On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to uphold Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors—covering puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority:
“There is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones… [The law’s] ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty.”
He added:
“Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
Using rational-basis review, the Court ruled that Tennessee acted within its constitutional authority under the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented passionately:
“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”
Voices from Cobb County & Georgia
Supporters of the ruling have long sought relief from the courts.
Chloe Cole – Former Tennessean now living in metro Atlanta, Chloe is a high-profile “detransitioner” and activist, often speaking at rallies such as Nashville’s 2022 “Rally to End Child Mutilation.” She testified before Georgia lawmakers in support of different youth restrictions.
“States should act now to prevent lifelong medical decisions when children haven’t had a lifetime to mature. This ruling empowers families and lawmakers to prioritize caution and clarity over irreversible interventions.”
Sen. Clint Dixon (RBuford) – A state senator active on trans issues, Dixon co-sponsored Georgia’s SB 141 (2022) to ban youth care and has supported laws barring trans girls from sports
“This decision recognizes the importance of medical prudence before moving forward. It ensures that youth and families aren’t pushed into permanent treatments without sufficient understanding.”
Opponents of the ruling have historically opposed the courts or legislative branch from exercising any authority.
Beth Littrell – Senior Attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, representing Georgia families suing over SB 140 (2023), which bans hormone treatment for minors.
“It does not protect youth—it harms youth. These families fear increased distress, major depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicide if treatment is withheld.”
Carrie Scott – Transgender attorney and former Georgia state employee who spoke out in 2025 against further cuts to state healthcare coverage for gender care.
“Stripping care from trans people—children or adults—is a slap in the face to reward that service with access to essential healthcare. Georgia can’t turn its back after we’ve joined the workforce and served our communities.”
Katherine Rinderle – Former Cobb County fifth-grade teacher fired in 2023 for reading a book featuring a nonbinary child; her dismissal sparked national debate
“Denying trans youth acceptance in schools and healthcare communicates a devastating message: you don’t belong. And when courts legitimize these bans, it emboldens silencing and societal exclusion—not safety.”
Related Articles:
Radical SPLC Defends Fired Cobb Teacher Who Pushed Gender Ideology on 5th Graders
Protecting Children from The Radical Medical Experimentation of Gender-Affirming Care
Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit Taxpayer Funding for Gender Transition Procedures
What’s Happening in Georgia
- SB 140 (July 2023) already bans hormones and surgery, but permits puberty blockers
- SB 39 and related bills proposed in 2025 could eliminate gender-care coverage for state employees and Medicaid recipients.
- Lawsuits by Georgia families (via SPLC, ACLU, HRC) continue, arguing these bans violate constitutional and civil rights.
The Supreme Court ruling offers legal cover for Georgia’s existing laws and may encourage stricter future restrictions—particularly around puberty blockers.
Bottom Line
- The Supreme Court’s decision defers to legislative judgment amid “medical uncertainty.”
- Cobb County and Georgia reaction remains sharply divided:
- Supporters see it as protecting youth from irreversible decisions.
- Opponents warn of serious psychological harm and legal intrusion into family and medical care.
- Georgia families, activists, and clinicians face a complex future of more restrictions—and potentially protracted court battles.
