National Implications | Decision Date: June 18, 2025
United States v. Skrmetti
A significant decision saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which bans gender-transition treatments for minors, meaning the law will remain in full effect and setting a critical precedent for similar legislation across the nation.
What You Need to Know
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits certain gender-transition treatments for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Opponents argued the law violated a constitutional right to access such care and discriminated against transgender youth. The Court disagreed, finding the law was based on age and medical judgment—not gender identity. The justices emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in protecting minors from treatments that may be irreversible or still considered experimental.
Why This Matters
With over half the states enacting similar laws, this ruling has wide-reaching implications. For ministries that hold traditional views, the decision offers reassurance: the court did not establish a constitutional right for minors to receive gender-transition treatments. This provides space for pastoral care rooted in doctrinal convictions when counseling families navigating questions of identity. At the same time, ministries with differing theological perspectives should be mindful of the diverse legal landscape. In some states, minors may seek gender-transition care without parental involvement—raising complex considerations concerning parental rights and pastoral responsibility.
This earlier review was published prior to the June 18 Supreme Court decision date, but goes into more detail.
How would gender-transition treatment bans shape your ministry’s policies?
At the center of this case is Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which bans gender-transition treatments for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapies. In United States v. Skrmetti, the federal government challenged the law, asserting it unlawfully discriminates against transgender youth and exceeds state authority. A federal district court initially blocked enforcement of SB1, ruling that the law likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender minors. Tennessee appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, allowing SB1 to take effect, ruling it did not unconstitutionally discriminate and served the state’s legitimate interest in regulating medical treatments for minors. The case was then petitioned for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. With 25 states enacting similar bans, this case could establish a legal framework for addressing gender-transition issues in a ministry context nationwide.
