Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court poised to enter debate over transgender care for minors

Published

on

Supreme Court poised to enter debate over transgender care for minors

After steering clear of the divisive issue for months, the Supreme Court may be on the verge of deciding whether to jump into the national debate over medical treatment for transgender youths.

As soon as Thursday, justices may vote behind closed doors on whether to grant an appeal that seeks to block a new Tennessee law prohibiting medical treatments that enable a “minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

They have been in no hurry to act, however, and it’s possible they will put off the issue again. For weeks, they have repeatedly delayed a vote on the case, likely reflecting a division — either between liberals and conservatives, or perhaps inside the conservative majority.

At stake is the fate of a wave of a new state laws in the South and Midwest that bar transgender teens and their parents from obtaining puberty blockers and other hormones prescribed by a doctor.

Advertisement

Some 24 conservative states have passed restrictions on treatment for transgender youth, potentially affecting about 114,000 minors, or more than a third of transgender youths in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School. Many of those state laws have been blocked temporarily by judges.

If the court turns down the Tennessee appeal and says nothing more, it could signal that treatment bans for transgender youth are likely to take effect in about half of the nation. Then the map of the states would largely match the red state-blue state divide on abortion.

If justices agree to hear the appeal, it could put the issue on track for arguments later this year.

Progressive advocates for transgender youth are looking to the Supreme Court for help.

“This is a crisis and the only court that can weigh in to remedy it is the Supreme Court,” said Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice. “This is wreaking havoc with families who have to leave their homes to protect their children.”

Advertisement

The ACLU and Lambda Legal sued to challenge the Tennessee law on behalf of three transgender adolescents and their parents who had been obtaining hormones from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

A federal judge initially blocked the new law. But in July, the Ohio-based 6th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision became the first appeals court to rule such a law may go into effect.

The state’s lawmakers had questioned the safety and effectiveness of hormone treatments for teens, and 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said that “states may reasonably exercise caution in these circumstances.”

Biden administration Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said the state laws impose “a categorical ban on evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.”

The high court’s “intervention is warranted now,” she said.

Advertisement

Conservative skepticism toward “gender affirming care” was bolstered by a recent report prepared for the National Health Service in England. Dr. Hilary Cass, who led the four-year review, called for caution in treating young people who have gender distress.

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence,” she wrote. “The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

So far, the justices have avoided a clear ruling on the rights of transgender students. When pressed, they have handed down narrow decisions.

Last year, they turned down an emergency appeal from West Virginia’s attorney general and allowed a 12-year-old transgender girl to compete on the girls’ track team at her middle school. The court issued no opinion, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

Last month, the court handed down a procedural decision that allowed Idaho’s law to take effect restricting care for transgender youths, but not for the children and parents who sued to challenge it.

Advertisement

The court’s majority in the Idaho case focused on the question of whether a federal judge has the power to block an entire state law if two people sue over one provision. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and said the state’s appeal should have been denied.

The conservative judges may be divided among themselves on rights for transgender students.

Four years ago, the court surprised many on the right when it ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that because the law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sex, it must be read to include discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote in the case of Bostock vs. Clayton County.

Advertisement

Three conservatives dissented from that opinion, and the court has yet to rule on whether this anti-discrimination principle extends to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

That legal question is at the heart of the appeals now before the court. The ACLU, Lambda Legal and the Biden administration argue that a law “targeting transgender individuals for disfavored treatment” is a form of sex discrimination and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

They also raise the issue of parents’ rights. The laws in Tennessee, Kentucky and elsewhere should be struck down because they “violate the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children,” they told the court.

Samantha Williams and her husband, Brian, had sued in Nashville on behalf of their daughter, who was identified as L.W.

“It’s hard to overstate the difference that our daughter’s medical treatment has made in her life and our family’s life,” Samantha Williams said when the appeal went to the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

“Before coming out and starting to receive this medical care she struggled to make friends, keep her grades up, or even accept hugs from her family. Now, we have a confident, happy daughter who is free to be herself. I want the Justices to see and understand my daughter and recognize her rights under the Constitution like any other person, and to see that if parents like me don’t have the right to determine what’s best for our children, then no parent does,” she said.

