U.S. Supreme Court upholds ban on gender-affirming treatments for adolescents in Tennessee (USA)

U.S. Supreme Court upholds ban on gender-affirming treatments for adolescents in Tennessee (USA)

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that Tennessee's law restricting gender affirming medical interventions for minors was constitutional — dismissing
 a lawsuit filed by trans teenagers, their parents, and the Biden administration.
voted against 

📜 What is the SB1 law about?

• Senate Bill 1, passed in 2023, prohibits in under-18s:
  • puberty blockers,
  • hormone therapies,
  • (surgeries are also banned, but were not the subject of this procedure)
    
    
• However, it allows the same drugs if prescribed for other medical reasons (such as early puberty).

🧭 The reasoning of the majority – Chief Justice Roberts

• The law does not violate the 14th Amendment (protection of equality) because it is aimed at age and medical purpose, not gender – therefore only the lowest level of examination ("rational basis") should be applied.
• Roberts stressed that the court must evaluate laws, not the "wisdom" of societal debates.
• The ban does not lead to a central state intervention, but falls under states' rights to regulate medical measures
  
  

⚖️ Argumentation of the liberal judges (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson)

• Sotomayor criticizes that the law is clearly gender-related and discriminates against trans youth, which is why higher constitutional protection would have
  
  
• been necessaryShe argues that the majority ignores the "historical discrimination of trans people" and makes them vulnerable to political sentiments
  
  
• Kagan largely supports the criticism, but refrains from assessing how the law would stand under tighter scrutiny.

🌍 Broader impact and context

• 26 states have already passed similar laws; this decision strengthens their position 
• More than 110,000 trans youth live in states with such restrictions 
• Medical associations, including the Endocrine Society, defend gender-affirming treatments as "safe, effective, and medically necessary" 
• Critics warn of negative consequences for mental health, suicide rates, and parental agency.

🔮 What does the ruling mean?

• The Supreme Court evades nationwide regulation, leaving the debate to the political process and the states.
• The federal law – such as one decreed by Trump in January 2025 – remains unaffected, as do any challenges to other government measures.
• Legal disputes on issues such as parental rights and trans youth care will continue to escalate.

💡 Conclusion

The ruling marks a turning point in the US debate about trans youth: It strengthens state rights, weakens gender-affirming medicine for minors nationwide and raises central questions of the protection of equality. The criticism of the liberal judges highlights that this is a significant setback for trans rights – and signals that the disputes will continue at the political, scientific and legal levels.






Author: MF_Redaktion, T.Weyermann
Sources:
axios.com.









abcnews.go.com+6
cbsnews.com+6
nypost.com+6
theguardian.com+15
reuters.com+15
nypost.com+15