In August 2024, the US Supreme Court in the case of Tennessee v Cardona, ruled against the Trans Drug Cult lie that Title IX is about protecting the rights of boys pretending to be girls (when in fact it is about protecting the rights of real girls). Today, June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of US v Skrmetti. hammered another nail in the coffin of Chris Reykdal, Bob Ferguson, and their Trans Drug Cult, by agreeing with the state of Tennessee that there are good reasons for prohibiting minors from being given toxic Trans drugs.
The ruling is a victory for real science as the Court rejected the fake science propaganda of the Trans Drug Cult. While Washington state still requires kids to be given toxic Trans Drugs instead of counseling, the days of children being subjected to Toxic Trans Drugs are numbered as every day, the harm of Trans Drugs are becoming more obvious. This decision sets the precedent that states can and should protect children from irreversible medical procedures pushed under the banner of “gender-affirming care.” It affirms what many of us have been saying for years: kids need time to grow, mature, and develop — without being fast-tracked into a lifetime of drug addiction.
Children should not be misled into making life-altering medical decisions under the influence of Trans Cult propaganda. Parents should not be blackmailed into providing consent based on Trans Cult lies. And doctors should not be legally protected for carrying out such harmful drug treatments.
Most important, several Supreme Court justices explained why Trans Cult members (victims?) can not possibly be a “protected class.” For those who do not know, the three real protected classes are Race, Ethnicity and Sex - meaning one can not discriminate against a person based on the color of their skin, the country they come from or whether they are male or female. Washington state currently claims that “gender identity” is also a protected class. But adding this to the other protected classes has created all kinds of problems – including allowing boys pretending to be girls into girls sports and girls private spaces. This new Supreme Court ruling is therefore another huge step in our battle to protect our children from the lies of the Trans Drug Cult.
The battle to protect our children is far from over. But today we have taken another important step towards restoring sanity here in Washington state.
Here is a link to the US Supreme Court 118 page decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
Here are quotes from their opinion:
“(Tennessee Senate Bill 1) SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex… Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. “
“In the last three years, more than 20 States have enacted laws banning the provision of sex transition treatments to minors, while two have enacted near total bans… In 2022, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare found that “the evidence on treatment efficacy and safety is still insufficient and inconclusive” and that the “risks” of puberty blockers and hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits.”
“The court declined to recognize transgender individuals as a suspect class, finding that transgender individuals are neither politically powerless nor a discrete group defined by obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics. laws that classify on the basis of race, alienage, or national origin trigger strict scrutiny and will pass constitutional muster “only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
“The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it discriminates against transgender individuals, who the plaintiffs assert constitute a quasi-suspect class… This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status. “
“Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to a minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences.”
“Tennessee determined that “minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures and that many individuals have expressed regret for medical procedures that were performed on or administered to them for such purposes when they were minors.”
On Page 31, Justice Thomas noted that their ruling in this case was consistent with their 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181, 308 (2023); and their 2024 ruling in Department of Ed. v. Louisiana, 603 U. S. 866, 867 (2024) (holding that “preliminary injunctive relief ” was warranted to enjoin a rule extending Bostock’s reasoning to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972).
Here are quotes from Justice Thomas:
“Research suggests that, aside from interrupting a child’s normal pubertal development, puberty blockers may lead to decreased bone density and impacts on brain development. See M. Cretella, Gender Dysphoria in Children, 32 Issues in L. & Med. 287, 297 (2017)… At bottom, “there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of puberty blockers in individuals experiencing” gender dysphoria., Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Online First, Archives of Disease in Childhood (Jan. 24, 2025),” https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429
“Following puberty blockers, the next stage of sex-transition treatments for children involves cross-sex hormones. This treatment is also typically “off-label,” and requires “very high doses” of hormones of the opposite sex. For example, one of the organizations that sets standards for pediatric sex transition treatment recommends raising transitioning females’ levels of testosterone “6 to 100 times higher than native female testosterone levels.”. For males seeking to transition into females, the organization recommends raising levels of estradiol, a type of estrogen, to “2 to 43 times above the normal range.”
‘Prescribing such high doses of testosterone to girls can cause increased cardiovascular risk, “irreversible changes to the vocal cords,” “and atrophy of the lining of the uterus and vagina,” as well as “ovarian and breast cancer.”. Giving high doses of estrogen to boys can produce similarly severe side effects including increased cardiovascular risk, breast cancer, and sexual dysfunction.
And, for girls and boys alike, “it is generally accepted, even by advocates of transgender hormone therapy, that hormonal treatment impairs fertility, which may be irreversible.”
“Mounting evidence gives States reason to question whether children are capable of providing informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, and thus whether these treatments can be ethically administered. Children’s “lack of maturity” and “underdeveloped sense of responsibility” often lead to “impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.”
“The voices of “detransitioners”—individuals who have undergone sex-transition treatments but no longer view themselves as transgender—provide States with an additional reason to question whether children are providing informed consent to the medical interventions described above.”
“Parents also may have difficulty providing informed consent to their children’s sex-transition treatments. Reports suggest that, in medical consultations, “parents are routinely warned that to pursue any path outside of agreeing with a child’s self-declared gender identity is to put a gender dysphoric youth at risk for suicide, which feels to many people like emotional blackmail.”
On Page 53, Justice Barrett begins her concurrence with a discussion of why transgender status is not a suspect (or protected) class:
“As a general matter, laws are presumed to be constitutionally valid, and a legislative classification will be upheld “so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end… There are only a few exceptions to this rule: classifications based on race, sex, and alienage… this Court “has not recognized any new constitutionally protected classes in over four decades, and instead has repeatedly declined to do so. So in urging us to recognize transgender status as a suspect classification, the plaintiffs face a high bar.”
“To determine whether a group constitutes a “suspect class” akin to the canonical examples of race and sex…We consider whether members of the group in question “exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group,” whether the group has, “as a historical matter, . . . been subjected to discrimination,” and whether the group is “a minority or politically powerless.”
“The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so. To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex… transgender status does not turn on an “immutable . . . characteristic.”
“Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys’ and girls’ sports teams… In recognizing sex as a suspect class, we similarly emphasized that women faced more than a century’s worth of discrimination in the law… The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status.”
Justice Alito added his opinion beginning on page 64:
“A party claiming that a law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it classifies on the basis of sex cannot prevail simply by showing that the law draws a distinction on the basis of “gender identity.”
“Neither transgender status nor gender identity should be treated as a suspect or “quasi-suspect” class… our decisions have identified certain key factors that transgender individuals do not share with members of suspect and “quasi-suspect” classes. Transgender status is not “immutable,” and as a result, persons can and do move into and out of the class.”
“Members of the class differ widely among themselves, and it is often difficult for others to determine whether a person is a member of the class. And transgender individuals have not been subjected to a history of discrimination that is comparable to past discrimination against the groups we have classified as suspect or “quasi-suspect.”
What Happens Next?
While the kids in 26 states are now protected from being given toxic trans drugs, gender confused kids here in Washington state are still required by misguided Washington state laws to take these horrible Trans drugs and prohibited from getting the counseling they need. Today’s Supreme Court decision should inspire all of us to do everything we can to organize politically to boot Reykdal, Ferguson and their Trans Cult accomplices out of office and to work towards passage of our Washington Family Rights Initiative here in Washington state.
We will discuss the implications of this Supreme Court ruling and how it will help bring the truth about Trans Drugs here in our state at our next meeting this coming Sunday from 4 to 5 pm. If you would like the link to this meeting, send us an email. We look forward to meeting you.
Regards,
David Spring M. Ed.
Director, Washington Parents Network