In defense of his state’s law, Tennessee’s Atty. Gen. Jonathan Skrmetti described it as a measure “to protect children from unproven medical interventions.”

He said the number of minors receiving gender dysphoria diagnoses has “exploded” in recent years, and states have “seen a corresponding surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients.”

He said state lawmakers had “reasonably concluded that the well-documented risks of cross-sex hormones outweigh any purported benefits” and that “minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures.”

But the American Academy of Pediatrics, joined by21 other medical and mental health organizations, fileda friend-of-court brief atthe Supreme Court to dispute Tennessee’s contention that the hormone treatments are experimental or ineffective.

Advertisement

About 1.4 million persons in the United States are transgender, they said, and about about 10% of them are teenagers ages 13 to 17. They said “research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers or hormone therapy experience less depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation. … Banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk.”

While the state law also forbids surgical interventions for minors, those provisions are not being challenged in the cases under appeal.

At the 6th Circuit Court, the key question was who should decide on care of minors: parents and their doctors, state legislators, or federal judges.

Advertisement

Politics

Fraud-plagued Minnesota sues Trump admin for withholding $243M in Medicaid payments

Published

on

Fraud-plagued Minnesota sues Trump admin for withholding 3M in Medicaid payments

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Minnesota filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration, accusing federal health officials of illegally withholding $243 million in Medicaid payments from the state.

Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Department of Human Services sued the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), arguing the funding freeze violates federal law.

The state is seeking a temporary restraining order to immediately block the action.

The dispute stems from a January notice in which the Trump administration said it would withhold more than $2 billion annually from Minnesota’s Medicaid program over what it described as “noncompliance” with federal regulations, specifically, alleged failures to “adequately identify, prevent, and address fraud in its Medicaid program.”

Advertisement

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison speaks during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. (Tom Brenner/AP)

State officials say they have not been told specifically how Minnesota is out of compliance or what changes the administration wants to see.

The lawsuit follows a Feb. 25 announcement from CMS that it was deferring roughly $260 million in quarterly federal Medicaid funding to Minnesota, including about $243 million tied to “unsupported or potentially fraudulent” claims. 

CMS said the deferral is part of a broader fraud crackdown and cited unusually high spending and rapid growth in personal care services, home- and community-based services, and other practitioner services.

HEAVILY-REDACTED AUDIT FINDS MINNESOTA MEDICAID HAD WIDESPREAD VULNERABILITIES

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance looks on as Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz speaks about combating fraud at the White House complex in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25, 2026. (Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)

“For decades, Medicare fraud has drained billions from American taxpayers — that ends now,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “We are replacing the old ‘pay and chase’ model with a real-time ‘detect and deploy’ strategy, using advanced AI tools to identify fraud instantly and stop improper payments before they go out the door.”

Minnesota officials contend the move improperly uses a funding “deferral” mechanism and amounts to denying the state due process before any formal finding of noncompliance.

WALZ SLAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR TEMPORARILY HALTING MEDICAID FUNDING TO MINNESOTA: ‘CAMPAIGN OF RETRIBUTION’

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The threatened cuts represent about 7% of Minnesota’s quarterly Medicaid funding and could force reductions in health care services for low-income residents, according to Ellison’s office.

“Trump’s M.O. is to cut first, no matter what the law says or who gets hurt, and ask questions later, if at all,” the attorney general said. “These cuts are the latest in a long series of efforts to go around the law to punish Minnesotans — but just as we fought back and won when they illegally tried to cut funding for childcare, hungry families, and our schools, we are suing them again today to make them follow the law.”

Related Article

USDA immediately suspends all federal funding to Minnesota amid fraud investigation
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Fearing GOP win, California’s Democratic leader urges unviable party candidates for governor to drop out

Published

on

Fearing GOP win, California’s Democratic leader urges unviable party candidates for governor to drop out

Fearing the prospect of a Republican winning California’s gubernatorial race, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks on Tuesday urged his party’s candidates who lack a viable path to victory to drop out.

“It is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” Hicks wrote in an open letter to the politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. “I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.”

Hicks did not name the Democrats he wants out of the race, but such a public admonishment by a party leader is a rarity in California politics.

Even though the odds are relatively low, California cannot risk having a Republican elected as the next governor at a time when President Trump is in the White House, Hicks said.

