Gayety

Tag: Joe Biden

  • Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

    Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

    In a decision poised to reshape the legal future of transgender healthcare in America, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors, igniting sharp reactions from legal experts, medical professionals, and LGBTQ+ advocates.

    The 6-3 ruling, delivered Wednesday, greenlights Tennessee’s restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and transition-related surgeries for those under 18, positioning the law as a potential blueprint for similar measures across other states.

    A Legal Turning Point for Trans Youth

    The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, was brought by families of transgender youth and a healthcare provider who argued the law unfairly targeted and harmed trans minors. Enacted in 2023, the Tennessee law prohibits physicians from providing gender-affirming treatment to anyone under 18, regardless of the patient’s medical history or psychological evaluations.

    Writing for the conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not settle “intensely disputed medical and policy questions” related to gender identity and youth care.

    “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,” Roberts wrote. “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates… the implications for all are profound.”

    While the court did not weigh in on whether transgender people constitute a protected class requiring heightened legal scrutiny, the ruling opens the door for more state-level restrictions to survive judicial challenges. Twenty-four other states have enacted similar legislation.

    @cbsmornings

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, a decision that is likely to have broad implications for access to medical treatments for transgender youth in half of the country. The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were in dissent.

    ♬ original sound – CBS Mornings

    Fierce Dissent from Liberal Justices

    The court’s liberal wing, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued a blistering dissent. Joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued the Tennessee law is rooted in sex-based discrimination and directly harms transgender youth.

    “This case is about whether Tennessee can forbid doctors from providing necessary medical care to transgender teenagers,” she wrote. “The answer should be a resounding no.”

    Calling the majority opinion “incredibly dangerous,” Sotomayor accused the court of retreating from meaningful judicial review and abandoning vulnerable youth “to political whims.” She took the rare step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench.

    Advocacy Groups, Experts, and Online Communities React

    The Supreme Court’s decision drew swift condemnation from civil rights organizations, medical professionals, and a wave of voices online.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs, issued a strongly worded statement calling the ruling “devastating.” Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice, warned that the decision paves the way for further legal attacks on gender-affirming care nationwide. “Today’s ruling is a loss not just for trans youth and their families, but for anyone who believes in the basic constitutional right to access medical care,” he said.

    Online, the backlash was swift and emotional. The hashtag #TransRightsAreHumanRights began trending on X (formerly Twitter), with thousands expressing solidarity with trans youth. Congresswoman Ayana Pressley posted, “Make no mistake: This is a coordinated attempt to further control our bodies and our lives.” Congressman Shri Thanedar also chimed in saying, “No court should decide a person’s worth, and I’ll never stop fighting for trans communities across this country.”

    Political Implications and the Path Forward

    The ruling arrives amid a national wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. The ACLU has tracked over 500 such bills in 2025 alone, with more than 100 directly impacting healthcare access. Activists warn that this Supreme Court decision could embolden lawmakers to pursue additional restrictions, not just for minors, but for adults as well.

    Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the ruling, framing it as a defense of “common sense over judicial activism.” He urged lawmakers to base future healthcare laws “on science, not ideology.”

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration, which had backed the plaintiffs, criticized the court’s decision. While the ruling didn’t address parental rights under the 14th Amendment, it’s expected that new legal battles on that front may emerge.

    President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January, has already issued executive orders targeting gender-affirming care, though some were immediately challenged in lower courts. His administration praised the Supreme Court’s decision, with a spokesperson claiming it protects children from “barbaric procedures” based on “junk science.”

    What’s Next?

    The ruling does not mandate bans nationwide but gives states broader legal cover to implement similar laws. It also sets the stage for future Supreme Court showdowns on trans participation in sports, healthcare for adults, and other civil rights matters.

    While trans youth in more progressive states may continue to access care, Wednesday’s decision underscores the deepening divide over transgender rights in America.

    As advocates regroup and prepare for new legal fights, one message remains clear: the future of trans healthcare, and the dignity of the youth who depend on it, hangs in the balance.

  • Kamala Harris Goes Viral at Emerge Gala for Pride Fan Whip and Surprise Dance With LGBTQ+ Influencer

    Kamala Harris Goes Viral at Emerge Gala for Pride Fan Whip and Surprise Dance With LGBTQ+ Influencer

    Kamala Harris made a high-profile return to the national spotlight Wednesday night, delivering a pointed political speech—and creating a few meme-worthy moments—at the Emerge Gala in San Francisco.

    Held to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Emerge, a group that recruits and trains Democratic women to run for office, the event saw Harris call out the current presidential administration and double down on key progressive issues. But it was her rainbow-flag moment with a gay influencer that had the internet buzzing.

    Politics Meets Pop Culture (and a Bit of Line Dancing)

    Offstage, Harris took time to chat with LGBTQ+ content creators, including social media personality Kenneth Walden. One short clip of the vice president gleefully flipping open a Pride flag has already been memed across TikTok and Instagram, with fans dubbing it “Politics, but make it gay.”

