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.
"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.
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.
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.
The LPGA's new rule that bans post-puberty biological males from pro women's golf competition has been widely celebrated by women's sports activists after it was passed this week.
However, it has also earned gripes from transgender golfer Hailey Davidson, who spoke out against the ban in an Instagram story on Thursday and claimed the LPGA did not seek Davidson's input on the decision.
Davidson's participation resulted in one of the sport's first bans of a trans athlete earlier in March and provided evidence that doing so might be met with more praise than backlash.
This happened after venture capitalist Stuart McKinnon purchased and took control of the NXXT Golf Tour in January 2023, when Davidson was already a participant.
"I was advised that Hailey was a transgender, and I asked Hailey for some proof of verification that there's eligibility to play, and I had a partnership with the LPGA, so I'm following their rules, and I was provided with a letter from the USGA (United States Golf Association) and a letter from the LPGA by Hailey stating that Hailey was qualified to play in USGA and LPGA sanctioned events," McKinnon said during an X spaces conversation on Thursday with the Independent Council on Women's Sports.
McKinnon learned that trans athletes were very much permitted to participate in the tour he had just purchased. It was a purchase he had made because he wanted to create more opportunities for women's golfers, he said. However, Davidson became a part of that investment because of the institutional rules protecting trans athletes.
"I'm trying to help these ladies and I didn't want to break the rules with the LPGA because, ultimately, I was afraid," McKinnond said, adding that his specific fear was that of the tour's players missing out on exemptions to qualify for other LPGA events.
McKinnon had to watch Davidson finish first place on the tour this past January, marking Davidson's third first-place finish at the event. The win put Davidson in the race to earn an Epson Tour exemption, which is the developmental tour of the LPGA Tour. The top 10 players of the Epson Tour graduate to the LPGA Tour.
After watching Davidson perform up close on the tour he had purchased, McKinnon had come to the belief that it was not fair.
"Davidson won an event… I wasn't at the event, but I was dialed in, hearing what was going on, and Hailey started to dominate," McKinnon said. "As a father of five daughters, I'm here to protect my daughters and protect females, and I can tell you, like, I'm the type of father, if I was watching my daughter playing soccer and there was a male that was playing against her, and he was 240 lbs, barreling down the field, I would have gone on the field and I would have stopped it.
"It's something that can cause, in certain sports, physical damage to a player. In this case, it's not the case in golf, but we clearly felt there was an advantage for Hailey Davidson."
McKinnon and NXXT banned Davidson from the tour in March. It was a landmark moment for the fight against trans inclusion in women's golf and sparked national controversy. At the time, Davidson was second in the mini tour’s season standings.
McKinnon simply could not stand to watch Davidson and the golfer's overpowering swings on his tour anymore.
"Hailey would spew off some things on social media, ‘I only hit it 255' or whatever the number is, and I can unequivocally tell you that that's incorrect," McKinnon said. "Our team was behind Hailey, I could say, I was told once, dead into the wind, 25 an hour and clocked at 269 [mph]. So it's not 255."
McKinnon and his colleagues at NXXT began to consult with scientists and experts about a case to ban Davidson from the tour. McKinnon said he sent out an anonymous poll to all the tour's players about what they would like to see happen with Davidson.
McKinnon said the poll had to be anonymous because players were fearful of answering with their names because they were scared they would be "canceled." He also claims the anonymous responses were "overwhelmingly" in favor of making a change regarding Davidson's eligibility.
"I sat down with my family, I sat down with all of my daughters and said ‘We’re in this together or not. We potentially will get a lot of backlash, a lot of hatred, people will be against us for this,' and we decided we needed to do what we felt was the right thing, and we did it.," McKinnon said.
However, McKinnon says the decision did not prompt the backlash he warned his daughters about.
"We didn't get sued yet, and we didn't get the negative backlash, it was minimal at best, our lawyers were astonished how much little backlash there was, and it was a lot of love and support," McKinnon said.
McKinnon went on to commend the LPGA for following his lead and passing their recent rule, insisting that it took more courage for the LPGA to do it over his lead because the association had to weigh the possibility of losing sponsorship deals, which it hasn't yet.
Multiple women's golfers have come forward to praise and celebrate the LPGA's rule change on Wednesday that bars post-pubescent males from competing against females in pro competition.
The Independent Women's Forum released a press release in which several women golfers spoke in favor of the ruling later on Wednesday. These golfers include Lauren Miller, Hannah Arnold, Dana Fall and Amy Olson.
Miller said that she and female colleagues in pro golf have said "no more" to the issues of competing against biological males with the statement.
