American media personality and businesswoman Paris Hilton is headed to Capitol Hill Monday to urge the GOP-led House to pass the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act – a bill for which she has lobbied the last three years.

The bill cleared the Senate unanimously last week. 

Hilton told Fox News Digital in an interview she was "in tears" when the bill passed the upper chamber on Wednesday, calling it "such a monumental moment" for herself and her allies.

"It just makes me proud to know that every single senator recognized the urgency of this issue and supported something that I've worked so hard for," Hilton said. 

PARIS HILTON PRAISES GOP LAWMAKERS FOR SPONSORING BIPARTISAN STOP INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE ACT

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 23 lawmakers including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., aims to reform residential youth facilities for troubled kids. 

Hilton is now urging the House to take up the bill before the session ends this week. If the legislation fails to pass both houses before the new Congress sits in early January, the bill would have to be considered again by both legislative chambers.

"I just feel like it's so important to do this, because right now, there's just no regulation, and people are getting away with so much because they're not being watched," Hilton said. "So this bill is really just about transparency and just collecting that data so we can know where are the bad ones and where are the good ones, and just collect that data, because right now they're not able to do that."

PARIS HILTON SPOTTED AT WHITE HOUSE FOR MEETING ON CHILD ABUSE LAW

"When the U.S. Senate came together in a rare show of unity to pass the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act unanimously on Wednesday December 11th, it was one of the best moments of my life," the letter continued. "It was proof that when we listen to survivors and put politics aside, we can create real, meaningful change. But this journey isn’t over. I can’t celebrate until this bill becomes law, and now it’s up to the U.S. House of Representatives to finish what the Senate started."

Hilton, an advocate of the bill since its inception, alleged in a New York Times video op-ed series last year that she was a victim of sexual abuse as a teenager in the 1990s, when she attended a boarding school in Utah. 

She said she was the victim of a "parent-approved kidnapping" when she was a misbehaving 16-year-old, with two men dragging her out of her home and into a congregate-care facility.

Last year, Hilton testified before the House Ways and Means Committee about her teenage experiences in these centers, describing them as "very emotional and traumatizing."

SATANIC TEMPLE'S NATIVITY DISPLAY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE DESTROYED, DEM REP CALLS FOR NEW DISPLAY

"As a teenager, I was sent to youth residential treatment facilities where I endured abuse that no child should ever experience," Hilton wrote in an open letter to House lawmakers Monday. "I was physically restrained, sexually abused, isolated, overmedicated, and stripped of my dignity. I was told I didn’t matter, that I was the problem, and that no one would believe me if I spoke up—not even my family. For years, I lived with the weight of that trauma, the nightmares, the shame. It wasn’t until I found my voice that I began to heal."

In a statement after the bill cleared the Senate, Cornyn said that "A lack of oversight and transparency in residential youth programs has allowed for the abuse of children in facilities across the country for far too long."

"I'm proud that the Senate unanimously passed this legislation to ensure the vulnerable children in these facilities are protected, and I want to thank the countless advocates who have bravely shared their stories to help end institutional child abuse."

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed its annual defense spending bill Wednesday, including a key culture-war caveat: a ban on transgender medical treatments for minor children of U.S. service members.

The provision in the 1,800-page bill states that "medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18," referring to the transgender children of military personnel. 

Republicans argued that taxpayer dollars should not fund potentially experimental and harmful procedures for minors.

House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., praised the passage of the defense measure, though it now heads to the Senate for approval in the Democrat-run chamber.

HOUSE PASSES NEARLY $1 TRILLION DEFENSE SPENDING BILL, ADDING TO U.S. DEBT OF $36 TRILLION

"Our men and women in uniform should know their first obligation is protecting our nation, not woke ideology," Johnson said in a statement after the measure passed.

While the provision was a win for Republicans that could further push President-Elect Donald Trump's policy agenda, the measure did not incorporate several other Republican-backed provisions related to social issues. Notably absent were efforts to ban TRICARE, the military's health program, from covering transgender treatments for adults and a proposal to overturn the Pentagon's hotly-debated policy of reimbursing travel expenses for service members seeking abortions stationed in states where the procedure is restricted.

