United States v. Skrmetti

Brief Filed: 9/24
Court: Supreme Court of the United States 
Year of Decision: 2025

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 573KB)opens in new window

The Supreme Court accepted a case for consideration at its upcoming term which would require the Court to consider the legality of bans on gender-affirming care for minors imposed by state legislative regimes.

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (S0CE)

The 6th Circuit decision we are seeking to challenge says that the ban on gender affirming care for minors is justified by the State’s interest in protecting adolescents. APA’s brief will underscore that medical interventions for gender dysphoria, like those at issue in Tennessee’s SB1, are overwhelmingly accepted by the medical community. Every major medical and mental health organization in the United States follows guidelines that allow for medical interventions for adolescents when deemed medically appropriate by a licensed medical professional, and after careful examination by a licensed mental health professional. The guidelines were developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (“WPATH”), the leading association of medical professionals treating transgender individuals, and the Endocrine Society, a global community of more than 18,000 medical specialists around the world. Given their scientific expertise on the subject, both organizations are considered the lodestar in transgender medical health.

APA’s brief will underscore that medical interventions for gender dysphoria, like those at issue in Tennessee’s SB1, are overwhelmingly accepted by the medical community. APA will also make the Court aware of the crucial role that mental health professionals play in safeguarding the careful administration of gender-affirming medical interventions for transgender youth under the accepted treatment protocols for gender dysphoria. In addition, APA will stress that Tennessee’s effort to ban gender-affirming care jeopardizes the role of mental health (and medical) providers in assessing what evidence-based treatments are appropriate for their patients

On June 18, 2025, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law (SB1) prohibiting certain medical treatments (puberty blockers and hormones) for transgender minors. The Court held that the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status, but instead on age and medical use. The Court found that SB1 satisfies rational basis review, as Tennessee provided a rational justification for the law based on concerns about the risks and unknowns of such treatments for minors. The Court declined to address whether transgender status is a suspect class and left policy questions to the legislative process. The majority’s reasoning rejected arguments that the law discriminates on the basis of sex or transgender status, and distinguished the case from Bostock v. Clayton County. Dissenting justices argued that the law facially discriminates based on sex and transgender status and should have been subject to intermediate scrutiny.