"This announcement from the LPGA and USGA gives me hope for the future of women’s golf," Miller said. "The movement of female professional golfers was essential and has been heard — we’ve stood up and said, ‘No more’. By acknowledging the distinctions between men and women, golf leadership is uniting with us in their desire to champion women and girls by restoring a space that prioritizes fair competition. Today, women have won."
Olson, meanwhile, insisted that the biological differences between men and women should be acknowledged in sports.
"This is a positive step forward, recognizing that an individual’s chromosomes affect their physical development in ways that are irreversible," Olson said.
Fox News Digital has reached out to Davidson for comment but has not received a response.
A woman in northern California recently entered a man into a women's surfing competition in a sarcastic protest of transgender inclusion in women's sports. The stunt made the female contestants feel "uncomfortable," but the woman who did it defended her decision.
Emily Pillari, a chiropractor in San Jose, penned an op-ed for Look Out Santa Cruz, defending her recent stunt to sign up male swim coach Calder Nold for the recent Women on Waves (WOW) surf contest. Nold, 40, is 6-foot-2, 220 pounds.
"Certainly, the fear of offending the transgender community and its allies, and the risk that comes with doing so (more on that, below), is tying the hands and smothering many voices of reason when it comes to this discussion. By entering an apparently male surfer in Women on Waves, I sought to give people a safe chance to express their sentiments … and they did," Pillari wrote.
The chiropractor's op-ed was a response to another op-ed for the same outlet penned by one of the contestants who agonized about her experience competing against Nold.
The surfer who penned that piece, local author Liza Monroy, described what it felt like seeing the shirtless Nold next to her ahead of the competition.
"I competed alongside Nold that sunny Saturday morning. He wore the requisite jersey wrapped around his neck and was bare-chested and in board shorts. A participant asked why he was there. What was he trying to do or prove by competing in Women On Waves? Did he identify as a woman? Nold brushed it off, saying a friend had "nominated" him," Monroy wrote.
"He seemed to be there to make women uncomfortable on purpose."
Monroy also criticized Pillari for being anti-transgender, expressing pro-transgender sentiment in her piece.
"Competing against a cis man was not the intimidating part to me; I love the contest and surfing, and I’m happy to surf against anyone. What hurt me personally about his participation was the intent behind it," Monroy wrote. "To enroll a man in a women’s event to protest the inclusion of trans women in women’s events is a harmful act, hands down."
Monroy suggested transgender athletes are not at a physical advantage over female competitors and even criticized former college swimmer and OutKick contributor Riley Gaines for her activism in protecting women's sports from transgender inclusion.
Nold has said the process for registering for the competition as a man did not have any barriers, and he was allowed to compete despite being male.
"We were not sneaking. We did not lie. We did not have to fabricate anything. I did not even have to identify as anything. I participated based on the exact requirements," Nold told Reduxx. "The only place the word ‘woman’ appears is in the contest title. Everything else referred to ‘people who love the water’ or ‘people who support women’s surfing.’ That’s me. I fit that bill."
Nold was disqualified from the competition after leading in the first two heats, but not because he is a man. Nold was disqualified because judges determined he was not wearing his jersey properly.
The issue of transgender inclusion in women's sports became one of the nation's most volatile political issues of the most recent election cycle, with a concentration of controversies based in northern California.
The most prominent controversy has played out 35 miles northeast of Capitola Beach, where the surf contest took place, at San Jose State University. The university's volleyball team just wrapped up a season that stirred national controversy over a transgender athlete on the team.
San Jose State co-captain Brooke Slusser has filed two lawsuits alleging the university kept her teammate's birth sex secret from her and other players while being made to share sleeping and changing spaces with that player.
Stone Ridge Christian High School, located in Merced, California, forfeited a state playoff volleyball game against a team that was said to have a biological male transgender athlete on its team. Stone Ridge Christian was commended for the decision and even held a ceremony with Gaines to celebrate the decision.
A recent lawsuit by female athletes at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, has alleged their "Save Girls Sports" T-shirts were likened to a swastika by school officials. The plaintiffs wore the shirts after a transgender athlete, who had not consistently attended practices or met key varsity eligibility requirements, was placed on the varsity team, displacing one of the girls from her spot, the complaint alleged.
A girls cross country runner at the school, Rylee Morrow, gave an impassioned plea at a school board meeting Nov. 21, saying the way things have been handled makes her feel "unsafe."
"The whole LGBTQ is shoved down our throats," Morrow cried.
"It is not OK that I have to be in position, and I have to see a male in booty shorts and having to see that around me. As a 16-year-old girl, I don't see that as a safe environment," Morrow said. "Going into a locker room and seeing males in there, I don't find that safe. I don't find going to the bathroom safe when there's guys in there. It's not OK. I'm a 16-year-old girl."
Multiple women's golfers came forward to praise and celebrate the LPGA's rule change on Wednesday that bars post-pubescent males from competing against females in pro competition.
The organization said in a news release that male players who have gone through male puberty are barred from competing in the LPGA Tour, Epson Tour, Ladies European Tour and all other elite LPGA competitions. The new rule will go into effect for the 2025 season.
"Players assigned male at birth and who have gone through male puberty are not eligible to compete in the aforementioned events," the organization said. "The policies governing the LPGA’s recreational programs and non-elite events utilize different criteria to provide opportunities for participation in the broader LPGA community."
The International Women's Forum (IWF) released a press release in which several women golfers spoke in favor of the ruling later on Wednesday. These golfers include Lauren Miller, Hannah Arnold, Dana Fall, and Amy Olson.
Miller said that she and female colleagues in pro golf have said "no more" to the issues of competing against biological males with the statement.
"This announcement from the LPGA and USGA gives me hope for the future of women’s golf," Miller said. "The movement of female professional golfers was essential and has been heard — we’ve stood up and said, ‘No more’. By acknowledging the distinctions between men and women, golf leadership is uniting with us in their desire to champion women and girls by restoring a space that prioritizes fair competition. Today, women have won."
Olson, meanwhile, insisted that the biological differences between men and women should be acknowledged in sports.
"This is a positive step forward, recognizing that an individual’s chromosomes affect their physical development in ways that are irreversible," Olson said.
Fall said that Wednesday's announcement indicates that "women do matter" in sports.
"Today’s policy announcement is a huge win for women and girls in sports. The LPGA and USGA, the premiere bodies which dictate the rules of women’s golf, are standing up for fairness and the integrity of our sport. Today, the message sent to women is that we do matter, and they are working to return equal opportunity and protect fair sport for female athletes," Fall said.
Still, the announcement was not meant with unanimous praise. Liberals and trans rights activists have criticized the new rule.
Transgender golfer Hailey Davidson spoke out against the new rule, as it will likely prevent Davidson from competing in the LPGA moving forward.
"Can’t say I didn’t see this coming. Banned from the Epson and LPGA," Davidson wrote in an Instagram Stories post. "All the silence and people wanting to stay ‘neutral’ thanks for absolutely nothing. This happened because of all your silence.
"And somehow people are surprised the suicide rate for transgender people is around 50%. Situations just like this are part of the reason."
A female golfer who competed against Davidson, Olivia Schmidt, made a plea to the LPGA to ban trans athletes like Davidson during an appearance at the Independent Women's Forum in November.
"The bottom line is we can fight this all we want, but the true change comes from the LPGA. They are the only ones with the power to stop it. It’s up to them to protect us," she said.
"I want my kids one day to chase their dreams and not have these distractions in their way. I’m just praying that [the policy] gets changed, and I’m praying that we can find a way to kind of find some common ground in that and hopefully for the next generation of golfers."
Now, the LPGA has fulfilled that wish for all of its female competitors and fans.
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.
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.
"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.
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?'"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on sex reassignment surgery for minors on Wednesday. It is a decision that could play a part in shaping the future of girls' sports and prevention of biological males from competing against female athletes for generations to come.
The case, known as US v. Skrmetti,will focus on a law that was signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee in 2023. The law, SB 1, bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors in the state and imposes civil penalties for doctors who violate the prohibitions.
The law is aimed to prevent such access to "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex," or treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity."
These medications and procedures, when administered to minors, have created a pathway for biological males to compete in girls' youth sports teams across the country.
Tennessee lawmakers have advised minors to "appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty."
Meanwhile, attorneys for the Biden administration and transgender youth in Tennessee will press the justices to declare the 2023 law unconstitutional. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is arguingon behalf of the families, will be the first openly transgender lawyer to present a case before the Supreme Court.
Tennessee is one of 23 states that has such a law in place to prevent these treatments from being available to minors. Tennessee is also one of 23 states that has a law in place to restrict or prevent trans athletes in girls' sports, but that issue is not being contested on Wednesday.
Lee signed the state's trans athletes ban in April 2022, and it went into effect in July of that year. However, even states that have put those laws in place have seen federal judges enable trans athletes in those states to compete against and share locker rooms with girls anyway.
Judges Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire and M. Hannah Lauck of Virginia, both of whom were appointed during the Obama administration, each issued rulings this year that enabled biological males to play on high school girls' soccer and tennis teams. McCafferty issued an order that allowed two transgender athletes to compete in New Hampshire, while Lauck ruled that an 11-year-old transgender tennis player was allowed to compete against girls the same age in Virginia.
