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

(175,844 posts)
18. Deadline: Legal Blog-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's stance would further weaken transgender rights
Wed Jun 18, 2025, 04:34 PM
Jun 2025

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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"She's like, a woman, and stuff. You know, Nasty." - Krasnov (R-Felon/Rapist) BoRaGard Jun 2025 #1
The little convicted felon can't handle that woman republianmushroom Jun 2025 #2
He assumed that because he appointed them they now owe him Ocelot II Jun 2025 #3
Trump is not conservative. He is "self-servative." 3catwoman3 Jun 2025 #5
I love that line never heard it before jgmiller Jun 2025 #10
It's my own creation, just today. 3catwoman3 Jun 2025 #14
Well done 👍 electric_blue68 Jun 2025 #17
I just looked it up bc I didn't know what it meant electric_blue68 Jun 2025 #19
Grousing that he can't fire her and other "renegades". no_hypocrisy Jun 2025 #4
The SCOTUS has a history of Associate Justices becoming their own person flashman13 Jun 2025 #6
What a bunch of bull $h1t this statement is ... aggiesal Jun 2025 #7
He doesn't respect any "foundational role" other than his own. Ocelot II Jun 2025 #8
I guess their "agenda" is the constitution PatSeg Jun 2025 #9
I can remember back to 2020 when he disrespected RBG FakeNoose Jun 2025 #11
September 26, 2020 BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #12
Yes, the assholes all infected each other FakeNoose Jun 2025 #13
TACO Don did not get the MEMO.... ProudMNDemocrat Jun 2025 #15
I don't like the Trump justices either. ananda Jun 2025 #16
Deadline: Legal Blog-Justice Amy Coney Barrett's stance would further weaken transgender rights LetMyPeopleVote Jun 2025 #18
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump privately complains...»Reply #18