United States v. Skrmetti
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Skrmetti.
The Supreme Court reviewed Tennessee's law, SB1, which restricts certain medical treatments for transgender minors. The law prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for gender transition purposes but allows these treatments for other medical conditions. The plaintiffs challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminates based on sex and transgender status. The Court examined whether SB1 should be subject to heightened scrutiny and concluded that it satisfies rational basis review.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti.
The Court held that Tennessee's law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and satisfies rational basis review.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Skrmetti. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to United States v. Skrmetti
The case primarily involves a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding whether SB1 discriminates based on sex and transgender status.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The District Court partially enjoined SB1, fnding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, and that SB1 was unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to United States v. Skrmetti
The case involves considerations of procedural fairness in the application of SB1, which may implicate due process concerns.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This case carries with it the weight of ferce scientifc and policy debates about the safety, effcacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving feld.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Skrmetti that support the summary and concepts above.
SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.
SB1 clearly meets that standard of review.
The Court's role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of SB1, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees.