Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline: Legal Blog-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's stance would further weaken transgender rights
The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the Skrmetti case joined only by Thomas. Alito seems to agree with them, too.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s stance would further weaken #transgender rights.
— [The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T19:53:43.041Z
The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the #Skrmetti case joined only by #Thomas. #Alito seems to agree with them, too.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/transgender-rights-skrmetti-decision-barrett-rcna213740
When the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday, it didn’t resolve a broader question of whether transgender people are entitled to certain legal protections that would help them press constitutional challenges. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett went out of her way to explain why she thinks transgender people don’t deserve such protection.
Her explanation came in a concurring opinion to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. Justices sometimes write concurrences to add their own thoughts, even if those thoughts don’t create binding legal opinions on their own. They can lay the groundwork for future majority rulings and influence lower courts in the meantime. And though the Trump appointee’s concurrence was only joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, if her reasoning is adopted by a majority of the court in the future, it could further weaken transgender rights.
Barrett noted that, while laws are presumed constitutional and are generally upheld so long as they bear a rational relation to a legitimate goal, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as for classifications based on race and sex. When those so-called suspect classes are at issue, the government faces a greater burden to show why its actions are constitutional. In the Skrmetti case, the majority said Tennessee didn’t have to shoulder that greater burden because, the majority reasoned, the state law didn’t classify people based on sex or transgender status.
Barrett listed multiple reasons why she thinks transgender people don’t deserve this suspect class status. Among other things, she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on race or sex......
So, while the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn’t the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward.
Her explanation came in a concurring opinion to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. Justices sometimes write concurrences to add their own thoughts, even if those thoughts don’t create binding legal opinions on their own. They can lay the groundwork for future majority rulings and influence lower courts in the meantime. And though the Trump appointee’s concurrence was only joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, if her reasoning is adopted by a majority of the court in the future, it could further weaken transgender rights.
Barrett noted that, while laws are presumed constitutional and are generally upheld so long as they bear a rational relation to a legitimate goal, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as for classifications based on race and sex. When those so-called suspect classes are at issue, the government faces a greater burden to show why its actions are constitutional. In the Skrmetti case, the majority said Tennessee didn’t have to shoulder that greater burden because, the majority reasoned, the state law didn’t classify people based on sex or transgender status.
Barrett listed multiple reasons why she thinks transgender people don’t deserve this suspect class status. Among other things, she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on race or sex......
So, while the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn’t the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward.
I know that some MAGA types are mad at Barrett for not rubberstamping rulings for trump. This ruling shows why the Federalist Society picked this very conservative asshole to be on the SCOTUS. She may not rubberstamp rulings for trump but she is still an asshole
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
