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

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,618 posts)
Wed Jun 18, 2025, 05:28 PM Jun 18

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 Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the #Skrmetti case joined only by #Thomas. #Alito seems to agree with them, too.

[The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T19:53:43.041Z

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.

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
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Deadline: Legal Blog-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's stance would further weaken transgender rights (Original Post) LetMyPeopleVote Jun 18 OP
DAMN! elleng Jun 18 #1
She is now what she has always been. Fuck her. Solly Mack Jun 18 #2
Leonard Leo selected Barrett because she is an asshole on social issues LetMyPeopleVote Jun 19 #4
Oh, I know. I was just expressing my dislike for her. Solly Mack Jun 19 #5
Just because she doesn't know the history of trans people doesn't mean that there's no history DSandra Jun 18 #3

elleng

(140,203 posts)
1. DAMN!
Wed Jun 18, 2025, 05:38 PM
Jun 18

' she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on'

LetMyPeopleVote

(166,618 posts)
4. Leonard Leo selected Barrett because she is an asshole on social issues
Thu Jun 19, 2025, 01:57 AM
Jun 19

I am not surprised by this ruling

DSandra

(1,629 posts)
3. Just because she doesn't know the history of trans people doesn't mean that there's no history
Wed Jun 18, 2025, 07:24 PM
Jun 18

Trans people like everyone else didn't fit in were hounded by police using Vagrancy laws until 1972. There was the infamous three articles of clothing corresponding with your birth sex informal rule to avoid being prosecuted for crossdressing laws (that were passed around the 1850's and weren't overturned until the 1970s. There were badge laws that required people who's appearance did not match their assigned sex to wear badges indicating their birth sex.

There is a huge history of being denied sex marker changes on birth certificates, drivers licenses, and other identifying documents. There's a huge history of transgender people being fired just for being trans. Sodomy laws also attacked transgender people.

Amy Comey Barrett doesn't know what she's talking about.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Deadline: Legal Blog-Just...