The Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell that’s got the progressive agenda in a tailspin. On Wednesday, the justices upheld a Tennessee law from 2023 banning gender-affirming care for minors, ruling 6-3 that it doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Hill reported that the court affirmed a lower ruling supporting Tennessee’s restrictions, which allow certain medications for cisgender youth while prohibiting them for transgender minors based on age and diagnosis, not sex or status.
Let’s rewind to 2023, when Tennessee passed this law as part of a broader wave of legislation.
Since 2021, 27 Republican-led states have enacted similar bans on transition-related treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, with some, like Arizona and New Hampshire, limiting only surgeries.
This isn’t a fringe movement—it’s a concerted push to protect young people from what many conservatives see as unproven medical interventions.
Fast forward to the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 23, 2025, and it’s clear the justices aren’t buying the argument that Tennessee’s law equates to illegal sex discrimination.
Critics, including three Tennessee families, a doctor, the Biden administration, the ACLU, and Lambda Legal, argued it violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Sorry, but the court saw it differently, and this conservative bench isn’t here to rewrite state policy.
Chief Justice John Roberts put it plainly: “Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people.” Translation: take your grievances to the ballot box, not the courtroom. That’s a refreshing nod to democracy over judicial overreach, though it stings for those pushing for federal mandates.
The ruling’s immediate impact is narrow—it doesn’t alter care availability in states without bans. As Kellan Baker of Whitman-Walker noted, “The immediate outcome is that it doesn’t change anything.” But let’s not kid ourselves; this greenlights states to keep deciding for themselves, which is exactly where conservatives want the line drawn.
Now, this isn’t the end of the road for challenges to these laws. Baker also said, “This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue, and they will.” Fine, let the legal battles rage on, but each win like this chips away at the notion that unelected judges should override elected lawmakers on deeply divisive issues.
Across the country, over 10 lawsuits claim these bans violate equal protection, while more than a dozen others cite due process, federal disability law, or state constitutions.
Nearly all argue that such restrictions trample on parents’ rights to make medical choices for their kids. It’s a compelling point, but conservatives counter that protecting vulnerable youth from irreversible decisions sometimes outweighs parental autonomy.
Look at Arkansas, where the ACLU successfully blocked a 2021 ban—the first of its kind—arguing it violated multiple constitutional protections.
That ban, initially vetoed by then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, remains halted by court order, as does Montana’s, where a federal judge struck it down in May 2025 for breaching state privacy and free speech rights.
The Supreme Court also sidestepped applying its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which protected employees from discrimination based on gender identity under Title VII, to this healthcare case.
Lindsey Dawson from KFF remarked, “We still don’t have a clear understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII.” That’s a polite way of saying the court isn’t ready to stretch workplace rulings into a blank check for progressive healthcare policies.
Some lawsuits, backed by the Biden administration, argue Bostock should extend to healthcare and sports nondiscrimination rules. Karen Loewy of Lambda Legal insisted, “It is about how it viewed Tennessee in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans.” Nice optimism, but conservative courts have repeatedly signaled they’re not buying that expansive interpretation.
Meanwhile, parents caught in the crossfire feel the weight of these rulings. Samantha Williams, mother of a transgender teen in the case, declared, “As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will.” Heartfelt, no doubt, but the counterargument stands: states must safeguard kids from medical paths that science hasn’t fully settled.
The legal landscape remains messy, with Montana and Arkansas as the only states where bans are currently blocked. The Movement Advancement Project tracks these developments, and it’s clear the fight over youth healthcare isn’t close to resolved. Conservatives argue it’s about protecting kids, not discrimination, and this ruling hands them a significant—if limited—victory.