Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled to uphold Tennessees gender-affirming care ban for youth in US v. Skrmetti. The decision confirms what was becoming increasingly clear: that SCOTUS is now little more than a political tool. The result of this case is an appalling decision that will absolutely cost lives. While there might be reason for hope in the long term, the immediate ramifications are going to be dire as were already seeing clinics begin to preemptively cancel appointments based on the decision.Republicans have worked hard to make trans people a divisive issue, and SCOTUS showed that theyre happy to be a part of that. The Skrmetti case was decided on a 6-3 split. While the court is supposed to be apolitical, the decision was entirely split according to which partys president appointed each of the nine justices. Its not unusual for this sort of thing to happen (and outside of the court the justices havent been hiding their political connections well), but this decision flies in the face of science and understanding when we have all the relevant data ready to review. Related The Skrmetti ruling proved once & for all the Supreme Court believes ideology comes before the law The majority on the Supreme Court are just Project 2025 enablers in black robes. Its hard not to see Trumps hand in the Skrmetti decision. Between his campaign and his executive orders, he has made it no mystery where he and his administration stands on trans peoples rights to life, liberty, and healthcare. Trump, of course, got to handpick three of those justices during his last term. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today With Trumps ability to turn his followers against individuals and groups like a pack of dogs, its not difficult to imagine that the court might want to keep him happy right now. Thats compounded by Trump and his cabinet suggesting they plan to continue to ignore the courts, perhaps even SCOTUS, and Trumps Big Beautiful [Spending] Bill threatens to attack the power of the judicial branch substantially.Crucially, SCOTUS Skrmetti decision ignores medical consensus to an insulting degree. All major medical associations in the U.S. recognize and support gender-affirming care for adults and youth alike. Gender-affirming care is often considered life-saving care, as studies show a staggering drop in suicidal ideation and attempts after treatment.There are always concerns raised (often disingenuously) about detransition rates, satisfaction, and potential harm. But those apparent concerns dont take into account all of the science and research that has been done on the subject that led medical experts to reach their conclusions. Weve recently received the results of yet another survey that once again shows most recipients of the care are satisfied with it, and that the very few people who do detransition do so because of social pressure and transphobia, not because of the care itself or dissatisfaction with the results.But even ignoring the fact that the science supports gender-affirming care for trans youth, the reasoning that the court gave for upholding its ban is still spurious. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the decision was based on the fact that the ban, Tennessees S.B.1 , does not violate the Equal Protection Clause as it was not targeting protected classes based on sex or transgender identity, but rather removes one set of diagnoses gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence from the range of treatable conditions. Justice Sonia Sotomayors dissent suggested that that decision obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute. That seems particularly apt, given that under Tennessees S.B. 1, cisgender patients, including minors, can still access gender-affirming care such as puberty blockers for those with precocious puberty and top surgery for gynecomastia, the name for enlarged breast tissue on cis men, which is generally removed to treat gender dysphoria in those cis men and teens.Its important to note that the overwhelming majority of gender-affirming care is provided to cisgender people in such situations, and none of the bans seek to limit that care or express the same safety or irreversibility concerns for cis people, even explicitly carving out exceptions for cisgender children in some youth care bans. Its also worth knowing that the targeting of gender dysphoria as presented by trans people as a diagnosis, rather than transgender status, is part of the same tactic that is employed by the Trump administrations trans military ban, which went into effect this month.Even with Roberts claiming that this is about dysphoria as a symptom and not the people with those symptoms part of the court was happy to say the quiet part out loud. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that suggested that targeting trans people was perfectly fine.Barretts words push against protections for trans people, suggesting that they shouldnt be considered a class because the boundaries of the group are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. In that opinion, Barrett and Thomas are taking an already devastating decision and showing willingness to attack trans people further. The Supreme Court of the United States clearly arent operating in good faith in this case. With all the information and data that was provided to them from the ACLU and in amicus briefs (including one headed by Elliot Page and Nicole Maines), the right decision was clear. But instead, the court went with the political winds of their foundational parties and seems content to be another tool of the executive branch.While all of this is terrible, its good to remember that there is still hope for the future. Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLUs LGBT & HIV Project, who gave oral arguments in the case remains optimistic: 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.I recently spoke with James Esseks, who is also a Co-Director of the ACLUs LGBT & HIV Project, and he made an important point about our history with SCOTUS rulings and how, despite how dark it can seem in the moment, were trending towards the light. In 1986, Esseks highlights, there was a case called Bowers v. Hardwick about whether a Georgia ban on same-sex intimacy was constitutional. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the ban was constitutional. And that obviously was a terrible setback for our communitys civil rights. And we didnt give up, right? The community, we picked ourselves up and we figured out ways to move forward.And, it took a while, but 17 years later, we had gotten rid of a bunch of the remaining state laws, and then we got a US Supreme Court decision in a case called Lawrence v. Texas that said, actually, all of those laws were constitutional.I point this stuff out just to say our community has had big successes in the Supreme Court and devastating losses in the Supreme Court, Esseks said. Thats happened in our past, it will probably happen in our future, both good and bad, and we collectively are resilient, and we will find ways forward no matter what happens in the future.Of course, for many of us, waiting 17 years for a fresh gender-affirming care ruling isnt really a solution. We have to remember how to support our community, in particular our trans youth. This one court case doesnt mean that all trans youth in America are doomed, and pretending it does will make for a bleaker world and increased risk. Trans youth suicide rates have been shown to be decreased by many things as simple as the support of at least one trusted adult, more if thats a parent. We have to do whatever we can to help parents of trans kids understand how critical they are in keeping their kids mental health at a level that can weather this and support them in that. Meanwhile, we can work to create sanctuary laws and assist families with getting the support they need to find care, even if that means moving.Were in a dark place right now, but we have to find the hope for the future, and the light in our community.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.