ban on minors attending religious ceremonies “inconsistent” with the minor’s religion.

She said minors would be discriminated against under the Tennessee law depending on their sex and the treatment they request.

Due to different treatments based on sex, Sotomayor said the court’s application of scrutiny was not strict enough.

“The majority’s choice to subject [the Tennessee law] to rational-basis-review, the most cursory form of constitutional review, is not only indefensible as a matter of precedent but also extraordinarily consequential,” Sotomayor wrote.

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors, in a ruling that shifts the contentious policy debates about transgender rights to the hands of lawmakers.

The 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., found that states can regulate or even ban gender-affirming treatment as part of their powers over medical care without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Roberts wrote that there are “fierce scientific and policy debates” about the safety, efficacy and proper use of medical treatments for gender-affirming care, which have been debated by both proponents and detractors.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve those disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,” the majority opinion said.

The role of the courts is not to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of a policy, only to ensure that it doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment, Roberts wrote. “Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” he wrote.

The decision upholds a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors for the purpose of medically transitioning their gender. It was one of a “growing number of states” that limited gender-affirming care for minors, the ruling states.

The majority found that Tennessee did not violate the 14th Amendment because the law restricted access to puberty blockers and other hormones based on different medical diagnoses, rather than by sex.

The state law also “clearly meets” a legal standard that lawmakers had reasons to do so, including risks such as irreversible sterility and adverse psychological consequences, Roberts wrote.

The law is similar to those in about two dozen states banning access to gender-affirming care for minors, and comes to the court as Republicans nationwide, including in Congress, have said they intend to impose more restrictions on the care.

Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., praised the decision in a social media post Thursday as upholding the state law to “protect our children from life-altering transgender treatments.”

The dissenting justices and outside groups said the decision opens the door to further discrimination against transgender Americans.

Families and doctors of transgender children, as well as the Biden administration, challenged the law, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment because it prohibits access to those medicines based on gender transition but not for other conditions, such as precocious puberty.

The state law allows minors to receive the same drugs for other purposes, such as precocious puberty or to deal with cancer diagnoses, according to court filings.

The Supreme Court decision states that because the law’s restrictions hinged on differing medical diagnoses, it did not classify based on sex, which would have triggered higher scrutiny under the 14th Amendment.

Under the law, “no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for any other purposes,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion that criticized the Biden administration and families’ appeals to medical expertise. “When legislation does not cross constitutional lines, States must have leeway to effect the judgment of their citizens — no matter whether experts disagree,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas compared agreement with experts on gender-affirming care to the early 20th century eugenics movement.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Elena Kagan, that argued the majority was “retreating” from an important constitutional duty to protect vulnerable individuals and opening the door to further widespread discrimination.

The majority opinion “invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight” and “authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents who love them,” Sotomayor wrote.

Sotomayor said the majority had endorsed logic similar to Virginia’s defense of interracial marriage laws through appeals to the “science” on the risks of interracial marriage.

Thursday’s ruling will likely fuel the Trump administration’s push to roll back protections for transgender Americans and undercut a 2020 Supreme Court ruling which held that employers could not discriminate against transgender employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Sotomayor herself pointed to actions by the Trump administration in her opinion, such as banning transgender servicemembers from the military.

Republicans are poised to push forward nationwide bans on gender-affirming care. The budget reconciliation bill the the House passed last month includes a ban on the use of federal dollars for all transition care previously covered by Medicaid.

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, who argued the case on behalf of Tennessee families, in a statement called the decision “a devastating loss” for transgender individuals and families nationwide in a statement Thursday.

“We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve,” Strangio said.

Strangio also pointed out that the decision didn’t explicitly touch on prior decisions holding that certain actions against transgender individuals could be considered discrimination.

The case is United States v. Skrmetti.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Tuesday, June 30, 2020, in Washington. The Supreme Court in a ruling released Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-related medical treatments for transgender minors.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court in a ruling released Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-related medical treatments for transgender minors. The court rejected an argument that the ban violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The ruling affirmed a previous decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that a Tennessee law banning certain treatments, like puberty blockers and hormone treatments, can remain in place.

In the 6-3 decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said the case carries the weight of “fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety” of medical treatments in the “evolving” field.

“The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts said the court’s role is to ensure the Tennessee law does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause and is not subject to heightened scrutiny.

He was joined by the other conservative justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Thomas and Barrett issued separate concurring opinions.

Related The biggest Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June

“Having concluded that it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” Roberts wrote.

The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, and was joined in full by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Elena Kagan.