In California, a state with laws in place to protect trans athletes in girls' sports, multiple high schools have been embroiled in scandals involving trans athletes in girls' teams and the female athletes not accepting them.
A recent lawsuit by female athletes at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, has alleged that their "Save Girls Sports" T-shirts were likened to a swastika by school officials. The plaintiffs had worn the shirts after a transgender athlete, who had not consistently attended practices or met key varsity eligibility requirements, was placed on the varsity team, displacing one of the girls from her spot, the complaint alleged.
A girls' cross country runner at the school, Rylee Morrow, gave an impassioned plea at a school board meeting on Nov. 21, when she lambasted her school and said the way things have been handled makes her feel "unsafe."
"The whole LGBTQ is shoved down our throats!" Morrow cried.
"It is not OK that I have to be in position, and I have to see a male in booty shorts, and having to see that around me. As a 16-year-old girl, I don't see that as a safe environment," Morrow said. "Going into a locker room and seeing males in there, I don't find that safe, I don't find going to the bathroom safe when there's guys in there. It's not okay. I'm a 16-year-old girl!"
In Washington, another state with laws to protect trans inclusion, the Central Valley School Board voted to send a letter to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, asking it to change its policies that have allowed trans athletes to compete against girls.
One of the women who advocated for it, an unidentified current cross country runner, shared her experience of having to compete against one of those athletes during the hearing.
"When I ran cross country for Greenacres Middle School, a boy who was biologically male but identified as female competed on the girls' team," she said. "While I respect everyone's right to participate in sports, the situation made me question the fairness of competing of someone who had the physical advantage associated with male biology."
Most policies that allow trans athletes to compete have clauses in place that require those athletes to have undergone the types of treatments and medications that Tennessee seeks to ban for minors. If those are unavailable to minors, the instances of trans athletes competing on those teams would likely drop significantly, at least at the youth level.
The Supreme Court's decision will set a historical precedent while determining the course of many lives and athletic careers.
In August, the court ruled 5-4 in denying the Biden administration an emergency request to enforce portions of a new rule that includes protection from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX.
The request would have permitted biological men in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms in 10 states where there are state-level and local-level rules in place to prevent it.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch was the only conservative justice to dissent in that decision.
EXCLUSIVE: Two high school cross-country runners and their families are suing a California school district, alleging their "Save Girls Sports" T-shirts were likened to a swastika.
Plaintiffs Kaitlyn and Taylor, two athletes at Martin Luther King High School in ninth and eleventh grade, respectively, wore T-shirts bearing the messages "Save Girls’ Sports" and "It’s Common Sense. XX ≠ XY."
The girls wore the shirts after a transgender athlete, who didn’t consistently attend practices or meet key varsity eligibility requirements, was placed on the varsity team, displacing Taylor from her spot, the complaint alleged.
"My initial reaction was like, I was really surprised, because it was like, why is this happening to me?" Taylor told Fox News Digital. "There's a transgender student on the team. Why am I getting displaced when I worked so hard and gone to all of the practices, and this student has only attended a few of the practices."
Athletic department school officials allegedly forced the students to remove or conceal the shirts, claiming they created a "hostile" environment and comparing wearing these shirts to wearing a swastika in front of Jewish students.
"It was definitely hard to hear because we're by no means trying to be hateful," Kaitlyn told Fox News Digital. "We're just wearing a shirt that expresses what we believe in trying to raise awareness to a situation."
The transgender athlete, however, has been allegedly allowed to wear "trans pride" bracelets, and the school allows other forms of social messaging around campus, including a LGBTQ pride flag, the complaint noted.
"The biological male transgender athlete who displaced T.S. on the girls’ varsity team had recently transferred from another local high school after breaking that school’s all-time cross-country record for the girls’ cross-country team," the complaint said.
"T.S., who had held a position on the girls’ Varsity Top 7 since August 2024 was removed from the girls’ Varsity Top 7 to make room on the girls’ Varsity Top 7 for an eleventh-grade transgender student and T.S. was relegated to the junior varsity team for one of the most important meets of the season for college recruitment," the complaint said.
According to the girls' Advocates for Faith and Freedom attorney, Julianne Fleischer, the lawsuit claims there were violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their Title IX protections.
In October, according to the complaint, the district’s Title IX coordinator, Bethany Scott, informed Taylor's mother of a formal investigation into her complaint. Scott also conveyed that Taylor would not be disadvantaged by running on the junior varsity team at a key upcoming cross-country meet, but her mother argued it would harm her chances of being noticed by college scouts. By Nov. 1, after follow-ups, the district reclassified the Title IX complaint as a confidential personnel matter, claiming it did not meet the criteria for sex-based discrimination.
