United States v. Skrmetti
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Skrmetti.
The Supreme Court reviewed Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits certain medical treatments for transgender minors, to determine if it violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court concluded that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny and satisfies rational basis review. The decision emphasizes the state's discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti.
The Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and satisfies rational basis review.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Skrmetti. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Equal Protection is relevant to United States v. Skrmetti
The central issue in the case was whether Tennessee's law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted certiorari to decide whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to United States v. Skrmetti
The case involved substantive due process considerations related to the rights of transgender minors to receive medical treatment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court's role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of SB1, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Skrmetti that support the summary and concepts above.
SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.
SB1 clearly meets that standard of review.
The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.