As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile transgender case this past week, a prominent detransitioner and public speaker emphasized the importance of the case and said it could change everything about the gender ideology they fight in the United States.  

U.S. v. Skrmetti revolves around a Tennessee law that bans sex-change treatments and surgeries for children. Experts believe the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that will shape laws about transgender treatments for children across the country.

“It’s incredibly important that this law goes through so that other states, not just Tennessee, who have these protective laws, can uphold them in courts and maybe states that are more on the fence, like blue states or purple states, can have pressure put on them to put in these laws to protect children in their area as well,” Chloe Cole told Fox News Digital in the frigid cold outside the Supreme Court building

“This is an identity crisis that is plaguing my generation right now,” she continued. “Children are losing their health, they’re losing their ability to grow up into adults, are losing their ability to have children when they become adults. It’s unconscionable.”  

GOP TENNESSEE AG REACTS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS CASE: ‘FEEL REALLY GOOD’

Cole, who is 20 years old and began transitioning from a female into a male at the age of 12 and stopped at 17, said that she continues to suffer daily pain and faces serious health issues from the long-term effects of the sex-change treatments and surgery she received as a child.

“I’ve been on the puberty blockers, the testosterone injections, and I’ve had a double mastectomy, and all three of these treatments have irreversibly and permanently affected my health,” she said.

“I basically went through an artificial menopause while I was young,” Cole explained. “So, I was experiencing hot flashes and these other uncomfortable, painful symptoms that are not too dissimilar to what women naturally experience when they’re in their 40s, 50s, 60s, not before they’re even teenagers.“

Chloe Cole began the gender transition process at age 12 and received a double mastectomy surgery at 15. (Fox News Digital)

Some activists, including attorneys arguing against Tennessee’s law, posit that sex-change treatments help children suffering from gender confusion, improving their mental health and preventing suicide. However, many former transgender individuals – often called “detransitioners” – dispute the claim that sex-change treatments solve mental health issues. Instead, they say that in addition to causing physical problems, treatments can also lead to serious psychological damage.

Besides having to live with the reality of having both her breasts cut off at the age of 15, Cole said that testosterone has also “made it so that I have permanent changes to my bone structure.”

“I have a left-over Adam’s apple and facial hair growth, but I also have issues with my urinary tract, with pelvic pain [and] with things like sexual function, which, now, as an adult woman, that is something that has been both physically and psychologically incredibly painful,” she explained.

“I’m a woman,” she went on. “I aspire to become a mother one day, I want to get married, and this is something that is going to undoubtedly affect my marriage, my romantic life, and potentially my ability to have children.”

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL ‘TREATMENTS’ TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

Activists hold a rally outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., as the court hears oral arguments in the transgender treatments case of U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. (Fox News Digital)

Although gender transition treatment is promoted by doctors and hospital systems across the country, Cole said that there are still many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of these treatments.

“I don’t know what the lasting effects are on my fertility. There are so many unknowns about my health, I have no idea what the future of my health is going to look like,” she said. “It’s been years after the fact, and I’m still experiencing reeling effects from all of this when I could have just grown up into a healthy young woman with a body intact.”

Although she continues to suffer the aftereffects of the treatments, Cole said she is resolved to stop more children from suffering what she underwent.  

“This is not what children deserve,” she concluded. “Children deserve to be allowed to grow up with their bodies fully intact, they deserve a chance to learn how to love themselves the way that they are, the way they were born, the way that God beautifully crafted them in their mother’s womb.”

A former high-ranking police chief says he is confident that the various law enforcement agencies on the hunt for UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s killer will eventually find him, given the vast number of officials involved in the search and the effectual coordination between the agencies. 

John Ryan, who served as chief of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, told Fox News Digital that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in New York is heading the investigation along with the NYPD, and they are coordinating with police on the ground in Georgia — where the killer may be now — as well as the Atlanta FBI field office.

“There’s no better group of law enforcement professionals there than the New York FBI Joint terrorism Task Force, and it’s made up of 52 agencies with the FBI being the lead. So having them weigh in on this, there is going to be a big asset,” Ryan said. 

WHO WAS UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO SHOOTING SUSPECT ON THE PHONE WITH MOMENTS BEFORE SHOOTING?

