Podcast Summary:
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Episode: Sneak Preview: SCOTUS Apparently Doesn’t Believe Trans People Exist
Date: June 18, 2025
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern
Episode Overview
This special bonus episode of Amicus focuses on the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Scormetti. The Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Host Dahlia Lithwick and legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern discuss the ruling, the reasoning behind the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the implications for trans rights, and the Court's approach to constitutional scrutiny. The discussion places the decision within the broader context of the ongoing legal and political attacks on transgender Americans and traces connections to the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Key Discussion Points & Legal Insights
The Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Scormetti
[00:09–03:11]
- Ruling Summary:
- In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors.
- The law does not, according to the majority, violate the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on sex or transgender status.
- The decision effectively permits similar laws in over 20 other states to stand.
- The episode characterizes this as “an utterly devastating blow for trans rights” (Lithwick).
Details of the Tennessee Law
[02:07–03:11]
- The law bans minors from receiving “the full range of gender affirming care,” specifically puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender dysphoria.
- Notably, these treatments remain available for minors with other medical conditions (e.g., precocious puberty), but not for transgender-related care.
- Quote (Mark Joseph Stern, [02:45]):
“Children who have precocious puberty… can still get them as long as they are not transgender and are not trying to transition…”
- Quote (Mark Joseph Stern, [02:45]):
How the Court Reached Its Decision
[03:11–07:45]
-
Chief Justice Roberts’ Reasoning:
-
Core Moves:
- Classification as Age and Medical Use:
- The law was framed as targeting minors (age) and certain medical uses, avoiding “suspect classifications” like sex or transgender status.
- Rational Basis Review:
- By framing it this way, Roberts placed the law under the most deferential level of constitutional scrutiny—rational basis review—which “almost always survives.”
- Regulation of Medicine Pretext:
- Roberts adopted the legislature’s argument that the law simply regulates medical practice and aims to protect children.
- This adopts a “fiction” that the law is neutral, ignoring how it actually targets transgender youth.
- Quote (Stern, [04:43]):
“He embraces the fiction that this is only classifying on the basis of relatively neutral grounds and not on the basis of sex, by saying, look, this is just a regulation of medicine.”
- Classification as Age and Medical Use:
-
Discrimination on Transgender Status:
- Roberts argues it does not classify on the basis of transgender status—despite the law’s intent and effect—by using strained logic about regulating specific medical procedures.
- Quote (Stern, [06:19]):
“He pulls this kind of like, jujitsu move. … It is just regulating a particular kind of medical treatment that is limited to one sex or the other sex… If you are scratching your head right now, you should be.”
-
-
Effect:
- The result is that the law is deemed not to discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status, allowing it to pass rational basis review as a legitimate state regulation.
The Dobbs Decision’s Influence
[07:45–10:41]
-
Legacy of Dobbs:
-
The Court’s posture in Scrametti echoes its earlier logic in Dobbs, where bans affecting pregnancy and abortion were ruled not to be sex discrimination.
-
Precedents Cited:
- Roberts draws on Geduldig v. Aiello, a case also central to Dobbs, which held pregnancy discrimination isn’t sex discrimination.
- This logic now extends to trans-related care, equating it to medical conditions, not sex or trans status.
- Concurring justices Alito and Thomas cite Dobbs overtly, while Roberts makes its influence implicit.
-
Quote (Stern, [09:17]):
“Roberts also brings out the Dobbs logic in this area of medical uncertainty. He claims that there’s a lot of uncertainty around these treatments... courts have to defer to state legislatures.”
-
-
Medical Uncertainty Argument:
- The majority leans on supposed scientific controversy regarding gender-affirming care to justify deference to state legislatures.
- This adopts a hands-off approach also seen in prior abortion jurisprudence.
Notable Quotes & Moments
-
Dahlia Lithwick [01:18]:
“An utterly devastating blow for trans rights in a political climate that has featured an all out assault on transgender Americans since Donald Trump took office.”
-
Mark Joseph Stern [03:45]:
“Anyone who knows anything about constitutional law would have a red light go off... How in the world is this not classifying and discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status?”
-
Stern [06:19]:
“If you are scratching your head right now, you should be. I find it hard to articulate this in any kind of persuasive or even coherent way. But that is the move that Roberts uses…”
-
Stern [09:17]:
“Roberts also brings out the Dobbs logic in this area of medical uncertainty… He claims that in the realm of scientific and medical uncertainty, courts have to defer to state legislatures.”
Important Timestamps
- 00:09–02:07: Overview of decision and background on anti-transgender laws.
- 02:07–03:11: Tennessee law specifics and discriminatory application.
- 03:11–07:45: Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion and constitutional scrutiny.
- 07:45–10:41: The influence of Dobbs, medical uncertainty, and judicial deference surrounding trans rights.
Tone & Final Thoughts
The tone throughout is urgent and critical, reflecting the devastation felt by legal experts and LGBTQ+ advocates in response to the ruling. The episode conveys a deep concern for the implications of this precedent and the legal reasoning employed.
Lithwick and Stern underscore the disconnect between the majority’s legal rationale and the lived realities of transgender youth, highlighting the ongoing legal and political threats facing transgender Americans. The episode serves as a warning about the broader trend of the courts retreating from robust civil rights protections under the guise of neutrality and deference to state legislatures.