The Dictatorship
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs bombshell helped pave the way for this week’s blow to trans rights
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming for minors. The 6-3 ruling is a major blow to transgender rights, including in the dozens of states with similar bans already enacted. To a striking degree, the majority’s analysis— and the opinions of several concurring justices — relied on cases that restricted another right: the right to choose abortion. This week’s holding shows how the fallout from the end of Roe v. Wade extends far beyond abortion.
The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, began in 2023 when three transgender teenagers, their parents and a Memphis physician argued that Tennessee’s law constituted unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Biden administration eventually joined the suit and, in June 2023, the district court blocked the law from going into effect. Later that year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
States could regulate a “medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,” the Dobbs majority concluded.
The plaintiffs relied on a 2020 case called Bostock v. Clayton Countya 6-3 ruling which held that sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 also encompassed sexual orientation and gender identity. In the majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court reasoned that there was no way for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without accounting for a worker’s sex too. In other words, gender identity discrimination always involved sex discrimination. The plaintiffs in Skrmetti argued that the same logic applied to their case.
To rebut this, Tennessee pointed to Dobbs. In undoing a right to choose abortion, the Supreme Court rejected the determinations in Roe that the right to choose abortion was (as the Roe majority wrote) “founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.” But the court also rejected the idea that abortion bans were fueled by sex discrimination, and thus violated the same amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
That latter finding figures prominently in Skrmetti. There were a variety of ways of arguing that abortion bans discriminate on the basis of sex: for example, pointing to the bans’ frequent invocations of stereotypes and generalizations about motherhood. But in Dobbs, the court concluded that the discrimination argument was “squarely foreclosed by our precedents” — in particular, the rarely citedoften-pilloried 1974 ruling Patient v. Aiello that ruled that discriminating on the basis of pregnancy didn’t count as sex discrimination. States could regulate a “medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,” the Dobbs majority concluded, unless there was evidence that the legislation was mere pretext for discriminatory animus.
In ruling that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care didn’t involve sex discrimination either, the majority opinion didn’t mention Dobbs directly (though concurring opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito did). Nevertheless, the reasoning of Dobbs ran throughout the majority opinion as well. Even if transgender individuals were the only ones to seek out treatment for gender dysphoria, the court suggested, that didn’t matter. “A State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, citing Geduldig but using the language from the Dobbs ruling.
In addition to Dobbs, the majority also relied on a 2007 case called Gonzales v. Carhartwhich upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The federal statute prohibited a specific procedure, dilation and extraction, that the plaintiffs argued would be safer for some women (because it involved fewer passes with a sharp instrument). The high court upheld the law, however, because there was enough scientific uncertainty about the benefits of the procedure. That uncertainty, of course, was no accident: anti-abortion groups had not just fielded their own experts, but launched new organizations to establish that the procedure was unnecessary.
It’s true that gender-affirming care is a rapidly developing area of study. But the Supreme Court used that fact to give state legislatures a free pass.
In upholding bans on gender-affirming care, the Supreme Court in Skrmetti cited Gonzales v. Carhart to justify giving lawmakers “wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” It’s true that gender-affirming care is a rapidly developing area of study. But the court used that fact to give state legislatures a free pass. Tennessee’s law is hardly nuanced: Violators can face penalties of $25,000 per treatment. Other states’ bans include prison sentences of five or even 10 years. None of that sounds like lawmakers carefully weighing incoming evidence about a specific treatment. But the court could fall back on its abortion cases to let legislators do whatever they want.
The message sent in the Skrmetti ruling reaches further than just the issue at hand, and not just because much of the majority’s logic would shield bans on gender-affirming care for adults too. If legislators can convince the justices that they are regulating based on a medical procedure or medical condition, the court may simply wave away any concern about sex discrimination.
This offers conservative lawmakers and activists a roadmap for circumventing protections against sex discrimination in other contexts. The Southern Baptist Convention recently endorsed overturning Obergefell v. Hodgesthe decision recognizing same-sex couples’ right to marry, which relies partly on the Equal Protection Clause. The conservative Christian legal movement despises Bostock. And the Dobbs and Patient Rulings prove that the meaning of sex discrimination has already narrowed for women.
The more these cases can be framed on turning on biological difference, the more likely the court will sign off on discriminatory laws. The court’s ruling in Skrmetti shows how much the undoing of abortion rights will reverberate beyond Dobbs, changing how the Supreme Court understands sex discrimination and transforming what equality under the law means.
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.
If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.
Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.
* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.
* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.
* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.
* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.
* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.
* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls
After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”
Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.
The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.
“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.
Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.
Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.
In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.
But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.
An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.
The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.
“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.
“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.
Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.
“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.
“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.
In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”
In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”
After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.
“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”
Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”
“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.
On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”
Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.
Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.
As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.
But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”
In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:
In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.
“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.
As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”
He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.
“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”
The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”
Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.
In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
- Hegseth to brief House Republicans on White House goals for party-line package
- Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race
- Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls
- Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal
- In back-to-back reversals, the Trump administration folds under pressure
- Vance touts ‘successful’ first round of U.S.-Iran talks after Trump threatens new attacks
- Turek leads Hinson in Iowa Senate poll of likely general election voters
- Capitol agenda: House GOP races to make Recon 3.0 real
- A rising populist tide is threatening New York’s powerful incumbents
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politics.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words