He said the agencies are also coordinating with the U.S. Marshalls New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force, which has a long history of providing assistance and expertise to other law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive investigations.

“The U.S. Marshals Regional Fugitive Task Force are very, very good at tracking people, and I’m confident that they will be able to find him and bring them into custody,” Ryan told Fox News Digital. “And they do it every day. There’s nobody better at it than they do.”

Ryan, a 45-year veteran who previously served as lieutenant task force commander with the JTTF in New York, said that the NYPD and the Port Authority Police Department, as well as other local agencies, provide personnel to the Marshals Service for these types of cases.

“So they’re bringing all of their assets, their knowledge and their capabilities to track the movements of this person,” Ryan said. “And they’re very good at what they do. They do it every day and their capabilities are among the very best.”

He said investigators have already made impressive gains in accumulating evidence, and that that will continue as they close in on the cold-blooded killer. 

A Peak Designs backpack found by the NYPD last in a leaf pile in Central Park on Friday, Dec. 6, 20204. The bag appears to match the description of the one worn by the gunman who killed United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Wednesday morning. (Obtained by New York Post)

For instance, NYPD investigators found a backpack in Central Park West on Friday that they believe belonged to the suspect, a law enforcement source told Fox News Digital. It will be taken to a lab in Queens for forensic testing. 

Investigators are also now testing for DNA evidence on a water bottle that they believe the assassin dropped after he took off down an alleyway after ambushing Thompson outside the Hilton Midtown at 57th Street and 6th Avenue. 

UNITEDHEALTH CEO ASSASSIN LEFT MESSAGE BEHIND TO ‘MAKE A STATEMENT’ OR ‘THROW OFF POLICE’: DETECTIVES

A cellphone, also believed to belong to the gunman, was found in the alleyway he used to escape, while the assassin also left behind three shell casings with the words “deny,” “depose” and “delay,” enscribed on them. The words are similar to a popular phrase within the health care industry — “delay, deny, defend.”

“The fact that they were able to locate all of those items should give people some degree of comfort, knowing how thorough the NYPD is in investigating these crimes and other crimes,” Ryan said. 

The NYPD were observed in Central Park on Saturday, searching for clues on day 4 of the manhunt.

Police said on Friday that the suspect had likely left New York for Atlanta, having arrived in New York from Atlanta before the attack.

Ryan said investigators will be scouring over surveillance footage on the buses too. 

A map shows where a backpack was found in Central Park. The backpack is believed to belong to the suspect in the killing of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealth. (Fox News Digital)

“The big question out there is what this individual’s motive was for targeting the United Health care executive, so they’ll be looking at that,” Ryan continued.

“The next thing is, were there other potential targets out there that that need to be protected? And then the other question that comes up were any other weapons that this person may have had access to.”

“And again, that comes with identifying who he is and then building out a profile as to whether or not he had weapons known to him. Family members anybody else that would have provided him access to the firearms.”

Ryan added that the fact that writings were left on the shell cases indicates that the killer was motivated by personal reasons, as opposed to being a third party hit man. 

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed in Midtown Manhattan on Wednesday morning. (Businesswire | NYPD Crimestoppers)

“It was the result of a grievance that he had, so he was basically highlighting why he did what he did, and he left the cartridges there to be found,” Ryan said. “So it was his way of messaging why he did what he did.”

He added the assassination has other companies on high alert for potential threats to their executives.  

“A ripple effect of this will play out in every company’s executive office given the fact it occurred in Midtown Manhattan in broad daylight there. It will definitely have an impact on all the people that work in the city or live in the city.”

Fox News’ Christina Coulter contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-profile case regarding whether states can ban minors from receiving gender transition medical care under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a closely-watched case that could impact the care and treatment for young people in at least half of U.S. states.

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared reluctant during Wednesday’s oral arguments to overturn Senate Bill 1, the Tennessee law in question, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures. The Constitution leaves such questions “to the people’s representatives,” Roberts noted Wednesday, rather than to nine justices on the Supreme Court, “none of whom is a doctor.” 

Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, cited “overwhelming evidence” from certain medical studies listing the negative consequences from adolescents that underwent gender transition treatments. Should the justices rule along party lines to uphold the lower court’s decision, it will have sweeping implications for more than 20 U.S. states that have moved to implement similar laws.

The case in question, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for minors in the state. The law, passed in March 2023, also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS’ SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING

At issue in the case is whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which “prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,’” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wednesday’s oral arguments marked the first time the Supreme Court considered restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors. However, it also comes as many other states have moved to ban or restrict medical treatments and procedures for transgender adolescents, placing outsize focus on the case and on oral arguments Wednesday, as observers closely watched the back-and-forth for clues as to how the court might rule. 

Petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor.

At issue during Wednesday’s oral arguments was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a “quasi-suspect class,” thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 

Both sides continued to battle over the level of scrutiny that the court should apply in reviewing laws involving transgender care for minors, including SB1. 

Petitioners argued that the court should use the test of heightened scrutiny, which requires states to identify an important objective that the law helps accomplish, while the state of Tennessee reiterated its claim that the rational basis test, or the most deferential test that was applied by the 6th Circuit Court in reviewing SB1, is sufficient. 

Petitioners, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, argued that SB1 discriminates against individuals on the basis of sex, which itself warrants a heightened level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that SB1 “categorically bans treatment when, and only when, it’s consistent with the patient’s birth sex.” 

In Tennessee, petitioners argued, the way that the sex-based classification works is that, “from the standpoint of any individual who wants to take these medications, their sex determines whether SB1 applies.”

Prelogar cited one of the unnamed petitioners in the case, whom she referred to only as John Doe. Doe “wants to take puberty blockers to undergo a typical male puberty. But SB1 says that because John sex at birth was female, he can’t have access to those medications,” Prelogar argued. “And if you change his sex, then the restriction under SB1 lifts, and it changes the result.”

Petitioners also sought to assuage concerns raised by justices about the ability of states to pass legislation protecting minors, so long as the test meets a higher standard of scrutiny. 

Pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the impact the ruling could have on other states, Prelogar responded by noting that the court could write a very narrow opinion that states only that when a law prohibits conduct that is “inconsistent with sex, that is a sex baseline, so you do have to apply heightened scrutiny.”

“But the court has made clear that that’s an intermediate standard,” Prelogar said. “And if the state can come forward with an important interest and substantiate that it needed to draw those sex baselines to substantially serve the interest,” it would still be permitted.

TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Respondents for the state of Tennessee argued Wednesday that SB1 was designed to protect minors from what they described as “risky and unproven medical interventions.” 

The state, represented by Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, argued that SB1 draws a “purpose-based line, not a sex-based line,” thus failing to meet the necessary requirement to trigger heightened scrutiny. 

The law, Rice said, turns “entirely on medical purposes, not a patient’s sex.” The only way petitioners can point to a sex-based line, he argued, “is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments.” 

“Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body,” Rice said.

Still, respondents faced tough questioning from justices on the classification and application of SB1. 

On issues of classification, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson cited parallels to the race-based case of Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia’s law forbidding marriage between persons of different racial categories; in that case, a White man and a Black woman.

A flag supporting LGBTQ+ rights decorates a desk on the Democratic side of the Kansas House of Representatives during a debate on March 28, 2023 at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kansas. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether a Tennessee ban on gender transition care for minors is constitutional. (AP Photo/John Hanna, File)

She noted that under SB1, an individual can be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone treatments if doing so is consistent with their sex, but not if it is inconsistent, asking Rice, “So how are they different?”

Justice Elena Kagan asked Rice about the application of SB1, noting the text of SB1 and one of its articulated purposes, which is to “encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.’”

“You’re spending a lot of time talking about what the classification is here,” Kagan told Rice. “And I think we’ve talked a good deal about that. But what produced this classification might be relevant to understanding what the classification is about.”

Tennessee has argued that its law can still withstand even the test of heightened scrutiny, contending in its court brief that it does have “compelling interests” to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and “in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.”

The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans are set to take control of the White House, hold the House and regain the Senate, giving them a greater influence on the composition of the federal courts.

The court is expected to rule on U.S. v. Skrmetti before July 2025.