Democrats were largely outraged by the provision to strip TRICARE from service members' transgender children, with the House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, vowing to vote against the bill on Tuesday despite helping on other portions of the package. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., did not advise his party members to vote for or against it.

124 DEMS OPPOSE HISTORICALLY BIPARTISAN DEFENSE BILL OVER RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSGENDER TREATMENTS FOR MINORS

The measure also drew the ire of the United Nations' Human Rights Council (HRC), which called it an "attack" on military families.

"This cruel and hateful bill suddenly strips away access to medical care for families that members of our armed forces are counting on, and it could force service members to choose between staying in the military or providing health care for their children," HRC President Kelley Robinson said in a statement.

The Senate's response to the transgender treatment provision will be pivotal in determining the final content of the defense policy for the upcoming fiscal year. If it passes, it would align with Trump's criticisms of the military's "woke" policies. 

The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments last week for a first-of-its-kind case involving Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors, which could place further restrictions on the procedures.

RED STATE AG SLAMS BIDEN ADMIN'S ATTEMPT TO 'REWRITE' IMMIGRATION LAW: 'ALICE IN WONDERLAND STUFF'

The $884 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policies for the Defense Department, was passed in a 281-140 vote, with 124 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting against it. 

Other provisions also place limits on diversity, equity and inclusion-based recruitment and the teaching of critical race theory in military-run schools. Other policies include a 14.5% pay boost for junior enlisted troops, expanded child care access and enhanced job assistance for military spouses, reflecting a year of bipartisan focus on addressing record recruitment struggles.

Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

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."

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

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."

Former transgenders, parents and activists braved frigid temperatures on Wednesday morning to rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court to demand an end to the "butchery" and "trauma" of child sex-change surgeries and treatments.

The rally took place as the court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a high-stakes case over the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors. 

One of the rally speakers, Matt Walsh, who is a podcast host for the Daily Wire and creator of the "What Is a Woman" documentary, told Fox News Digital that the case is about "basic truth."

"The trans agenda represents a unique, distinct threat to children. We have to stand up and protect them, that's what this is all about," he said. "If the Supreme Court gets this case right, then we could be looking at ultimately the death of the gender ideology industry. That’s what we want, and that’s what's at stake."

'OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE' OF NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FROM GENDER 'TREATMENTS' FOCUS OF LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE

The rally was organized by a diverse set of groups, including medical watchdog Do No Harm, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Vote and the LGB Alliance.

One member of the LGB Alliance, Glenna Goldis, from Brooklyn, told Fox News Digital that many lesbian, gay and bisexual people see sex-change treatments as a form of conversion therapy.

"A lot of gay people feel strongly about this issue," she said. "But we're not able to get our voices out, because the LGBTQ lobby has so much money, and they drown us out, and they pretend that they're speaking for gay people, but they do not."

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

There was also a significant presence of former transgender people – "detransitioners" – many of whom said they did not want more children to undergo the negative health effects they had endured due to sex-altering treatments. 

One detransitioner, a woman named Laura Becker, told Fox News Digital that she had stopped the treatments after realizing that they were causing her incredible harm and trauma.

"My advocacy is around healing the trauma instead of permanently medically mutilating the bodies of children and vulnerable young adults like I was," she said. "I took testosterone when I was 19, and I had my breasts sliced off when I was 20 years old, despite being suicidal. I ended up being diagnosed with PTSD two years later, just from the transition."

"I had trauma already, which made me have an identity crisis, [and] then I had even more trauma from the medicalization," Becker added. "That's a permanent effect I live with for the rest of my life."  

TENNESSEE GOVERNOR WEIGHS IN AS SCOTUS DEBATES STATE'S BAN ON TRANS SURGERIES FOR MINORS

Another detransitioner, named Claire A., from Maryland, told Fox News Digital that the vast majority of people who undergo sex-change surgeries and treatments suffer from severe traumatic experiences that are only compounded by transitioning.

"I started going to therapy for trauma that I experienced in my childhood that contributed to my trans identity, and through healing from that, I healed from the pain that made me feel I needed to change my body," she said.

Despite ending her treatments, Claire said she continues to suffer daily pain.

