October Term 2024 · Docket 23-477

Does Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Tennessee argues its law targets risky medical procedures. The federal government argues the law discriminates based on sex.

Official caption
United States v. Skrmetti
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Prelogar argued SB1 singles out one specific medical use.

    Mr. Rice argued the law targets medical purpose, not patient sex.

    Chief Justice Roberts questioned the relevance of adoption precedents.

    Justice Thomas questioned physiological differences in hormone treatment.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Tennessee enacted SB1 to restrict certain medical treatments for minors. The federal government challenges the law as unconstitutional sex discrimination.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The federal government wants the Court to strike down SB1 as unconstitutional.

Tennessee wants the Court to uphold SB1 as a valid health regulation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The federal government argues SB1 discriminates against transgender minors based on sex.

Tennessee argues SB1 targets specific medical purposes rather than patient sex.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the case involves medical nuances unlike adoption cases.

Justice Thomas asked if physiological differences exist between boys and girls taking testosterone.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether states can ban specific medical treatments for minors. It defines the scope of state power over minor healthcare decisions.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON