➡ The Supreme Court recently upheld a Tennessee law that bans certain treatments for transgender minors, ruling 6-3 in favor of the state’s right to protect children from these procedures. The decision, which was not solely about transgender discrimination but about restricting potentially harmful treatments, was met with various opinions from the justices. The court’s decision is a significant setback for the Biden administration, which had opposed the law. This case highlights the importance of citizens’ rights to critique and praise court decisions, reinforcing the democratic nature of our society.
➡ Keep an eye on Supreme Court decisions and don’t just rely on news reports for understanding them. Reading the court opinions directly is a great way to understand how our government and constitution work. We’ll provide a link to the latest court case for you to read. Don’t forget to subscribe and like our video.

But when they make the right decision, we’ve got to praise and hold them up. I mean, that’s what citizens have every right to do, right? When the experts on the Constitutional side, right, through the Supreme Court, we have a right to judge their decisions each time. And when they’re wrong, we can call them out on it. When they’re right, we should praise it. Great. So the Supreme Court sees in Washington, D.C. It’s the end of the Supreme Court term. Many decisions are being issued, some of which are good, some of which aren’t so good.

Others are fantastic, including the most recent decision of note, what is the caption? United States v. Skirmetti, who was the Attorney General for Tennessee. And Tennessee had passed a law essentially prohibiting transgender extremist treatments for minors. You can’t mutilate them, you can’t give them drugs to help them supposedly transition from male to female. And Tennessee wanted to protect the health and safety of minors from this transgender experimental mutilating treatments. And of course, when they did that, the left sued. And the Biden administration sued. And it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Court just issued a ruling 6-3 affirming the right of Tennessee and other states to protect their children from transgender extremist experimental treatments.

And I encourage you, like I encourage you all the time, every time I talk about Supreme Court cases, to read the decision. You can go and read the decisions. They’re written, I think, you know, sometimes the cases are so technical in terms of the legal issue, they’re not necessarily written for the public, but in a case like this, it’s written so it comports with the law and the formal nature of Supreme Court decisions as to how opinions are supposed to be written and argued but it’s also written in a way that you can understand it or most sensible people can understand it, even if you might disagree with some of it.

And you read enough of them, you can figure out what you like and what you don’t like about some of the decision making. I’m not a lawyer, but you read enough of these Supreme Court decisions, you realize when the Supreme Court is spending a lot of time talking about essentially standards of the Constitution that they’ve made up out of whole cloth versus actual things in the Constitution that they’re actually supposed to be applying. That’s kind of where I always get upset in reading some of this stuff. So the decision is a big one.

This is the decision. It’s, I don’t know, it’s probably well over 130 pages. So there was a majority opinion and then there were two, excuse me, three concurring opinions and a concurring opinion, I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure what the technical definition of a concurring opinion is. It’s an opinion that agrees with essentially the result of the majority opinion in whole or in part and if it’s in part they explain why it is only in part or if it’s in whole they explain I agree with everything they said but I want to say this on top of what they said and I want to say it on my behalf and sometimes other justices do that individually.

So Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and he essentially found that look, this is not about targeting transgender people. This is not about discrimination on the basis of sex. This is about restricting a dangerous treatment and it’s a treatment used for both girls and boys. So there’s no sex discrimination. It’s a treatment for a condition, gender dysphoria or attendant types of diagnoses that includes cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and mutilation. And as people of Tennessee have said we’re not going to do that to our kids for a variety of rational reasons and the Supreme Court without getting too technical found that Tennessee’s rules here are quite rational.

There’s no reason to give special protection to transgender children as such. The law doesn’t require it because in this case they’re not being targeted because they are transgender. There’s a specific treatment that’s being prohibited for the use of children and that’s something that states have an inherent right to try to manage. And I encourage you also to read Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion and Justice Alito’s concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a concurring opinion but frankly I don’t remember what’s in it so you’re just going to have to read it yourself because I can’t remember her point.

But Justice Thomas’s opinion I thought was interesting for a variety of reasons but I especially enjoyed the section where he slammed the expert class. You know the left is challenging it, the Biden administration challenged this rule and what happened was the Biden people left so obviously the Trump people came in and said by the way we don’t believe anything Biden said about this but the case was far enough along and there were plaintiffs other than the US government that allowed the Supreme Court to continue to hear the case despite the change in position by the Trump administration.

So it’s a big loss against the Biden administration who used the power of the United States government to try to stop Tennessee from protecting its kids from what I believe to be demonic transgender extremism. That’s right I said demonic. The transgender extremists, their whole movement depends on the notion of children being able to engage in transgender extremist treatments. It’s all about getting kids mutilated experimented on with these drugs so they can present themselves as the sex that has nothing to do with their biological reality. And that’s why I say it’s demonic.

I mean the targeting of children, we’ve never had anything like it I just can’t think if there’s anything like it I can’t think of it. I mean we kill our unborn children I guess that’s comparable. That’s pretty demonic in my view. But children who don’t know better, oh sure take this drug that could ensure you never have a child take this, engage in this mutilation of your body that I can’t even talk it out as to how awful that is. And this was Justice Thomas’s concurrence in part page five.

The court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to afford outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States asserted that the quote medical community in this nation’s leading hospitals, who I would add automatically make money from this, agree with the government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1, which is the Tennessee law, can be medically necessary. The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus. There are several problems with deferring and appealing to the authority of the expert class.

First, so-called experts have no license to counter man the wisdom, fairness, or logical legislative choices. Oh wait, don’t tell anyone but that’s called democracy. Because experts don’t like what a legislature does, it doesn’t get them given the right to quote overturn democracy. Second, contrary to representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. There’s no doubt about that. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts of you that young children can provide the informed consent to irreversible sex transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that states must decide for themselves.

Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in the area have relied on questionable evidence and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance. Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not quote sit as a super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation. By correctly concluding, that SB1 warrants the paradigm of judicial restraint the court reserves to the people of Tennessee the right to govern, excuse me, the right to decide for themselves.

That could go on, but you get the point. Great little decision, concurring opinion by President Clarence Thomas. Can you imagine that? We’re doing okay with President Trump, though. Great decision by Justice Thomas, great decision by Chief Justice Roberts, and I criticize Roberts when he makes the wrong decision. I criticize Amy Comie Barrett when she makes the wrong decision or joins with the wrong side, but when they make the right decision, we’ve got to praise and hold them up. I mean, that’s what citizens have every right to do, right? When the expert’s on the constitutional side, right, through the Supreme Court, we have a right to judge their decisions each time, and when they’re wrong, we can call them out on it.

When they’re right, we should praise it. It’s the wonderful thing about our republic. We still have our First Amendment rights to even criticize and examine the court decisions at the highest court in the land. And I have to say, there’s not one member of the Supreme Court, to be fair, even to the liberals, who would dispute that. So we have some more decisions coming out next week from the Supreme Court. I haven’t tracked it closely enough to tell you what to look for next week, but you can look online and you don’t need me to tell you that, but just keep on keeping on when it comes to monitoring the Supreme Court decisions.

I encourage you to not, if the issue interests you, don’t rely on news reports describing the opinion to help you understand what’s in the opinion. Obviously, it gives you a feel for it because it’s a wonderful way to understand the functioning of our constitution and our government, or sometimes the dysfunction of the courts by reading these Supreme Court opinions. I can’t overstate enough, or I guess I could. It would be difficult to overstate how valuable reading these Supreme Court opinions are directly, and we’ll provide a link to this most recent court case that I just read, this court case.

Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.