Typically, multiple factors, beyond race times, are considered for varsity selection on the cross-country team They complaint alleges that Taylor's dedication and hard work were overlooked, and the school district failed to provide a clear explanation, forming the basis of the Title IX complaint, Fleisher said.
"We're seeing more and more women and young girls speak up and challenge these policies that are allowing biological boys to join and participate in these sports," Fleischer told Fox News Digital. "And so there's lawsuits that are popping up all around the country. We're hopeful that even with the incoming administration and Congress that we're going to see real positive change to Title IX that actually upholds and safeguards the rights of women to participate in their sports and to be safe and to be able to compete amongst one another."
Under the Biden-Harris administration, Title IX was amended to include discrimination against gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled against one of Biden's requests in August that would have permitted biological men in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms in 10 states where there are state-level and local-level rules in place to prevent it.
On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump said he would roll back Biden-Harris policies on gender treatments for minors and protect women in sports.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Riverside Unified School District and Martin Luther King High School for comment.
Delaware set off a firestorm this month after it elected the first transgender woman to Congress, leading some Republicans to demand the new lawmaker be barred from women’s bathrooms.
Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, currently a Democrat state senator for President Biden’s hometown of Claymont, Delaware, defeated retired Delaware State Trooper John Whalen III, 58%-42%. McBride succeeds Rep. Lisa Blunt-Rochester, D-Del., who won the retiring Tom Carper’s open U.S. Senate seat.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., led the charge against allowing McBride from using the women’s restrooms on Capitol Hill. McBride is a biological male who identifies and presents as a woman. Mace said Tuesday she is now receiving death threats, adding that she is the one being "unfairly targeted."
Mace drafted resolution H.R. 1579 on Monday which would prohibit members, officers and employees of the House from using facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.
As of Tuesday afternoon, it had been referred to the House Administration Committee currently chaired by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., but did not appear to have come to a vote yet.
The bill would direct House Sergeant-at-Arms William McFarland to enforce the new provision.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., told reporters she supports Mace’s resolution and called McBride "mentally ill."
"Sarah McBride, as he calls himself, formerly Tim McBride, is a biological man, and he should not be using any of our restrooms in the Capitol and those in our office buildings," Greene said.
"Nancy Mace's resolution doesn't go far enough. Her resolution is just a statement by Congress saying that Congress disagrees with something. We need something more binding."
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R–La., a noted social conservative, said he’s "not going to get into this."
"We welcome all new members with open arms who are duly elected representatives of the people. I believe it's a command that we treat all persons with dignity and respect, that we will. And I'm not going to engage in silly debates about this."
Johnson added that the issue of gender identity in locker rooms and bathrooms is not something Congress has had to address before and thus deserves honest deliberation and "member consensus."
"And we will accommodate the needs of every single person," the speaker added.
Greene said the situation reminds her of how student-athletes were forced to compete against biological males who are physiologically stronger as a baseline.
"There is a volleyball player that has brain damage today because of a biological male spiking a ball into her head."
In that regard, former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines, who was forced to compete against a transgender University of Pennsylvania swimmer, slammed McBride’s pointed response to criticisms.
"And even after his temper tantrum, he's still a man," she wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Gaines is an OutKick.com contributor and the host of the "Gaines for Girls" podcast.
In a 2015 story in American’s college magazine, McBride said, "My father said to me that he was not losing a son but gaining a daughter. That was one of the most profound moments in my transition. It was a major relief when it was clear that both my parents saw me as who I am."
In earlier comments about her resolution, Mace said she is a rape survivor and still has PTSD from her abuse at the hands of a man.
Later Tuesday, Mace said the issue is protecting women and girls and making sure Congress acts in accordance.
"[McBride] doesn't get a say. This is about real women and women's rights and the far-left radical left. They want to erase women and women's rights, and I'm not going to let them," she said.
"Here's the deal: Biological men shouldn't be in women's private spaces, period, end of story," she said.
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., defended McBride on Tuesday, telling reporters he was "sick to his stomach" by Mace’s resolution.
In a statement, McBride called the situation "a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing."
"Delawareans sent me here to make the American dream more affordable and accessible and that’s what I’m focused on."
Fox News Digital reached out to McBride's campaign and Dover office for additional comment on the new criticisms and was provided with an initial statement.
Fox News’ Daniel Scully, Tyler Olson and Ryan Schmelz contributed to this report.
