Supreme Court Cases on Transgender Care & Birthright Citizenship

Sun, Jun 22 2025

/

Home

Business News

Computer and Electronics

Finance Insights

Health

Home and Garden

Law and Government

Science and Technology

Online Communities

Beauty and Fitness

Internet and Telecom

Cryptocurrency

Supreme Court Cases on Transgender Care & Birthright Citizenship

The Court is deliberating 21 major cases, including challenges to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and the Trump-era attempt to end birthright citizenship. Rulings are expected by the end of June

Sultan Sikander

June 15, 2025

5Min Reads

Supreme Court Cases on Transgender Care & Birthright Citizenship

Law and Government

⚖️ Supreme Court Spotlight: Transgender Youth Care & Birthright Citizenship

June 15, 2025 | National Judicial Focus

Introduction

As the U.S. Supreme Court nears the end of its 2024–2025 term, it faces two of the most consequential cases in recent history—one addressing transgender medical care for minors, and another examining the limits of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both cases sit at the heart of America’s culture wars, legal traditions, and national identity, and their rulings are expected to shape civil rights and immigration policy for generations.

Case 1: Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Minors in Tennessee

Overview

The first case involves a challenge to a Tennessee state law that bans the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender individuals under the age of 18. The law, passed in 2023, was part of a wave of legislation in over 20 Republican-led states targeting transgender rights.

Opponents of the law, including parents, medical professionals, and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, argue that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They contend that it discriminates on the basis of sex and gender identity and undermines the medically necessary care recommended by major health organizations.

Supporters, including the Tennessee Attorney General, claim the law protects minors from making irreversible medical decisions and assert that states have a compelling interest in regulating medical practices involving children.

Legal Journey

After initial legal challenges in lower courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear United States v. Skrmetti to resolve conflicting appellate court decisions. Some federal courts upheld similar bans, while others blocked enforcement, citing constitutional concerns.

At oral arguments, the conservative justices appeared sympathetic to state powers to regulate medicine, while liberal justices raised concerns about discrimination and medical autonomy.

Implications

A decision to uphold the Tennessee ban could pave the way for broader nationwide restrictions on transgender youth healthcare, potentially affecting access in more than 23 states. A ruling to strike down the law would reinforce legal protections for transgender individuals under the 14th Amendment and could establish a federal precedent invalidating similar state laws.

Case 2: Birthright Citizenship Challenge via Executive Order 14160

Background

The second case arises from Executive Order 14160, issued by former President Donald Trump in early 2025. The order sought to end automatic citizenship for most children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, particularly undocumented immigrants. This move directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

Civil rights groups and immigration attorneys immediately challenged the order, arguing that it violates over a century of legal precedent and could leave tens of thousands of children stateless. The federal courts issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement.

However, the Supreme Court is not directly ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order in this case. Instead, the case focuses on whether lower courts had the legal authority to issue broad, nationwide injunctions that apply beyond the plaintiffs.

Judicial Tension

During arguments, several justices expressed concern about lower courts overreaching by blocking executive actions for the entire country based on the claims of a few individuals or groups. Conservative justices pushed for more narrow, case-specific injunctions, while liberal justices defended the need for broad protections in cases with widespread national impact.

This ruling could redefine the power of federal courts and executive authority. If the Supreme Court decides to limit nationwide injunctions, it may allow parts of the executive order to take effect in some states, depending on the jurisdiction.

Public Sentiment and Political Fallout

Recent national polls underscore the deep divisions surrounding both issues:

On the transgender youth care case, 53% of Americans support bans on gender-affirming medical treatment for minors, while 28% oppose them.

On birthright citizenship, 52% oppose eliminating it, while 24% support the change.

These cases are unfolding against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential election aftermath and a politically divided nation. Republicans argue that state rights and family values must prevail, while Democrats warn that civil liberties and constitutional protections are under assault.

Advocacy organizations on both sides have mobilized grassroots campaigns, lobbying efforts, and public education drives, anticipating the massive social impact these rulings could have.

Supreme Court Dynamics and Institutional Trust

The current makeup of the Supreme Court—six conservative and three liberal justices—has led many to anticipate outcomes aligned with the ideological majority. The Court has recently handed several emergency rulings favoring the Trump administration, which critics argue further erodes public trust in its impartiality.

Polls released this month show:

Only 20% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is politically neutral.

58% see the Court as biased.

Just 10% of Democrats and 29% of Republicans view the Court as fair and impartial.

Legal scholars and judicial watchdogs warn that these perceptions, if left unaddressed, could undermine the Supreme Court’s credibility and legitimacy.

Possible Outcomes and Their Impact

Transgender Youth Care Case Outcomes:

Ban Upheld: Validates restrictive state laws; likely increases healthcare barriers for transgender minors.

Ban Overturned: Reinforces protections under the Equal Protection Clause; broadens access to transgender healthcare.

Birthright Citizenship Case Outcomes:

Injunctions Limited: Could allow enforcement of executive order in select states, creating unequal citizenship standards.

Injunctions Maintained: Order remains blocked nationwide; legal precedent upheld pending further constitutional ruling.

Conclusion: Legal Precedents in the Making

The final rulings, expected by the end of June, will not just decide specific policies—they will serve as precedent for future challenges involving civil rights, immigration, and the limits of federal power. Both cases are likely to echo for decades, especially if the Court redefines foundational constitutional interpretations.

As the nation awaits the outcomes, one thing is certain: these decisions will influence how the law treats gender identity, citizenship, and the balance of power between branches of government for years to come.