“[S]o much is at stake in our Nation and so many are counting on the leadership of California Democrats to stand up and speak out at this historic moment,” Hicks wrote. “California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor.”

Advertisement

Hicks urged Democrats languishing at the bottom of the field of candidates to drop out before the Friday deadline to officially file to run for governor — to ensure their names do not appear on the June primary ballot.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

With nine top Democrats running, the fear is that the candidates will splinter their party’s vote and allow the top two Republicans in the race to finish in first and second place. This is despite Democratic registered voters outnumbering Republicans in the state by almost 2 to 1, and no GOP candidate winning a statewide election since 2006.

Having two Republicans competing in the November election would be devastating to Democratic voter turnout and could hurt party candidates in pivotal down-ballot races.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks said in his letter. “We simply can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that five candidates lead the contest — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer among Democrats and conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans. Hilton and Bianco have led all candidates in other polls over the last few months. No other candidate received the support of more than 5% of likely voters.

After Hicks issued his directive, two influential leaders in California Democratic politics said they shared his concerns.

Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she worries that Democratic candidates who are drawing low single-digit support in the polls and remain in the race could tilt the election.

“You’re in a situation where a candidate who pulls 2 or 3% could make all the difference whether there’s two Republicans and anti-union folks in the runoff or if there’s not,” she said.

Gonzalez said that while she believes the legislature, where Democrats hold super majorities in both chambers, would be a check if a Republican was elected the state’s leader, that might not be enough protect Californians from Trump’s destructive policies.

Advertisement

“We are seeing with Trump how much damage an executive who wants to ignore normal rules of engagement or the Constitution can do,” she said. “We can’t afford that.”

The federation began its endorsement process last week, and there were difficult conversations with gubernatorial candidates not only about their political beliefs, but also about their viability. The umbrella group of unions is expected to make an announcement about any potential endorsement on March 16.

Jodi Hicks, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said it was imperative to block the “real possibility” of two Republicans advancing to the general election because of the deep cuts that the Trump administration has made to health care, including access to abortion.

“Given the severity of this moment, we urge candidates to consider how continuing their candidacy may put California’s values and reproductive freedom at risk,” Jodi Hicks said. “The stakes are too high for all of us, but especially for immigrant communities, transgender individuals, the over 15 million patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, and the over 25,000 patients a week who access essential health care at Planned Parenthood health centers.”

Discussions about the need for some Democrats to exit the race took place at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention.

Advertisement

But a politically thorny issue is that nearly all of the Democrats lagging in the polls are people of color, as former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted at a candidate forum Monday evening.

“There are people who are calling for candidates to get out of the race,” he said at the gathering hosted by Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center at the Renberg Theatre in Hollywood. “Isn’t it interesting that the candidates they are asking get out of the race are the candidates of color?”

Rusty Hicks, asked about the effect on minority candidates who have spent years or decades of their lives in public service, did not directly answer the question but lauded the field’s accomplishments.

“We have a number of strong candidates. They have incredible stories, and they are reflective of the diversity of our party. That being said, there are some political realities of where we are at at this particular moment,” he said in an interview. “I’m not calling on any specific candidates to move in one direction or the other. I’m just calling on them to assess their campaign and determine if they have a viable [path] and if they don’t, to not file.”

During Monday evening’s gubernatorial forum, Porter said she is concerned about the prospect of two Republicans making the top two.

Advertisement

“I hear people say to me, it could never happen, but everybody said that about Trump too,” she said at the forum. “And I look at how much harm we’re suffering, and I think about all the political risks that people are facing every day, the risk of an immigrant to leave their home and walk on our streets, the risk of a kid who’s trans to try to play sports even in this state. And I just don’t think we can take any more political risks.”

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

How President Trump’s Image Permeates the White House and Beyond

Published

on

How President Trump’s Image Permeates the White House and Beyond

Since moving back in, President Trump has significantly altered the “People’s House.” East Wing: gone. Oval Office: maximalized. Rose Garden: Mar-a-lago-ified. And the art? Lots of Trump.

Advertisement

Over the last year, The New York Times has captured at least nine paintings, posters, memes, and even a mugshot outside the Oval Office, that Mr. Trump added throughout the historic space.

