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 SB1, which restricts medical treatments for transgender minors, under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court determined that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on bases that require such review. Instead, the Court applied rational basis review, concluding that the law is rationally related to the state's interest in protecting minors' health.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti.
The Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors 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 concerns whether Tennessee's law violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted certiorari to decide whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to United States v. Skrmetti
The Court discusses the rational basis review, which is a component of substantive due process analysis, in evaluating the law's impact on minors' rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)SB1 clearly meets this standard. Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to a minor to treat gender dysphoria... carries risks.
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."
"Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks."
"The Court's role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of SB1."
