A Tennessee state lawmaker introduced a bill to require law enforcement to send illegal migrants accused of minor crimes to sanctuary cities rather than deporting them to another country.
State Rep. Todd Warner, a Republican, filed the bill, the Tennessee Illegal Immigration Act, ahead of the legislative session. The proposal would also ensure that all law enforcement agencies report illegal migrants to federal immigration authorities.
Warner told Fox 17 that sending migrants to a sanctuary city could cost the state less than deporting them to their home countries, even if the federal government would eventually take on the deportation costs.
"It seeks to make Tennessee safer. It seeks to make the federal government, you know hold their feet to the fire and enforce immigration law and it seeks the state to recoup some costs back out of it," he said.
Under the bill, if ICE fails to show up in 48 hours to pick up an illegal migrant who is detained, law enforcement would help send them to a sanctuary city. Warner said the arresting agency would be responsible for relocating the detained migrants.
Warner said this would be paid for by withholding money Tennessee generates for the federal government through the gas tax.
The lawmaker said he plans to add an amendment clarifying that the bill would only apply to illegal migrants charged with a minor offense. Violent criminals would still be subject to deportation.
"This is for victimless crimes. This is not for someone that has committed a terrible crime," Warner told Fox 17.
Hannah Smalley, the Advocacy and Education Manager at Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors, argues that the proposal would unnecessarily separate migrant families.
"The mere act of being transported away from your family is damaging," she told Fox 17. "This means that people, including people who have not been charged with crimes, are going to be facing these really punitive consequences just on the basis of their immigration status."
"When U.S. citizens commit crimes and we pay a fine or we go to jail," she added. "Immigrants are also doing that. So to then make this about someone's immigration status, which is totally separate from any kind of crime that they would have committed, is not productive to our community as a whole."
Warner said he still has to tweak the bill, but he is hoping it will receive bipartisan support in the legislature.
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."
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."
"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."
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."
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."
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."
"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."
In oral aruments, Supreme Court justices discussed the high-profile, first-of-its-kind case involving transgender medical treatment for children.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the lawmaker at the center of the suit against the Biden administration, told Fox News Digital that over the next few months, the justices will be "thinking a lot about the case."
When asked whether he ever foresaw himself in such a high-profile legal matter, he said, "not remotely."
"I do think the fact that there's so much disagreement weighs in favor of our side," Skrmetti said in a phone interview. "This is an area where the court really shouldn't come in and pick a winner. The data is still very underdeveloped."
"All the research that both sides point to is unresolved," Skrmetti said. "This is an unsettled area of science, and in situations like that, the best way to resolve it is through the democratic process. Our legislators appropriate people to deal with that uncertainty and make the call for each individual state."
The justices appeared divided on Wednesday after oral arguments, and the three 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.
For its part, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Protection Clause, which ensures equal treatment under the law for similarly situated individuals, bars states from prohibiting medical providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to help minors transition to a different gender. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti and is challenging Tennessee's state law which bans medical procedures for minors.
Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators rallied both for and against gender transition treatments for children. One of those rally-goers, detransitioner and activist Chloe Cole, told Fox News Digital in an interview that if the justices oppose the ban on trans medical treatments, "it's going to make things a lot more difficult on legislative fronts in terms of protecting our children and our youth."
"If we want to create a precedent for other states, for first this law, to be upheld in courts and for other states to be upheld as well, we have to do this now," Cole said.
Cole, who detransitioned at the age of 16, told Fox News Digital that doctors had done an "incredible disservice" to her at a young age by helping her transition in the first place.
"I'm never going to even have a chance at nursing my children with what God gave me," Cole said. "An incredible disservice has been done to me by these irresponsible doctors who knew better. They knew better than to do this to a child. They still chose to do it. But they messed with the wrong kid, and I am going to make sure there is never another child in America who is abused in the same way I was ever again."
The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. A decision is expected by July 2025.
"So if the court puts a thumb on the scale and says that the courts could be second-guessing state governments on these issues, I think you're going to see an inhibited debate, and we've seen this happen before in other contexts where democracy is subverted by judges who step a little too far into the policy arena, and that ultimately hurts the country," Skrmetti said.
"It de-legitimates the government," he added. "It makes people feel alienated from the political process. The alternative is it stays open to our democratic system of resolving disagreements, and you'll see a lot of debate, and different states will go in different directions, and over time, we'll have better research, and people will have a chance to debate this extensively, and that's just the better way to come to a resolution on such a hot button issue where the Constitution is silent."
The Justices' decision may also influence broader debates about whether sexual orientation and gender identity qualify as protected classes under civil rights laws, akin to protections for race and national origin.
When asked whether Skrmetti believes the incoming Trump administration could persuade the justices one way in the case, he said, "It's ultimately up to the court how they want to handle that." Trump promised during his campaign he would outlaw transgender medical procedures for minors and open the doorway to allowing individuals to sue medical providers for conducting them.
"But there is a path there for them to continue this, and I think it's important that we get clarity soon, because there are so many cases involving these issues, and the lower courts have not been consistent and are looking for guidance, and it would do everyone good to have a more clear answer to the state of the law," he said.
Fox News Digital's Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
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.
President-elect Trump flipped six highly competitive states in his election victory last week. But as a Fox News analysis showed last week, his gains with voters were not limited to the battlegrounds.
This list covers the 10 states where Trump most outperformed his 2020 margins.
Notably, conservative strongholds aren’t the only states that made the list. The top 10 also includes deeply Democrat areas. Trump didn’t win these states, but they swung to the right.
Vote counting continues in some highly populated states on this list, including California and New York.
The president-elect posted a 4.2-point improvement on his 2020 vote share; Harris slipped by roughly the same amount.
He gained across Texas, with the largest swings concentrated in the southern parts of the state. Webb County, for example, home to Laredo, moved 25 points toward Trump. That gave Republicans their first win there in over a century.
On election night, the Fox News Decision Desk projected that Trump would win the state. With 99% of the vote counted, he is winning by 14 points.
Note: As of this writing, approximately 2% of ballots have not yet been counted in Mississippi.
So far, Mississippi has swung eight points toward Trump.
The president-elect posted a four-point improvement on his 2020 vote share; Harris slipped by roughly the same amount.