Many of the selections are gifts from his supporters that highlight his political stature and reinforce the idea that Mr. Trump is invincible.

Advertisement

All presidents or first ladies add to and shuffle the art in the White House.

Barack Obama brought in abstract paintings.

Advertisement

Family Dining Room, 2015. Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

George W. Bush decorated with images from his Texas roots.

Advertisement

Oval Office, 2007. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

In Mr. Trump’s first term, Melania Trump added a sculpture by Isamu Noguchi to the Rose Garden.

Rose Garden, 2020. Pool photo by Chris Kleponis

Advertisement

But never before has a sitting president displayed so much of his own image on the White House walls.

There is an “assertion of symbolic power that he wants to be on view essentially everywhere in that space,” said Cara Finnegan, a communication professor at the University of Illinois and author of “Photographic Presidents: Making History from Daguerreotype to Digital.”

Advertisement

Even outside his current residence, Mr. Trump’s visage has proliferated in unexpected places — on banners hanging from government buildings, on National Parks passes and on social media, where he has been likened to a king. There has also been talk of a U.S. Treasury-minted coin with Mr. Trump on both sides.

Break with tradition

In recent decades, each president’s official White House portrait has been unveiled in a ceremony hosted by his successor.

Advertisement

The Carters hosted the Fords:

Advertisement

East Room, 1978. Associated Press

The Clintons hosted the Bushes:

Advertisement

East Room, 1995. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

And the Bushes hosted the Clintons:

Advertisement

East Room, 2004. Tim Sloan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The mood has often been lighthearted, with political party tensions melting away.

Advertisement

“I am pleased that my portrait brings an interesting symmetry to the White House collection,” George W. Bush joked in a ceremony hosted by the Obamas. “It now starts and ends with a George W.”

In a break with tradition, Mr. Trump did not schedule a ceremony for the unveiling of the Obamas’ portraits during his first term. Joe Biden later did, in a ceremony with a “Welcome Home!” vibe.

Advertisement

Typically, the latest available presidential portrait — often a realistic oil painting — hangs in the main entrance hall, where heads of state are welcomed.

The Obama portrait was in the spot until April …

Advertisement

Cross Hall in the Executive Residence, 2024. Tom Brenner for The New York Times

… when Mr. Trump replaced it with this painting by Marc Lipp, a Florida pop artist, last April.

Advertisement

Cross Hall in the Executive Residence, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

It depicts a striking moment in 2024 when a bloodied Mr. Trump pumped his fist in defiance, soon after being shot at by a would-be assassin during a campaign event.

Advertisement

Presidential historians have criticized the departure from convention.

Though Mr. Trump had a portrait commissioned for the Smithsonian’s American Presidents collection after his first term, none was confirmed for the permanent White House collection, and the White House said that this is where that portrait would have hung.

Advertisement

It is not totally unprecedented for a president to hang a painting of himself in the White House during his term. Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Grover Cleveland all did, according to the White House Historical Association. But more often than not, paintings of presidents and first ladies are hung after they have left office, historians said.

Flags, fists and faith from fans

In what has become something of a muse for many of the president’s artistic supporters, there are at least three other depictions of the fist-pumping scene in the White House.

Advertisement

The image “is in people’s garages when I walk around my neighborhood,” said Leslie Hahner, a Texas resident and communication professor at Baylor University, who studies visual political culture. “People love that image.”

Behind the Oval Office, one is in a small room that houses Trump merchandise:

Advertisement

Oval Office study, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Another was seen in the West Wing next to a “Still Life with Fruit” painting from 1850:

Advertisement

West Wing, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

A statue form was spotted in the Oval Office:

Oval Office, 2025. Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Advertisement

The sculptor, Stan Watts, told a Utah TV station last year that he believes the president was saved by God that day. Many of Mr. Trump’s Christian supporters have echoed that sentiment.

At least two works by a self-described “Christian worship artist,” Vanessa Horabuena, are among Mr. Trump’s White House collection. He has called Ms. Horabuena, who often paints live in front of an audience, “one of the greatest artists anywhere in the world.”

Advertisement

In 2022, she painted a portrait of Mr. Trump at a booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference. When he saw it, he asked to meet her, Ms. Horabuena’s representative said. She most recently painted Mr. Trump live at a New Year’s Eve party at Mar-A-Lago.

