Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that transgender language is a 'lie to the public' in a Tuesday opinion concurring with a ruling that blocks athletes who were assigned to the male sex at birth from competing against biological women.
The case involved state laws banning transgender girls from participating in women's sports. Lower courts had been divided on whether such restrictions violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.
What the Left Is Saying
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred and dissented in part from the majority ruling, arguing that state laws banning transgender girls from women's sports discriminate on the basis of sex without sufficient justification and violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Sotomayor wrote that the ruling 'inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions.'
The justices noted that not all transgender or nonbinary people experience gender dysphoria, which is a clinical diagnosis for psychological distress caused by a difference between a person's gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The American Psychiatric Association states it only occurs when incongruence leads to significant distress or impairment in daily life.
What the Right Is Saying
Thomas wrote that 'men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are.' He argued that 'sex is an immutable biological characteristic' that is binary, and that 'man,' 'woman,' 'boy' and 'girl' correspond to adults and children of each sex.
He stated that using language to obscure this reality demonstrates 'indifference regarding the truth' and amounts to lying to the public and failing to treat fellow citizens as equals.
Thomas said gender dysphoria 'does not resemble the immutable characteristics on which our precedents have applied heightened scrutiny,' such as race, sex or national origin. He argued courts should not extend heightened constitutional protection to the concept of gender identity.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding the athlete ban, with all five conservative justices supporting the majority and all four liberal justices dissenting in whole or part.
This represents a shift from prior precedent on transgender rights at the Supreme Court level. The ruling will affect how similar bans are evaluated across federal circuits.
The Bottom Line
The decision marks a significant development in how courts treat gender identity claims under constitutional law. It upholds state-level bans on transgender athletes while raising questions about the legal basis for such restrictions versus other forms of sex-based classification.