United States v. Skrmetti
| United States v. Skrmetti | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 4, 2024 Decided June 18, 2025 | |
| Full case name | United States of America v. Jonathan Thomas Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee, et al. |
| Docket no. | 23-477 |
| Citations | 605 U.S. 495 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior |
|
| Questions presented | |
| Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity", Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Holding | |
| Tennessee's law does not classify based on sex or transgender status. It satisfies rational basis review and is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Sixth Circuit decision affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Alito (Parts I and II-B) |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Barrett, joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Jackson; Kagan (Parts I–IV) |
| Dissent | Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a Tennessee state law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Under Tennessee’s law, a child could receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy if the medications were provided to help them conform to their sex assigned at birth, but not to treat gender dysphoria. The plaintiffs argued this constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause. Tennessee argued the law did not treat people differently based on their sex, but rather based on their age and medical condition.
The district court applied heightened scrutiny and blocked the law from taking effect. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned, ruling the ban did not discriminate based on sex and thus only required rational basis review.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision on a 6–3 split, with the six conservative justices agreeing the ban was based on age and medical reason for treatment rather than on sex. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling was not based on an ideological opposition to transgender rights; writing for the minority, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's decision as a failure to uphold the civil rights of transgender youth.