This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. He...
View more
expand_more
This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.
Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. Here are a few details on these cases. We'll be sure to preview these cases soon. Also, check out our July 7th Roundup episode for more details.
Transgender Sports Cases Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here
Background : Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teamsKey Player : Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State UniversityNinth Circuit Reasoning : Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violationsPost-Skrmetti Impact : How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participationWest Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here
Background : West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports banKey Player : B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificateUnique Factors : Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstancesFourth Circuit's Approach : Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rulesStrategic Litigation : Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decisionHere's the background on United States v. Skrmetti.
Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 2023, prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for treating gender dysphoria or helping them transition, while still allowing these treatments for other medical conditions like congenital defects or precocious puberty. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued under the Equal Protection Clause, with a district court initially blocking the law after finding transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling the law only needed to meet the lowest constitutional standard (rational basis review), prompting the Supreme Court to take the case.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status, requiring only rational basis review which the law satisfies.
Analysis (3 sentences): The Court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex, finding that it applies
View less
expand_less