    Another viral moment came when Harris and Walden broke into a few moves from the “Boots On the Ground” viral line dance—reminding everyone that she’s still got rhythm and political relevance.

    “She Did Tell Us So…”

    In a brief but buzzy exchange, Walden told Harris he didn’t want to say “I told you so” about her early warnings regarding a potential second Trump presidency—but as he added with a laugh, “She did tell us so.”

    Harris responded by calling the current state of U.S. politics a “high-velocity implementation of a long-standing plan.” She stressed the urgent need for a counter-plan: one rooted in defending public education, protecting Medicare and Medicaid, and showing up to vote.

    Taking Aim From the Podium

    Later that night, Harris addressed the Emerge crowd with a blistering critique of the current administration.

    “Instead of an administration working to advance our highest ideals,” she said, “we are witnessing the wholesale abandonment of those ideals.”

    She accused Trump—referred to by many Democrats as the “Chaos-in-Chief”—of orchestrating “the greatest man-made economic crisis in modern presidential history.” She slammed what she described as an agenda to slash education, shrink government, and privatize public services while rewarding the wealthy with tax breaks.

    “We are living in their vision of America,” Harris said. “And this is not a vision Americans want.”

    What’s Next for Kamala?

    Harris has kept a relatively low profile since the 2024 election, where she and President Biden lost to the Trump ticket. But Wednesday’s appearance signaled that she may be gearing up for something bigger.

    Political observers speculate that Harris could run for governor of California in 2026—or even launch a second presidential campaign in 2028. While no announcements have been made, her fiery tone and renewed public presence suggest she’s not stepping away from politics anytime soon.

  • Biden Administration’s Title IX Protections for LGBTQ+ Students Struck Down by Federal Judge

    Biden Administration’s Title IX Protections for LGBTQ+ Students Struck Down by Federal Judge

    A federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations, which expanded protections for LGBTQ+ students, were unconstitutional, striking them down nationwide. The decision, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves, invalidated the entire 1,500-page regulation, citing what he described as “fatally” flawed legal reasoning.

    The ruling is a significant blow to the administration’s effort to protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination in education. The regulation had already faced challenges in 26 states, with Republican-led states filing lawsuits over the policy. The Title IX rule, which aimed to extend protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, was heavily contested from the start.

    Judge Reeves’ ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by several states, including Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. These states argued that the administration had overstepped its authority by broadening the scope of Title IX, a landmark 1972 law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.

    Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the decision, calling it a rebuke to the Biden administration’s “relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology.” Skrmetti added that the ruling would allow President Donald Trump, who is poised to return to office, to “take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations.”

    “There’s nothing in Title IX suggesting that it should cover anything more than it has since Congress created it,” Reeves wrote in his decision. “This is an attempt to bypass the legislative process and completely transform Title IX,” the judge added.

    The regulations had been finalized in 2022 by the Department of Education under President Joe Biden. They expanded the scope of Title IX to include protections for LGBTQ+ students, explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. In addition, the new rules broadened the definition of harassment to include a wider range of misconduct.

    While civil rights groups lauded the changes as a victory for LGBTQ+ students, critics, primarily from conservative circles, viewed them as a threat to women’s sports and an overreach of executive power. Critics, including some prominent figures from the Trump administration, argued that the rules could allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports, which they claimed would undermine fairness.

    The ruling from Judge Reeves effectively invalidates the expanded interpretation of Title IX, reverting to the previous, narrower interpretation that existed prior to the new regulation. Reeves said his decision would “simply cause a return to the status quo” that had been in place for more than five decades.

    One of the most vocal opponents of the new regulations was Betsy DeVos, the former Secretary of Education under President Trump. DeVos took to social media after the ruling, calling the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX “radical, unfair, illegal, and absurd.” She expressed satisfaction with the decision, stating, “The rewrite is GONE.”

    Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, also condemned the regulation. He argued that Biden’s Title IX rule had “betrayed the original intent” of the law and removed important protections for women and girls.

    “The goal is to ensure fairness, opportunity, and success for women and girls in the classroom and on the field,” Cassidy said in a statement, asserting that a future Republican-led government would work to safeguard these opportunities for women and girls.

    The Biden administration, which had hoped to ensure greater protections for LGBTQ+ students, has not yet issued an official comment on the ruling. However, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights have expressed concern over the impact of the decision, with many fearing that it could lead to a rollback of protections for vulnerable students.

    The Biden administration’s move to expand Title IX protections was seen as part of a broader push to secure civil rights for LGBTQ+ individuals. In addition to the protections in education, the administration had sought to prevent discrimination in areas such as healthcare, housing, and employment. However, the ruling from Judge Reeves represents a setback for those efforts, with further legal challenges expected to continue.

    This ruling comes as the debate over LGBTQ+ rights in education remains contentious across the United States, with various states passing laws that restrict the rights of transgender students, particularly in sports. The future of Title IX and its interpretation will likely be a key issue in the upcoming election cycles, with both sides of the debate gearing up for further legal and political battles.

    As the decision is expected to be appealed, it is unclear what the final resolution will be. The ruling may be reviewed by higher courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals and, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court