Sotomayor argued that the court is authorizing “untold harm” to transgender children and their families.

“Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent,” she said.

The case stems from a doctor, parents and transgender minors who challenged Tennessee’s law. They secured a partial victory at the district court level, when the court ruled transgender youth should have access to treatments that were available to non-transgender peers.

The 6th Circuit overturned that decision on an appeal and argued the policy does not promote sex discrimination. The Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday affirmed the circuit court decision.

The case could impact around two dozen other states who also have similar gender-related restrictions on treatments, including Utah, and is a setback for some in the LGBTQ+ community who disagree with the Trump administration’s actions on transgender issues.

Sen. Mike Lee was supportive of the Supreme Court’s decision.

“A great victory for America’s children and the right of states to protect them,” he said Wednesday in a post on X.

From 2h ago 15.52 BST Supreme court decision ‘authorizes untold harm to transgender children’, says Justice Sotomayor in her dissent In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and “invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight”. This, she said, “authorizes … untold harm to transgender children”. This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with … sex’, contains a sex classification. Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent. She acknowledged her “sadness” and said the decision “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims”. [T]he majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent. Share

13m ago 17.39 BST Rachel Leingang I talked with Minnesota’s Republican House speaker Lisa Demuth, a colleague and friend of Melissa Hortman’s who worked closely with her in a tied state House this year. Demuth said she learned a ton by watching how Hortman worked, and despite their political differences, they had a mutual respect. She recalled their shared love of Cheetos as a late-night snack during long legislative sessions and said Hortman was always direct, true to her word and looking for creative solutions even in rocky times. Since Hortman’s death by a gunman this weekend, Demuth, who is leading the chamber through this moment, said the body’s human resources department is working to get resources to all members of the legislature and staff to make sure they have assistance. For her personally, on the fifth day since the murders, she said she has cried less today. A vigil is planned for the state capitol this evening. Hortman’s family has also put up a GoFundMe to support the Hortmans’ two adult children with the costs of their parents’ funerals and repairs to the home, cars and garage that were damaged by the shootings. “In the ensuing police response to capture the assassin, their home, garage and cars were severely damaged in a hail of bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters,” the fundraiser notes. Related: Tough, whip-smart and selfless: Melissa Hortman, ‘singular force for democracy’, remembered People are checking in with each other, Demuth said, and “there’s an extra layer of compassion, not dependent on political alignment, but just people are like, how are you doing? And genuinely asking that and pausing for a response.” In a time of heightened divisiveness, the tragic shootings can give people an opportunity to extend grace to each other regardless of their political disagreements and see each other first as people, she said. “There are those moments that are fewer now than maybe they were years ago, something that we can recapture, where we can know each other as people,” Demuth said. “And then even when we disagree, it doesn’t have to become personal.” View image in fullscreen Sticky notes placed at a memorial for Democratic House speaker Melissa Hortman on the Capitol steps in St Paul, Minnesota. Photograph: Mark Vancleave/AP Share Updated at 17.42 BST

30m ago 17.22 BST Trump again knocks Fed’s Powell and muses about appointing himself to lead central bank Donald Trump has once again knocked Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell for what he expected would be a decision not to lower interest rates and said the man he put in the role during his last term had done a poor job. Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, mused about appointing himself to lead the US central bank, based on his dissatisfaction with Powell. Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I’d do a much better job than these people. Trump has long criticized Powell and sparked market concern earlier this year when he suggested the central bank chief’s termination couldn’t come fast enough. Trump has since walked back from that rhetoric, saying he would not fire Powell before his term as chair ends next year, but he has not held back on his broader criticism – he has called Powell a “major loser” – and has made clear that he will not ask Powell to stay on as the central bank’s leader. He told reporters: What I’m going to do is, you know, he gets out in about nine months, he has to, he gets fortunately terminated … I would have never reappointed him, Biden reappointed him. I don’t know why that is, but I guess maybe he was a Democrat … he’s done a poor job. The Federal Reserve is expected to keep interest rates unchanged today as its policymakers weigh signs of a cooling economy, the risk of higher inflation from US import tariffs, and the escalating crisis in the Middle East. Trump expressed disappointment in advance of the decision and underscored his belief that the Fed had been too late at cutting rates. I call him ‘too late Powell’ because he’s always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did this I was right 100%, he was wrong. Share

35m ago 17.18 BST Vinay Prasad, the director of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has been named as the health regulator’s chief medical and science officer, STAT News reports, citing an internal memo. Prasad will also lead the center that regulates vaccines, and gene therapies. The agency’s chief scientist and chief medical officer have typically been two distinct roles. Prasad will now hold three separate jobs at the agency, solidifying his position as a top adviser to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who announced the appointment to the staff, according to the STAT News report. Share