One of her portraits was spotted in the Cabinet room in January.

It shows Mr. Trump, his eyes closed, in front of a mountain with a small cross on the top:

Advertisement

Cabinet Room, 2026. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

Ms. Horabuena hand-delivered it to the White House, according to her website.

Her other painting shows the president walking through a phalanx of flags. It was seen hanging prominently in a hallway leading to the Cabinet Room and the Oval Office:

Advertisement

West Wing, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

“He’s positioned as this embattled warrior in a lot of these images,” Dr. Hahner said.

Advertisement

Historical figures Mr. Trump adulates are co-stars in some of the art he has chosen.

In an image created by the team of White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump is pictured with William McKinley and Henry Clay, who, like the president, championed the use of tariffs:

Advertisement

West Wing, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Here, Mr. Trump is with two other Republican presidents, Abraham Lincoln (to whom he has compared himself) and Ronald Reagan (whom he is a fan of):

Advertisement

West Wing, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Titled “Great American Patriots,” the piece was painted by Dick Bobnick, an illustrator and Trump supporter from Minnesota. He said he mailed several prints to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but he had no idea his work was on the White House walls until a USA Today reporter called him about it.

Advertisement

“I could hardly believe it,” said Mr. Bobnick. (He said the print is now his best-seller.)

If not in portraits, Mr. Trump’s image is reflected on mirrors that he has added to the White House complex.

Advertisement

Two are in the Oval Office …

Oval Office, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

… making his image visible from the Resolute Desk.

Advertisement

Oval Office, 2025. Doug Mills/The New York Times

The mirrors, the portraits and the gilding mimic the look of his properties, like Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate.

Advertisement

Mar-a-Lago, 2016. Eric Thayer for The New York Times

“Trump is obsessed with his image,” Dr. Hahner said. “And he is so controlling of his image.”

Advertisement

Trump everywhere, all the time

One portrait seen in the White House has become a communication tool between Mr. Trump and his supporters in the real world.

This is his social media profile picture.

Advertisement

Trump’s Truth Social account, 2025.

Advertisement

It was seen last October hanging between former first ladies Laura Bush and Barbara Bush in the now-demolished East Wing:

Booksellers Hall in the now-demolished East Wing, 2025. Cheriss May for The New York Times

Advertisement

The portrait was painted by Lena Ruseva, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, who goes by the name MAGALANGELO. Mr. Trump invited her to his Bedminster golf club in 2022, and she gave it to him as a birthday gift.

“Every time social media or the news quotes the president and I see my artwork alongside it, I feel proud and grateful,” she said.

Advertisement

For a time, the same portrait hung next to Hillary Clinton, his political rival and a former first lady.

Booksellers Hall in the now-demolished East Wing, 2025. Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Advertisement

Supporters at that time lauded the placement on social media:

This example of a positive feedback loop demonstrates how Mr. Trump has used social media to redefine the presidency and presidential communication. Ms. Ruseva’s portrait was used on social media, hung up in the real world, then photographed and put back on social media by supporters who praised the president.

Advertisement

When Mr. Trump was elected to his first term in 2016, Dr. Hahner said that scholars referred to him as the first “meme president.”

Mr. Trump and his internet fans are used to a meme culture based on irony, and rehashing, repurposing and remixing existing images. The collection of White House artwork — much of it originating from his supporters — sits in an uncanny valley between realism and meme-ism, Dr. Hahner said.

Advertisement

Like memes that multiply, Mr. Trump’s image has been reproduced in other ways, outside the White House.

Last month, a huge banner with Mr. Trump’s face was draped outside the Justice Department headquarters …

Advertisement

Justice Department headquarters, 2026. Eric Lee for The New York Times

Last year, similar signage was strung over the Labor Department building …

Advertisement

Labor Department building, 2025. Eric Lee for The New York Times

… and the Agriculture Department building (this one, alongside Lincoln).

Advertisement

Agriculture Department building, 2025. Eric Lee for The New York Times

Advertisement

At his request, Mr. Trump’s portrait was recently updated at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery:

National Portrait Gallery, 2026. Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

Advertisement

Still, Mr. Trump wants more. The White House has suggested that the National Portrait Gallery add a separate section for Trump-related art.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending