‘A Major Victory’: Supreme Court Issues Ruling on Ban on Transgender Procedures for Minors
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Tennessee law that bans transgender medical procedures for minors, including the administration of hormones and puberty blockers, ruling 6-3 that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the Supreme Court’s role is not to question the wisdom of such laws but to ensure they align with constitutional protections. The ruling has been celebrated by conservatives as a significant victory against what they perceive as judicial overreach in matters involving children’s medical care and gender identity. The dissent by the three liberal justices, who argued that the law does discriminate based on sex and harms transgender youth, underscores the contentious nature of the issue. Supporters of the ruling praised the decision as a step towards protecting children from what they view as harmful medical practices.
When they refuse to engage in judicial activism and instead merely interpret the Constitution, courts tend to get things right.
Thankfully, in this instance the Supreme Court did both.
On Wednesday, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that a Tennessee ban on transgender procedures for minors, including hormones and puberty blockers, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, thereby triggering a celebration among conservatives on the social media platform X, one of whom hailed the ruling as “a major victory.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court.
“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,” Roberts wrote.
Having asserted the Fourteenth Amendment’s irrelevance, Roberts then acknowledged that judges must act with restraint.
“Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,” he continued. “Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
In other words, the people of the states may demand that their elected officials ban child mutilation. Moreover, the people of the states have a right to make this demand without judges interfering.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the judgment.
Meanwhile, the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan — dissented.
The argument against the Tennessee law hinged on the question of whether it discriminated on the basis of sex.
In a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor argued that it did.
She claimed, in fact, that the majority opinion “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,” she added.
The “harm” question, of course, constitutes the precise “policy” issue to which Roberts referred. Note that Sotomayor had no problem substituting her own judgment for that of Tennessee’s voters.
Fortunately, in this case conservatives prevailed on both constitutional and policy grounds.
“A major victory for the country, and a devastating loss for the transgenderist left,” one prominent conservative wrote on X.
🚨 BREAKING – VICTORY: U.S. Supreme Court 6-3 UPHOLDS Tennessee’s ban on transgender treatments for children.
This INCLUDES puberty blockers and hormones.
A major victory for the country, and a devastating loss for the transgenderist left. pic.twitter.com/ZEtsqdmKVf
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 18, 2025
Others chose to celebrate by thanking God for the ruling.
Praise the good Lord! God bless the Supreme Court!
— Emma in the house (@Emma6834845) June 18, 2025
Thank the Lord for this ability to protect our children and their families.
— jim renke (@jimrenke) June 18, 2025
Praise God they finally did something right.
— RedheadWave (@WifetoJames94) June 18, 2025
In sum, SCOTUS ruled that a convoluted interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment does not justify the mutilation of children.
Of course, the fact that three liberal justices dissented speaks volumes about the moral rot of modern liberalism, not to mention the alarming eagerness with which those justices substituted their own views for the will of a state majority.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding those concerns, this 6-3 opinion remains a cause for celebration.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
