Politics
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.
Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.
The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”
The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.
Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.
Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”
“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.
University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.
States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.
If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.
While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The House has officially shipped a colossal bipartisan housing package to President Donald Trump, and lawmakers are hoping that, at the very least, he doesn’t veto it.
Trump was supposed to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week, but his last-minute decision to ghost the signing ceremony with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put into question whether the bill was dead.
His refusal to sign the bill, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both chambers, was to leverage the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which doesn’t currently have the votes to succeed in the Senate.
WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON
Trump has refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Trump appears to be in no hurry to sign the bill, despite Republicans who are hungry for a win in the affordability fight ahead of the midterm elections.
“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”
“Here’s what I would like to sign, much more than a bill that — big deal, it’s a yawn,” he continued. “Some people say it’s wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
GOP INFIGHTING OVER TRUMP’S VOTER ID BILL ERUPTS AS TOP SENATOR CALLS STRATEGY ‘FANTASY’
It’s legislation that is loaded with nearly 60 provisions from both sides of the aisle in both chambers that’s designed to make it easier for homes to be built and for younger Americans to buy their first home. It also includes a ban on hedge funds buying up housing stock that Trump pushed Congress to include during the State of the Union earlier this year.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the architects behind the bill in the upper chamber alongside Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., charged that Congress handed the bill to Trump “on a silver platter.”
“When you ask me what happens next, if he cared about the American people, he’d have already signed the damned thing, and we’d be underway,” Warren said on WCVB’s “On the Record” on Sunday.
But Trump doesn’t have to put his signature on the bill for it to become law.
IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE
The Senate advanced a massive, Trump-backed housing package geared toward lowering the costs of homes and supercharging the housing supply. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pitched it as legislation to prevent America from becoming a “nation of renters.” (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Borrowers; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Constitution grants presidents the ability to veto a bill within 10 days of it being transferred over to the White House. In that scenario, Congress could override a veto of the housing package.
It’s happened before under the Trump administration. In early 2021, Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act — a massive Pentagon funding authorization package that some House Republicans are trying to use as a vehicle to pass the SAVE America Act.
But during that 10-day period, if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, it would automatically become law. That’s unless Congress completely adjourns, in which case a “pocket veto” could happen. The Senate is currently in recess and the House is scheduled to leave town by week’s end, but neither count as a full adjournment.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Johnson, who spent the last few days meeting with Trump at the White House about the housing bill and the SAVE America Act, said: “I hope he does sign it.”
“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said. “We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively. And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”
Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed-bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.
Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.
Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.
Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.
On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.
In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.
“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.
While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by July 6.
June 2026 photo of Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy arriving at Downing Street for the weekly Government cabinet meeting in London.
(Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images)
Paramount did not offer immediate comment.
The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.
Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.
“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”
If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.
Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.
Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.
Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.
The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.
Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.
Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.
The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.
Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.
HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.
A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.
Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.
The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.
Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.
“For US consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”
-
Business3 minutes agoDisneyland to offer $59 evening tickets next month
-
Entertainment6 minutes agoAfter Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon
-
Lifestyle11 minutes agoICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
-
Politics18 minutes ago
Newsom signs off on 100% California tax for money from Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘slush fund’
-
Science21 minutes agoAfter bold pledge, EPA shelves microplastics testing in U.S. drinking water
-
Sports26 minutes agoWalter Alston, Dave Roberts and everyone in between: The 10 managers in L.A. Dodgers history
-
World36 minutes agoWorld’s oceans experience hottest June ever, scientists say more heat ahead
-
News1 hour agoWhat the Supreme Court did on the final day of its term
