What Does Skrmetti Mean For The Future? An In-Depth Analysis.

Breaking down the ruling and its anticipated effects.

There’s no other way to slice it: the Supreme Court has sided with bigotry. Today’s ruling, which states that bills blocking treatments for gender dysphoria do not discriminate on the basis of sex, has given legal legitimacy to the nationwide crusade against trans rights. However, in its decision that Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care doesn’t violate the constitution, the Supreme Court has left a lot of questions unanswered regarding other anti-trans laws. Here, I’ll do my best to cover the scope of the ruling and the reverberations it may have in other areas.

A Narrow Ruling

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Tennessee wasn’t discriminating on the basis of sex with its ban, making the argument that it regulates treatments for a medical condition and not for a certain group. He goes on to essentially say that someone who is transgender and also has precocious puberty would not be barred from accessing puberty blockers, and therefore, being transgender is not the determining factor in the ban.

While that’s technically correct, this reasoning is certainly problematic. Given that there is a near-total overlap between those who are transgender and those who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Roberts is creating a loophole that may invite further anti-trans policies in the future. And later on, he validates Tennessee’s claim that there is ‘medical and scientific uncertainty’ surrounding gender-affirming care.

I will note that Roberts does not make a statement on whether or not a state should pass a law banning gender-affirming care, saying that the court’s role is solely to answer the question of discrimination. Although he’s an ideological conservative and that kind of judicial restraint is more-or-less expected, it is nonetheless disappointing. Because of his actions today, laws banning gender-affirming care will now be allowed to take effect in half the country.

Amy Coney Barrett also wrote a concurring opinion, which is worth covering. In it, she argues that the transgender community does not constitute a suspect class, and the argument she makes—that trans individuals are not marked by ‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that are definitively ascertainable at the moment of birth’—is concerning to say the least. It regurgitates the view that being trans is not something one is born with, but rather something that is acquired in life. Furthermore, she implies that being trans is not immutable, a tacit endorsement of the idea that trans people can be cured. Last week, I wrote an analysis of the dangers of the growing belief that trans people aren’t born trans, and this opinion is sadly another example of this trend.

Finally, because the court didn’t establish a standard for how cases revolving around trans people should be dealt with moving forward, they’ve kicked that can down the road until another case makes it all the way up. Going by today’s ruling, Amy Coney Barrett—unlike Roberts and Gorsuch—is not receptive to any sort of discrimination argument in the slightest, making any future path to victory a lot narrower.

Skrmetti’s Precedent

Like I said above, the Supreme Court did not make a broad ruling. And while today’s decision will only immediately apply to healthcare, that’s not to say they won’t employ a similar argument in the future. And that’s also not to say Republicans will attempt to seize on it to pass more restrictions. Though Roberts considered Tennessee’s faux interest in protecting kids specifically as a reason to uphold the ban, there's no telling whether or not that logic will be permitted for a law targeting adults. One such law was proposed in Texas earlier this year, and while it died in committee, Republicans have a habit of trying to see what sticks. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pass a total ban in the near future.

Beyond gender-affirming care, I think the most obvious application of Skrmetti’s reasoning will be in the case challenging Trump’s ban on trans members of the military. Even before, it seemed likely that the executive order would be upheld; after all, the military has a history of banning individuals with conditions like bipolar disorder, severe depression, and anorexia. But after today, that’s almost guaranteed, not on the lines of being transgender, but on gender dysphoria.

The good news is that, in theory, this precedent shouldn’t apply to the cases concerning passport changes, prisons, trans athletes, and bathroom bans. Despite today's setback, those issues are still up in the air, which means the fight is not lost yet.

However, the effective permanence of this ruling cannot be overstated. A liberal majority will be required for it to be overturned, and even if we’re lucky with future vacancies, it won’t be until at least the turn of the decade for this to be undone. Like I said in my earlier article, it is clear that for trans minors, the US has devolved into an apartheid state, one where the state they’re born in will have an outsized impact on their life expectancy, mental health outcomes (and by extension economic opportunities), and overall quality of life.

As for the rest of us, there’s only one thing we can do: support one another and keep up the fight.