55m ago 16.58 BST Hegseth says he would remove troops from US cities if supreme court ordered it Pete Hegseth said that he would remove military troops from American cities that Trump deployed to assist federal law enforcement officers if the Defense Department is directed to as a result of a supreme court ruling. “If the supreme court orders you to remove troops from American cities, will you do so?” asked senator Elizabeth Warren. “As I’ve said senator, I don’t believe district courts should determine national security policy, but if the supreme court rules on a topic, we will abide by that,” the defense secretary said. Trump deployed National Guard troops and US Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. The move sparked widespread controversy, including among the leaders of the Los Angeles police department and California governor Gavin Newsom. Share Updated at 17.20 BST

1h ago 16.43 BST US supreme court rules against Texas over nuclear waste storage The US supreme court has ruled against the state of Texas and oil industry interests in their challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authority to license certain nuclear waste storage facilities. The 6-3 ruling reversed a lower court’s decision declaring a license awarded by the NRC to a company called Interim Storage Partners to operate a nuclear waste storage in western Texas unlawful. The NRC is the federal agency that regulates nuclear energy in the US. The NRC issued a license in 2021 to Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture of France-based Orano and Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists, to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County in Texas, near the New Mexico border. The US government and the company had appealed the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals that the NRC lacked authority to issue the license based on a law called the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The appeal was brought under Democratic former President Joe Biden and was continued under Republican president Donald Trump. Share Updated at 17.21 BST

1h ago 16.29 BST Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, released a statement following the Supreme court decision upholding the Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care. The statement says that the ruling is “yet another example of why governments, politicians, courts, and extremists have no place in the exam room.” It reads: “We are profoundly disappointed by the US Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Tennessee legislature’s anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation. Gender-affirming care is proven to save lives. Major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, support gender-affirming medical and psychological care because it saves lives and improves mental well-being. Providers, pediatricians, and specialists have been making thoughtful, evidence-based, and age-appropriate health care decisions with families and transgender patients for decades. Equal access to health care and bodily autonomy are fundamental human rights for every person, including our transgender children and youth. Instead of protecting young transgender people across the nation, states will now feel emboldened to codify discrimination more broadly in health care. This ruling is yet another example of why governments, politicians, courts, and extremists have no place in the exam room, endangering every transgender person. The consequences of this devastating decision will be felt by anyone who needs gender-affirming care; worse for transgender patients already facing widespread discrimination in hostile states. The Tennessee Equality Project fought this bill in the 2023 legislative session, then stood up for Tennesseans on the steps of the Supreme Court on December 4th, 2024. We are even more determined in our fight for transgender rights across Tennessee and call on our allies to honor transgender youth by taking actions in state and local government. To our transgender community, we see you, we love you, and we stand with you.” Share

2h ago 16.12 BST US senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said today that he has asked the Trump administration to provide all 100 senators a classified briefing on the situation unfolding between Israel and Iran that has resulted in days of the two countries trading missile attacks. “We’ve gotten briefings and I have requested that we get an all-senators classified briefing,” Schumer said, adding that he believes it will be granted. Share Updated at 16.18 BST

2h ago 16.01 BST ‘Nobody knows what I’m going to do,’ says Trump on Iran Speaking outside the White House, Donald Trump declined to answer reporters’ questions on whether the US was planning to join Israel in launching air strikes on Iran or its nuclear facilities. He said Iran had “reached out” and “wants to negotiate” but he feels “it’s very late to be talking”. “There’s a big difference between now and a week ago,” Trump said. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” Trump said that Iran had proposed to come for talks at the White House. He did not provide details. He described Iran as totally defenceless, with “no air defence whatsoever”. Meanwhile, defence secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate armed services committee the US military is “prepared to execute” any decision Trump might make on matters of war and peace, even as he declined to confirm preparations of strike options on Iran. “If and when those decisions are made, the Department [of Defense] is prepared to execute them,” Hegseth said. Donald Trump says Iran has ‘reached out’ and ‘wants to negotiate’ – Israel-Iran conflict live Read more Share Updated at 16.01 BST

2h ago 15.55 BST Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called the decision part of the Republican “cruel crusade against trans kids” to divert attention away from proposed cuts to Medicaid. Republicans’ cruel crusade against trans kids is all an attempt to divert attention from ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans. We’ll keep fighting and we’ll keep marching on. Share

