All eyes on U.S. v. Skrmetti: Trump DOJ Supports Tennessee
Mar 27, 2025 by FACT
At the end of last year, due to an appeal from the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), the US Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Tennessee’s 2023 “Help Not Harm” bill (SB1), which protects children from dangerous so-called “gender-affirming care” procedures. After the hearing in December, proponents of the bill remained optimistic that the Supreme Court would uphold the law and defend the constitutionality of measures restricting such medical intervention, which have been passed in 25 other states. In early February, the Trump administration’s DOJ made an interesting course-correction in this pivotal case.
“Last year, the United States filed briefs contending that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States advanced the same position at oral argument. Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the United States’ position in this case. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position,” the DOJ wrote.
Here’s where it gets interesting: Trump’s DOJ didn’t just reverse the United States’ position in this case; they urged the Supreme Court to still issue a ruling on it to set a precedent for other cases that will involve the same issues.
“The United States believes that the confluence of several factors counsels against seeking to dismiss its case in this Court. The Court’s prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts,” the letter continued.
The Court is expected to issue a ruling in June.
Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti commended the DOJ’s letter, reemphasizing the purpose of SB1 and its continued importance: “A bipartisan coalition of Tennessee’s elected lawmakers reviewed developing medical evidence and prohibited gender transition procedures for kids, procedures that are life-altering and often irreversible. This commonsense protection for minors parallels similar moves in half of the States as well as a growing number of European countries. We commend President Trump for abandoning the previous administration’s effort to enshrine gender ideology into the Constitution and prevent the people’s elected officials from resolving these important and contentious issues.”
The decision in this case will have massive implications on several other high-profile cases currently on the Supreme Court and lower courts’ dockets, such as this case, which involves whether schools can force gender ideology onto students without parental consent, and this case, which questions whether individuals who consider themselves “transgender” can serve in the military.
FACT continues to stand in strong support of AG Skrmetti in this consequential case. In our amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court, we argue that states not only have a right to outlaw these medical interventions, but they have a duty to protect minors’ natural, healthy bodies from these procedures. We call on the Supreme Court to recognize that truth and rule in Tennessee’s favor in US v. Skrmetti.
“Last year, the United States filed briefs contending that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States advanced the same position at oral argument. Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the United States’ position in this case. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position,” the DOJ wrote.
Here’s where it gets interesting: Trump’s DOJ didn’t just reverse the United States’ position in this case; they urged the Supreme Court to still issue a ruling on it to set a precedent for other cases that will involve the same issues.
“The United States believes that the confluence of several factors counsels against seeking to dismiss its case in this Court. The Court’s prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts,” the letter continued.
The Court is expected to issue a ruling in June.
Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti commended the DOJ’s letter, reemphasizing the purpose of SB1 and its continued importance: “A bipartisan coalition of Tennessee’s elected lawmakers reviewed developing medical evidence and prohibited gender transition procedures for kids, procedures that are life-altering and often irreversible. This commonsense protection for minors parallels similar moves in half of the States as well as a growing number of European countries. We commend President Trump for abandoning the previous administration’s effort to enshrine gender ideology into the Constitution and prevent the people’s elected officials from resolving these important and contentious issues.”
The decision in this case will have massive implications on several other high-profile cases currently on the Supreme Court and lower courts’ dockets, such as this case, which involves whether schools can force gender ideology onto students without parental consent, and this case, which questions whether individuals who consider themselves “transgender” can serve in the military.
FACT continues to stand in strong support of AG Skrmetti in this consequential case. In our amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court, we argue that states not only have a right to outlaw these medical interventions, but they have a duty to protect minors’ natural, healthy bodies from these procedures. We call on the Supreme Court to recognize that truth and rule in Tennessee’s favor in US v. Skrmetti.
