What are the Implications of the Skrmetti Ruling for Minors’ Access to Gender Affirming Care? Lindsey Dawson and Laurie Sobel Published: Jun 18, 2025

https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/what-are-the-implications-of-the-skrmetti-ruling-for-minors-access-to-gender-affirming-care/?utm_campaign=KFF-Global-Health-Policy&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9eZH8oQG6mDsZOMiZO44h3OZpL3rhXn0oslxVXQ_CQ8h2EHq0NGx0i9d6vy5fw08TQ-XsqCqcXW7x8wk9xVI0kbsadJw&_hsmi=367489447&utm_content=367489447&utm_source=hs_email KFF Examines Implications of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Transgender Youth Access to Gender-Affirming Care A new KFF policy watch examines how today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth will affect access. In a 6-3 decision in the United States v. Skrmetti, the Court ruled that the state’s ban does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause and can stand in Tennessee. This ruling has implications for the twenty-six other states that have enacted bans on gender-affirming care for minors, but in two of these states – Montana and Arkansas – existing court orders continue to prevent the bans from taking effect. The ruling does not impact the availability of care in states without bans. (KFF is tracking state laws restricting youth access to gender-affirming care.) The decision means that the ability for minor children to access gender-affirming care, even with parental consent, will depend in part based on where they live. Litigation is likely to continue in this area, and cases challenging bans on legal grounds other than the Constitution’s equal protection clause can continue and could make their way to the highest court again. CONTACT: Craig Palosky | 202.654.1369 | CraigP@kff.org