This is a special edition post. A "normal" LGBTQIA+ New Post will appear later, but this story seemed to need its own post instead of being part of a larger one.

In the case, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision affirming the right of the state of Tennessee, and therefore all states, to limit or ban transgender care, including hormone replacement therapy, for transgender people. While the case focuses on transgender youth, the language used will allow them to take action on adults as well.

Erin Reed posted up this analysis: SCOTUS Allows For Trans Discrimination In Medical Care: A Full Analysis Of Today's Ruling. She has a good summary of the core issue of the case:

The case raised foundational constitutional questions: whether transgender people constitute a class triggering higher constitutional scrutiny, whether laws targeting them violate equal protection, and whether the Constitution guarantees their right to access medically necessary treatment. The Court sidestepped nearly all of those questions, instead issuing a narrower opinion that carves out an exception permitting medical discrimination based on “gender dysphoria”—a distinction it bizarrely treats as separate from discrimination against transgender people.

One of the most upsetting parts is the declaration that transgender rights and health care do not count for heightened scrutiny, because being transgender is not a protected class. It gets to that decision by stating that if they ban it for both genders based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, then it's not unfair, because it's not targeting one gender.

Alexandra Caraballo on Bluesky wrote a thread about the implications including noting that using the logic in this decision would allow the Regime to strip security clearances due to being transgender, declare anyone with gender dysphoria as a national security risk, and ban all transition healthcare for transgender people nationwide.

Justice Thomas quoted from the godsdamned CASS REPORT of all things in his concurrence, and he, Barrett and Alito all say in their own concurrences that they would have been totally okay with explicitly denying transgender people equal protection under the law.

As things stand, other recent court decisions by lower courts, including the excellent news the evening before this crap that Judge Julia Kobick has updated the case of Orr v United States to make all transgender persons part of a class that and rules that the State Department must allow updates to passports to reflect gender identity, and the ruling that the Regime's "Gender Ideology" funding ban is unconstitutional, are currently expected to go unchanged, as this particular decision appears to only affect medical processes.

Other commentary on the Skrmetti decision can be found at:

• PinkNews: US vs Skrmetti: What will the impact of Supreme Court’s trans healthcare ruling be?
• Advocate: 5 takeaways from the Supreme Court ruling on gender-affirming care
• >Amy Coney Barrett says Court could take anti-trans ruling even farther in grim concurring opinion

Possibly unrelated (but with suspicious timing), trans care clinics in multiple states are complying in advance with possible orders from the feds to close down their work. Cowards.

Regular news will return shortly.