The Biden administration contended that the law was formed on sex-based discrimination.
By Catholics for Catholics
In another blow to advocates of administering cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to minors, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on delivering such interventions.
According to The Epoch Times, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that it differed with the Biden administration’s dispute that the law should face higher legal scrutiny than had been applied by an appeals court. The court came to that conclusion on Jun 18.
Writing for the majority of the court, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts said the law didn’t classify individuals on the basis of sex and therefore didn’t force courts to apply a greater scrutiny. Instead, the majority said, the law classified individuals according to age.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, stating that it passed something known as “rational basis” review, which is a relatively low level of scrutiny to determine whether the law is constitutional.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the primary dissent, clashed with Roberts and the majority.
“Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny,” she said.
According to The Times, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Three of the justices—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented from the decision.
According to The Times, the decision was probably the most hotly expected for the term. In addition to touching on a hot-button issue, it made the justices reconsider its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, wherein the court held that employers violate the Civil Rights Act by firing an individual “merely for being gay or transgender.”
More specifically, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that type of firing was effectively based on an individual’s sex.
On those grounds the Biden administration attempted to apply that reasoning to say that Tennessee’s law discriminated on the basis of sex. But Justice Roberts differed, saying that the Bostock case didn’t apply to the decision before them.
Your action is key to winning the next Presidential Election.