"I'm three years off of testosterone, and I still experience pelvic floor dysfunction," she said. "My voice hurts, I can't raise my voice very loud, it hurts to talk. It hurts. My joints hurt. It's not a fun life to live. I would like to keep other children from being forced to live this life."

There were also several parents of transgender children who have been denied custody and access to their children because they would not affirm their transgender identities.  

"I haven’t held my son in four years, my son is six years old now," Adam Vena, a father from California, told Fox News Digital.

Vena said that with the prompting of his son’s mother, his child, Aidan, began transitioning into a girl at two years old. Two years later, Vena said, he lost custody of his son, "because I was not a gender-affirming parent."

ACLU LAWYER DEFENDS TRANS PROCEDURES FOR MINORS DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING 'IT'S NOT THE KIDS WHO ARE CONSENTING'

"A California court ordered my son to go to a gender clinic at a Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles when I requested to sit in on the gender assessment, they denied me access to ask my own questions as his father," he explained. "They also denied me a phone call. So, me being a father has been completely cut out of my son's life." 

Harrison Tinsley, another California father who recently regained custody of his son, told Fox News Digital, "I think this is one of the greatest evils of our time, like our lobotomy or slavery, transgender mutilation of children."

"The time to stop this is right now," said Tinsley. "The Supreme Court's going to rule the right way, and I'm hoping that Trump and Congress can ban this federally, stop the mutilation of children and stop this irreversible damage." 

A progressive political media group founded by former Obama administration staffers is selling "ANTIFA" onesies for babies and other anti-fascist-themed clothing for both kids and adults.   

The items can be bought via a digital merchandise store run by Crooked Media, which was co-founded in 2017 by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett and Tommy Vietor. Oftentimes referred to as the "Obama bros," the three communications professionals co-host "Pod Save America," one of the most listened-to political podcasts in the nation, per Apple Podcasts U.S. rankings.

‘DANGEROUS’ SUSPECTED ANTIFA SYMPATHIZER PLEADS GUILTY TO DETONATING NAIL-FILLED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE

In addition to the "ANTIFA" onesie for babies, a T-shirt with the same bold "ANTIFA" text written across it can be purchased for toddlers via the Crooked Media merch store. An "ANTIFA Dad Hat" is also for sale. 

"ANTIFA" is a common term used to refer to far-left "anti-fascists" who were at the forefront of the George Floyd protests during the summer of 2020. Many of those protests devolved into violent riots, even resulting in the deaths of dozens of people and billions of dollars in property damage because of the unrest. Following that summer, ANTIFA continued to deploy violent tactics.  

A spokesperson for Crooked Media told Fox News Digital that the clothes it has listed on its website "are not a joke," but also quipped that "all toddlers are antifa until their souls are broken by capitalism."

JOURNALIST ATTACKED ON CAMPUS BY ANTIFA RECOGNIZES ATTACKERS FROM 2020 BLM RIOTS: ‘THESE ARE PROFESSIONALS’

In addition to the "ANTIFA"-branded clothing for babies and toddlers, the Crooked Media merch store also carries other items, such as a onesie that reads "WOKE MOB" across the front and another that simply reads "BIRTH CONTROL" in big, bold lettering. One onesie for sale displays the word "ILLUMINATI" on the front. They come in T-shirts, too. 

Crooked Media produces a number of podcasts, but "POD SAVE AMERICA" gets most of the group's attention with nearly 1,000 episodes recorded, far surpassing any of its other programs, according to Crooked's website.

Fox News reporter Brooke Singman contributed to this story.

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender transition medical "treatments" for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law.

At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue rallied in front of the court. Some demonstrators held signs saying, "Kids' Health Matters," while others promoted "Freedom To Be: A Celebration of Transgender Youth & Families."

The court's ruling could affect other current legal fights over transgender rights, including bathroom access and participation in scholastic sports. It could also serve as a legal template to future disputes involving the LGBTQ+ community, and whether sexual orientation is a "protected class" that deserves the same rights that involve a person's race and national origin.

The three justices appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Justice Samuel Alito cited "hotly disputed" medical studies on the supposed benefits of such medical treatments. Instead he referred to other research from Great Britain and Sweden that reported on the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender transition treatments.

