Supreme Court Case Compared to 'Dobbs-Style Earthquake' for Trans People

newsweek.com:

Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving the rights of doctors to give puberty blockers and gender hormone drugs to transgender minors.As it involves prepubescent children, it has ignited enormous controversy and is likely to be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of 2025, not least as the issue of transgender rights became a key factor in the presidential election.The case is U.S v.

Jonathan Skrmetti. Skrmetti is the Tennessee attorney general and became a party in the case after parents and transgender-rights groups launched a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that bans transgender drugs for minors.Conservative author Matt Walsh is among those who have said that the case could deliver the same shock as the Dobbs case in 2022, which overturned the federal right to abortion."Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S.

v. Skrmetti. This is the culmination of our fight against the barbarism of child sex-changes, and it could be a Dobbs-style earthquake in terms of protecting children," he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.The ACLU of Tennessee, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, says: "When arguing against transgender people and their families, states with bans like Tennessee's have relied heavily on the Supreme Court's opinion Dobbs v.Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v.

Wade and allowed states to ban abortion. U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care."The plaintiffs say that the bans violate the equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status, and violate parents' due process rights by limiting their ability to guide their children's medical care.Skrmetti writes in the respondent's brief that Tennessee's ban does not classify based on sex or transgender status and should be evaluated under the less intense rational basis review, requiring the law to be rationally.