Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Child Protection Law, Affirming Legal Arguments Consistent with Amicus Brief by AFPI Center for Litigation

Washington D.C.— Today, the Supreme Court delivered a significant victory when it upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting so-called "gender-affirming" medical treatments for minors, agreeing with an amicus brief filed on behalf of America First Policy Institute (AFPI). In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court ruled, in a 6 to 3 opinion, that Tennessee Senate Bill 1 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a welcome victory from the Court, which recognized in its majority opinion that neither fad nor feelings trump a state legislature’s right to protect its citizens. Today was a big win for protecting vulnerable children from irreversible medical treatments,” stated Jessica Hart Steinmann, Executive General Counsel of the America First Policy Institute.

The America First Policy Institute applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision, which affirms the sovereign right of states to protect impressionable children from experimental medical interventions. By upholding the state’s law banning sex-change procedures for minors, the Court decisively rejected the Biden administration’s radical attempt to weaponize the Equal Protection Clause against biological reality and parental rights.

TN’s S.B. 1 blocked Tennessee healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-transition surgeries to minors if intended solely to assuage their own thoughts about their purported "gender identity." The Court applied rational basis scrutiny in its review of the law because it prohibits such treatments equally for all youth.

This decision directly aligns with the core arguments presented by AFPI, which joined Advancing American Freedom (AAF) in its Friend of the Court brief to the high court. The brief correctly contended that the Biden administration's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in this case misunderstood the relevant distinction made by Tennessee’s law, arguing that S.B. 1 does not unlawfully discriminate, but rather responsibly protects children. As the brief highlighted, the fact that “children in this country are being subjected to this sort of bodily mutilation based on their self-impression is an outrage.”

The brief further reasoned that S.B. 1 protects vulnerable children because their judgment is not adequately developed for making life-altering decisions that could, in some cases, prevent them from ever having children. The Supreme Court declined to short-circuit the will of the people on these important issues, as expressed through their elected representatives.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.” Roberts concluded, “[t]he Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,” which are best left to “the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

The majority’s clear-eyed recognition that S.B. 1 regulates medical diagnoses and treatment purposes, not identities, affirms a crucial principle: States may legislate based on science and public welfare, even when political pressure demands blind ideological compliance.

AFPI is especially encouraged by the Court’s reaffirmation of judicial restraint: “Our role is not to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of such laws, but to ensure they do not violate constitutional protections. In doing so, the Court placed appropriate deference on the democratic process and recognized that children deserve time to “appreciate their sex” before being subjected to life-altering, often irreversible interventions.

At the same time, AFPI remains vigilant. While the Court’s opinion is a sweeping rebuke to activist litigation tactics, the battle is far from over. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent confirms the ongoing threat from those who seek to override legislative judgment with ideology cloaked in constitutional language.

Steinmann concluded, “Today is a victory for states' rights, but more clarity is needed from the Court. We will continue to fight for firm recognition of biological reality in all areas of the law and common-sense protections—including our forthcoming lawsuit protecting against boys competing in girls' sports.”

###

About America First Policy Institute

The America First Policy Institute advances policies that put the American people first. AFPI’s guiding principles are liberty, free enterprise, national greatness, American military superiority, foreign policy in the American interest and the primacy of American workers, families and communities. Several AFPI national leaders have been selected by President Trump to serve in his cabinet or other important roles, including AFPI Chair Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education; AFPI CEO Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture; Pam Bondi, Attorney General; Doug Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Scott Turner, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the EPA; Lt. General Keith Kellogg (Ret.), Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Kash Patel, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, among others.