Those studies "found a complete lack of high-quality evidence showing that the benefits of the treatments in question here outweigh the risks," he told the federal government's attorney. "Do you dispute that?"

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment.

"Some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don't they? I think some attempt suicide?" she said. "The state has come in here and, in a sharp departure from how it normally addresses this issue, it has completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions and trying to make those trade-offs."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the competing interests facing the high court.

"How do we as a Court choose which set of risks is more serious in deciding whether to constitutionalize this whole area?"

Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday's arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures.

TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT'

"The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. 

Prelogar said the state laws have the effect of "sex discrimination," since the minor's gender is key when determining specific medical treatments for those seeking to transition.

She cited the benefits of such "medically necessary care" that can have the effect of preventing "escalating distress, anxiety, and suicidality." The Justice Department mentioned the experience of Ryan, one of the plaintiffs, who told the courts such treatment "saved his life."

The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed such medical treatments for youths.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters after the arguments, "The Constitution allows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science."

The state's lawyer told the justices its law — known as SB1 — "draws a line between minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes," like a congenital defect or precocious or early onset puberty.

In arguments, much of the discussion was whether the laws were applied equally to boys and girls, and whether states had a greater interest in regulating treatment, since it involved underage individuals.

"It's really for minors," said Justice Clarence Thomas. "So why isn't this simply a case of age classification when it comes to these treatments as opposed to a [outright] ban?" for everyone.

But the three more liberal justices were skeptical of the state's positions.

"It's a dodge to say that this is not based on sex, it's based on medical purpose, when the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex," said Justice Elena Kagan.

She added the state law seems to me sending a message that "there's something fundamentally wrong, fundamentally bad, about youth who are trying to transition."

"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. It "sounds to me like: we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls."

Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors.

A ruling is expected by late June 2025.

The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477). 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened the side effects of transgender medical procedures on minors to that of taking an over-the-counter painkiller during Wednesday's oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case.

"Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin," Sotomayor said. "There's always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So, the question in my mind is not, 'do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment?'"

SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH STATE BAN ON TRANSGENDER 'MEDICAL TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS

Sotomayor's comments came after Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice defended his state’s ban on transgender medical procedures for minors, which is the first time a case involving transgender procedures has been brought before the high court. Rice argued that countries like Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom have limited such interventions due to reported irreversible consequences.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Rice about alternative approaches – like in the case of West Virginia – with Rice dismissing them as speculative policymaking that fails to eliminate risks associated with gender transition entirely.

TRUMP TEAM DISMISSES REPORTS HE WILL DISCHARGE TRANS IN MILITARY: 'NO DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN MADE'

"They cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners," Rice said. "So, it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefit versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to the legislature."

The high-profile case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law 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.  

The three justices appointed by former President Trump could play a key role in the outcome. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett pressed both sides with tough questions, while Justice Neil Gorsuch remained silent throughout the lengthy hearing. A ruling is expected by July 2025.

'OF COURSE I SUPPORT THE PARDON OF MY SON,' JILL BIDEN TELLS REPORTER

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of "general public importance." 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transitions for transgender minors, while more than 15 have enacted "shield" laws that protect such procedures. 

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law.

At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex.

The three justices appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session.

Justice Samuel Alito cited "overwhelming evidence" from some medical studies that cited the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender-affirming care. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment to address gender dysphoria.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday's arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures.

TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT'

"The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors.

A ruling is expected by late June 2025.

The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477). 

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’

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.

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.

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., a former medical doctor, is expected to introduce legislation that would ban gender-related medical procedures on minors and impose a penalty for professionals who perform such treatments, Fox News Digital has learned.

The bill, titled the Safeguarding the Overall Protection (STOP) of Minors Act, aims to prohibit youth gender transition treatment and "castration procedures" by banning "the use of interstate commerce to perform, attempt to perform, conspire to perform, or provide referral for any gender mutilation procedures on a minor."

"Americans resoundingly rejected the Left’s dangerous transgender agenda. Let’s call it exactly what it is: child abuse," said Marshall. 

Marshall is expected to introduce the bill on Capitol Hill on Wednesday: "The days of demented doctors and activists getting rich off of mutilating, sterilizing, and castrating children are over."

The STOP Act, if passed, would call on Health and Human Services (HHS) to impose a civil penalty of at least $100,000 on those "providing transgender mutilation services and treatments" for minors. Secretary Xavier Becerra currently heads HHS under President Biden. However, he will soon be succeeded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. 

GOP LAWMAKERS REVEAL A HEIGHTENED LEGISLATIVE FOCUS AGAINST ‘IRREVERSIBLE’ GENDER SURGERY ON MINORS

The Republican senator's bill also seeks to provide assistance to people who no longer want to continue the gender transition process, commonly referred to as detransitioners.

COURT UPHOLDS RED STATE'S BAN ON TRANS SURGERIES, TREATMENTS FOR MINORS

Marshall signaled he would work with Trump, who has suggested he would seek to slash "gender-affirming" care for minors, on the issue.

"Our legislation keeps children's safety paramount by prohibiting anyone from performing, facilitating, or even conspiring to give these irreversible therapies and procedures to minors," Marshall said. "This bill is just the beginning of what's to come with President Trump at the helm and our unwavering commitment to protecting children from transgender activists' twisted and criminal agenda."

Marshall first teed up the bill during a panel led by Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, and a group of lawmakers who discussed a heightened GOP focus on legislation against transgender medical procedures on minors. 

Lawmakers on the other side of the issue have spoken out in support of such procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement therapy and laser hair removal. Most recently, they pushed back on a ban in Tennessee that prevents minors from receiving puberty blockers.

In September, a total of 164 lawmakers, including 11 senators and 153 representatives in the House, filed an amicus brief defending transgender youth against the ban. 

The Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the law Wednesday and decide on whether to uphold the ban.

Fox News' Jamie Jospeh contributed to this report.

An elementary school in the suburbs of New York City is being called out for teaching a gender identity class to kindergartners after a copy of the course began circulating on social media.

Hillside Elementary School, part of the Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free District, has been teaching a "gender curriculum" to elementary-level children in an effort to promote "inclusion" in the school, according to the course description reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The course includes showing kindergarten students photos of other children which are used to "introduce vocabulary to describe characters of different identities," including teaching them about the terms "cisgender, transgender, and non-binary," according to a message to parents regarding the curriculum.

"Our gender curriculum focuses on Hillside's core value of respect and aims to center discussions on gender identity. The students will learn and discuss that there is a lot you can't tell about a person by simply looking at them," the kindergarten level course description reads. 

PA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AGREES TO CANCEL REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHERS TO ADOPT GUIDELINES DEEMED ‘WOKE’

"The students will look at pictures of children and talk about what they notice and what they think they know about the children just from the pictures. Using their observations, we will then take the opportunity to introduce vocabulary to describe characters of different identities," the school writes.

GOP SENATOR DEBUTS BILL TO ABOLISH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOLLOWING TRUMP CAMPAIGN PROMISE

The "identity" being taught to children includes discussing "gender and the pronouns that you use," and that "as we learn and grow, the words we use to describe our gender identity can grow too," as described by the school.

When asked by Fox News Digital about the curriculum, the Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free District communications team said that the lessons have been in place for several years and are rooted in "Hillside’s core values of respect and fostering dignity for all students."

"One 30-minute gender lesson is taught in each class one time per year. The classes are led by a certified educator, following a specific set of lessons designed to help students value the full diversity of their classmates," Superintendent William S. McKersie said in a message to faculty and parents. "The lessons have been created in alignment with the NYS Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework," he wrote. The school noted that the lessons do not address sex education or sexuality.

The school district said that while they usually have the courses posted publicly online, the gender lesson description has been taken off the website since going viral. 

LibsofTikTok, a social media account known for posting content geared toward calling out the far-left, posted a copy of the message to parents, which quickly received millions of views.

"Our kids can’t read or write or even possess a basic understanding of history, yet the gender communism indoctrination of kindergartners continues unabated," New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino said in a repost of the curriculum. "This won’t stop until these people face real consequences."

Kemberlee Kaye, managing editor of Critical Race Training in Education, a database that allows viewers to see which schools identified have been practicing critical race theory teachings, responded on X to "get your kids out of government schools."