The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Tennessees ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth in the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti. It was a 6-3 decision, with the Courts Republican appointees opposing trans rights and the Democratic appointees supporting trans rights. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote dissenting opinions. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas wrote concurring opinions.The ruling says that Tennessees ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status, which the plaintiffs argued made it unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling will allow the 25 states that currently have such bans on the books to continue to enforce them. Related Tennessee AG says its Gods will for him to deny health care to trans youth He made his comments alongside a member of a Christian Nationalist organization. Skrmetticoncerns three families of transgender youth, as well as a doctor, who argued that theyre victims of Tennessees ban on gender-affirming care for minors. They argued that they were being deprived of essential medical care on the basis of their sex, since the gender-affirming care ban only bans such care for trans youth. For example, a teen boy who wants surgery to remove his breasts in order to be treated like and feel more like a boy can get it under the Tennessee law, but only if he was assigned male at birth. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today The families and doctor sued with help from the ACLU. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argued the case at the Supreme Court and was the first trans lawyer to do so.Roberts, in the majority opinion, wrote that the law doesnt discriminate on the basis of sex or on the basis of transgender status, saying that it only makes distinctions based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That is the same definition of trans identity that the Trump administration is using for the trans military ban, which also bars people with symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria from joining the military, even if they dont have a formal diagnosis.In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor accused the conservative majority of refusing to call a spade a spade because they wouldnt admit that the law determines access to the covered medications based on the sex of the recipient. She warned that the ruling does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.I cant begin to tell you just how incredibly f**ked trans people are here, wrote out trans clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic Alejandra Caraballo on Bluesky. This will pour gasoline on the Trump administrations attacks on trans people and they will get even harsher and more cruel. The Supreme Court is greenlighting the eradication of trans people from society. She wrote that discriminating against people with gender dysphoria was upheld as constitutional in the decision, which could be used for other forms of discrimination.For instance, they could strip everyone with gender dysphoria of security clearance in the government. Declare everyone with gender dysphoria a national security threat and purge them from the government entirely. The trans military ban will be upheld under this.Most importantly, states can now just ban gender affirming care for everyone, including adults. Well likely see that coming soon in addition to federal government efforts to eliminate access for all trans people.Todays ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution, said the ACLUs Strangio in a press release. Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives.The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. 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.This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive, said Sasha Buchert of Lambda Legal. But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.