GOP AG pre­dicts which side has advan­tage in his­toric SCOTUS trans­gen­der case with ‘divid­ed’ jus­tices

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.”

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL ‘TREATMENTS’ TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

“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.”

‘THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING’: EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

“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.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

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.