The Hidden Danger of the Supreme Court’s New Trans Rights Case

The Supreme Court hears arguments on Wednesday in Skrmetti v. U.S., a case of such immense importance to constitutional equality and with such devastating potential consequences that it’s hard to even describe. It is also, fundamentally, a case about gender equality, and whether constitutional limitations on sex discrimination can survive the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority. The statute itself declares that the state’s goal is “encouraging minors to appreciate their sex”—specifically, the sex, and accompanying stereotypes, that Tennessee politicians think a child must adhere to. Second, he created a new “biological difference” exception to the rule, asserting that Tennessee targeted treatments that, “by biological necessity,” only “one sex can undergo.” According to this logic, since “only females can use testosterone as a transition treatment,” and “only males can use estrogen as a transition treatment,” the state was distinguishing between inherent differences among the sexes, not discriminating on the basis of sex in an effort to enforce “invidious stereotypes.” Related From Slate Dobbs Was Just the Beginning. But a Supreme Court decision accepting Sutton’s reasoning in Skrmetti would go much further, potentially allowing states to denigrate the rights of men and women because of their sex, either using the smoke screen of some “inherent” biological distinction or avowing that both genders are equally burdened.