‘It’s time to wake up’ California leaders respond to U.S. v Skrmetti ruling

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States — which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority — ruled in favor of maintaining a ban on gender-affirming care on youth in Tennessee. 

Tennessee’s SB1 prohibits medical treatments or courses of action intended to treat gender dysphoria or affirm gender transitions for youth. The question back in December when the courts heard the oral arguments, was whether or not SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex or gender-based discrimination. 

The U.S. v Skrmetti case, originally filed in late 2023, was filed on behalf of Jonathan Thomas Skrmetti and two other families. Now, this is the first time the Supreme Court has directly considered how the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to trans, gender non-conforming and intersex youth. 

Chief Legal Officer at Lambda Legal, Jennifer C. Pizer spoke at a press conference hosted by FLUX, an L.A.-based advocacy organization for trans, gender non-conforming and intersex people, along with representatives from the L.A. LGBT Center and Gender Justice L.A. 

“You are not alone,” said Queen Victoria Ortega, Chief Visionary Officer at the Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center, and International President at FLUX. Queen Victoria stated that through her own transition at a young age, she was able to embrace herself fully with the support of her family and continues to live a happy life without regret. 

“And for those of you who think this issue doesn’t affect [you], it’s time to wake up,” said Ortega, urging those outside of the transgender, gender non-conforming and intersex (TGI) community to act now as other rights, like reproductive rights, get taken away.

“Not only have reproductive rights been affected, but now the rights for parents that support their kids in their transition. This sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing not only parents, but kids, and physicians.”

“I call for all Americans and legislators that are also part of the fabric of the United States, to think about what it means to have access to life-saving medication. Not only hormone-replacement therapy, but also mental health services and a myriad of other wrap-around services…,” she said. 

Pizer stressed the importance of understanding the sex-based discrimination in this ruling. 

“What I want to stress is that while the decision is going to mean a lot of hardship for some wonderful families and young people in particular in Tennessee. The decision itself is very narrow. The Supreme Court majority opinion written by the Chief Justice, spends a lot of ink on the limitations of the decision,” said Pizer. “The decision is limited to the medical care context, and the Supreme Court has in a number of prior cases, used a different kind of Equal Protection analysis for minors and age classifications in the law have also been looked at more leniently than other classifications. 

Many non-LGBTQ youth are and will continue to be able to access gender-affirming care, but TGI youth are not able to access it. This ruling limits access to gender-affirming care that other youth who are not transgender, are able to access. 

The state of Tennessee argues that this gender-affirming care is dangerous and unproven and has other unintended consequences. Pizer says that if that were true, the care itself would not be accessible to other youth in the state. 

“It just doesn’t hold together logically,” said Pizer. “We have quite a few legal arguments and the Supreme Court took pains to say that it is not ruling on the other arguments that we have.” 

According to Pizer, Lambda Legal is committed toward continuing the fight against these laws that ban treatments. 

“What I want to reinforce is that this issue comes up at a time of unjustifiable and cruel attacks on our community and we are standing together at Lambda Legal. We are determined to do this work until we achieve equal justice under law, for all of us LGBTQ people, and especially the trans, nonbinary, gender non-conforming, [intersex] siblings, parents, neighbors, friends and loved ones,” she said. 

According to Pizer, this is a “very obvious case of sex-based discrimination.” 

While some cisgender youth are able to hormone-replacement treatment and puberty-blockers, trans, gender non-conforming and intersex youth are now unable to access that same care. 

Los Angeles LGBT Center CEO, Joe Hollendoner spoke on the issue as well.

“I wish to acknowledge how extremely cruel the Supreme Court’s decision was today, especially in light of this being Pride month,” said Hollendoner. “What I want to assure you is that the LA LGBT Center, the world’s largest LGBT organization and proud provider of gender-affirming care, that we are not going to stop providing this life-saving and essential care.” 

Hollendoner called on all healthcare institutions in states that have “favorable laws” that protect access to gender-affirming care, especially to minors, to step up in this moment to protect trans people. He called on blue states to step up and for institutions here in California like the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, to reverse their “horrible and harmful” decision to stop their gender-affirming care programs.

Gender Justice L.A. was on the ground to discuss their resources and course of action going forward. 

“We’re here as a community grassroots organization to support [the families of trans youth] and in solidarity and we will be coming together to rally in support,” said Ace Anaya, campaign coordinator at Gender Justice L.A.

Equality California also issued a statement regarding the ruling.

“As Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissent, ‘the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims… It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent,'” said Tony Hoang, executive director at Equality California.

Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) also issued a statement on behalf of California: “This 6-3 ruling allows states to ban life-saving gender-affirming medical care, putting vulnerable young people at risk. California has always stood as a beacon of hope for LGBTQ families, and we will not waver in that commitment,” she said. “We will continue to welcome families fleeing discrimination and ensure access to comprehensive healthcare. This decision does not reflect our nation’s values of equality, dignity, and freedom.”