The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Tennessees ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth in the case ofU.S. v. Skrmetti. It was a 6-3 decision, with the Courts Republican appointees opposing trans rights and the Democratic appointees supporting trans rights.While Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion with Justice Clarence Thomas that is causing extreme concern. Related Iowa budget bill bans Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care Low-income transgender people could lose access to life-saving health care. Roberts, in the majority opinion, wrote that the Tennessees ban 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, but Barrett and Thomas said they believe that even if a law merely outright targeted trans people, it still would not trigger heightened scrutiny since trans people should not be a considered a suspect class since the boundaries of the group are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today That opens up the door for much more invidious targeted discrimination, potentially, said MSNBC guest and University of Michigan Assistant Professor of Law Leah Litman, who also said Barretts opinion confirms she is not some sort of moderate on the Supreme Court, at least when it comes to issues of social policy.Her writing would allow states to do more damage and harm to the trans community than the majority did. 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.In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia 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.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.