2h ago 15.52 BST Supreme court decision ‘authorizes untold harm to transgender children’, says Justice Sotomayor in her dissent In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and “invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight”. This, she said, “authorizes … untold harm to transgender children”. This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with … sex’, contains a sex classification. Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent. She acknowledged her “sadness” and said the decision “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims”. [T]he majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent. Share

2h ago 15.36 BST The supreme court’s 6-3 decision is a major blow to the transgender community at a time when the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back gains made in recent years. The court’s majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the other five members of the conservative wing. The three liberal justices dissented. Roberts wrote: This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Share Updated at 15.46 BST

3h ago 15.20 BST US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care in loss for transgender rights Carter Sherman A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children. The justices’ 6-3 decision effectively protects from legal challenges many efforts by the Trump administration and state governments to roll back protections for transgender people. Another 26 states have laws similar to the one in Tennessee. The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs. Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care. In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity. Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health nonprofit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth. Share Updated at 15.23 BST

3h ago 14.53 BST ‘How can you not know the population of Iran?’ Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz get into heated exchange In a vivid illustration of the enormous schism on the American right over the Iran question, clips from Tucker Carlson’s interview yesterday in which he calls out Texas senator Ted Cruz for not knowing basic facts about Iran have gone viral. The full interview will be out today. Cruz, who has called for regime change in Iran, could not answer basic facts about the country, including its population size and ethnic makeup, spurring a shouting match with Carlson. At one point a fuming Carlson says to Cruz: You’re a senator who’s calling for the overthrow of the government and you don’t know anything about the country! The former Fox News host has been highly critical of the prospect of Trump getting involved in Israel’s war with Iran for being at odds with his isolationist “America First” approach to foreign policy and his administration’s pledge to keep America out of “forever wars” in the Middle East. Trump has responded to his criticisms by repeating his stance that “Iran can’t have nuclear weapon”. Ted Cruz on Iran. Full interview tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/hJNwAHAnxZ — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 18, 2025 The exchange represents the wider dilemma Trump finds himself in with the issue threatening to split his Maga base, with even Georgia congresswoman and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene leaping to Carlson’s defence in a major break with the president, saying that anyone who supported intervention in Iran was not “America First”. Yesterday conservative Republican congressman Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, sided with Democrats to introduce a bill that would block the president from engaging US forces in “unauthorised hostilities” with Iran without congressional approval. “This is not our war,” he said on X. Trump’s former political strategist, Steve Bannon, also argued on Carlson’s podcast that allowing the “deep state” to drive the US into a war with Iran would “blow up” the coalition of Trump supporters. Share Updated at 14.56 BST

4h ago 13.51 BST Women more worried about economy under Trump than men, poll finds Lauren Aratani Women across the political spectrum are more concerned about the state of the US economy and inflation under Donald Trump than men are, according to a new exclusive poll for the Guardian. More Democrats than Republicans are now concerned about the economy following the president’s return to power. But pessimism was higher for women even among Republicans and independents, according to a new Harris poll. Overall, 62% of women and 47% of men said that the economy and inflation is getting worse, a gap of 15 percentage points. The gender gap crossed party lines with both Democratic and Republican women expressing greater concerns about the economy than men. “Here’s what everyone missed: women aren’t being pessimistic about the economy – they’re being realistic,” said Libby Rodney, chief strategy officer of Harris Poll. Women are experiencing the sharp edge of inflation on essentials like groceries and childcare in ways that stock portfolios can’t capture. Across questions about their outlook on the state of the economy, most respondents (78%) expressed concerns about the amount of uncertainty, particularly around prices. Yet women appear to be bearing the brunt of Trump’s economic policy, particularly around his tariffs. More women (71%) than men (62%) reported being their household’s primary shopper. This difference in household shopping responsibility translates into broader gaps in concern over affordability and prices: More women said they are very worried about food prices (52% of women compared to 39% of men)

More women said they’re spending more time trying to find deals or go to more affordable stores (36% versus 26%)

More women said their financial security is getting worse because of their difficulty in affording essential goods and services (55% versus 46%) The differences increased when respondents were asked about their comfort in affording their lifestyles in the current economy, including affording a family, a home, life as a single individual, and childcare. Just 27% of women said they felt comfortable affording a family now, compared to 43% of men. Although confidence in switching jobs was low among all respondents, 34% of men were confident in a job switch compared to 25% of women. Women are also more pessimistic about receiving a meaningful raise this year: 54% of women said they think they’ll get a raise, compared to 63% of men. Women more worried about economy under Trump than men, poll finds Read more Share Updated at 13.53 BST