U.S. Supreme Court
Legal expert maps out how gender-affirming care bans may be challenged post-Skrmetti
Ruling leaves door open to state constitution claims
In a devastating loss for transgender youth and their families, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority on June 18 voted to uphold Tennessee’s law banning access to gender-affirming health care for minors in a 6-3 ruling that effectively shields similar restrictions in more than 20 other states.
Chase Strangio, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in U.S. v. Skrmetti and the first trans lawyer to argue before the nation’s highest court, acknowledged the “setback” during a press call with reporters while stressing the need to “continue onward in the fight” because the avenues open to challenge laws like Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 had not been fully extinguished.
Speaking with the Washington Blade on Monday, Professor Holning Lau of the University of North Carolina School of Law outlined the ramifications of the justices’ majority opinion and mapped out three ways in which cases aimed at striking down healthcare bans or other anti-trans policies and practices could play out in its wake.
An internationally recognized expert on equality rights, particularly in the contexts of sexuality, gender, and family life, Lau previously served as president of the ACLU of North Carolina’s board of directors and as a teaching fellow at UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy.
He is also the co-author of a recent paper that examines the exceptions to laws prohibiting medical interventions for gender transitions in minors that permit “so-called gender-normalizing surgeries, which are performed on intersex infants to conform their bodies to socially constructed expectations about the male/female binary.”
These carveouts, Lau and his colleague UNC Law School Associate Professor Barbara Fedders argue, cut against the reasoning cited by the lawmakers behind legislative restrictions targeting healthcare for trans youth like SB 1 and by the lawyers defending them in court.
Specifically, Lau told the Blade courts could interpret such “intersex exceptions” as evidence that gender affirming care bans were written with or are undergirded by sex stereotypes, unwarranted fears, and disgust — possible grounds to argue they should be struck down under the animus doctrine, which holds that government action motivated by hostility or prejudice towards a particular group is unconstitutional.
While there was some discussion of animus in the context of U.S. v. Skrmetti, notably in the concurring opinion by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the plaintiffs’ case focused primarily on “the sex discrimination argument because of Bostock v. Clayton County,” Lau said, referring to the 2020 Supreme Court case that determined sex-based discrimination in the context of employment, as defined by federal civil rights law, includes discriminatory conduct that is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
‘A huge, huge setback’
Five years after LGBTQ rights advocates were toasting their victory in the landmark case, which saw three of the conservatives on the High Court joining their liberal counterparts in a majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, “a lot of folks may have reasonably thought that the logic of Bostock points towards this very straightforward sex discrimination argument,” Lau said, adding that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor “adopts that avenue of reasoning in her dissent” in Skrmetti.
“The way that the majority rejects the sex discrimination arguments in in the majority opinion of Skrmetti is not persuasive in my view,” he said. “I struggle for words to capture the reasoning of the majority opinion.”
Echoing Strangio’s remarks, Lau noted that Skrmetti “doesn’t completely close the door” to legal challenges but is nevertheless “a huge, huge setback.”
On the one hand, he said “lower courts might say that this was very much about the context of medical treatment and minors,” which means “there may still be cases that prevail having to do with transgender discrimination in other contexts, like the military ban or the restrictions on passports.”
At the same time, however, Lau cautioned that “you could also read this case as signaling more obstacles ahead, especially if a case gets back to the Supreme Court” since “three of the justices have already signaled in Skrmetti that they do not view gender identity discrimination as warranting heightened scrutiny.”
Litigation aside, young people and their families who will suffer the most direct and harmful consequences, namely the loss of access to medically necessary gender-affirming care, will have to navigate “a patchwork of state laws,” he said, which in many cases will mean relocating or traveling out of state for treatments that have been criminalized in the places where they live.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the nationwide right to abortion, led to many of these same outcomes, he said. In an email following Monday’s phone interview, Lau further explained that “Dobbs unleashed conflicts between states, and there are signs that similar conflicts will arise with respect to gender-affirming care for trans youth.”
For example, he said “A growing number of states might seek to penalize interstate travel for gender-affirming care — targeting families who travel across state lines and/or medical providers who provide care to such families.”
“There is ongoing litigation concerning the constitutionality of interstate bans and shield laws in the abortion context, and those cases will bear significance on interstate bans and shield laws regarding gender-affirming care,” Lau said.
Counsel for the plaintiffs in Skrmetti probably turned to Bostock because the case was “the most recent victory, and the most on point when it comes to gender identity,” Lau said.
The animus doctrine was an important element of cases that expanded equal rights and protections for LGBTQ people, he said, pointing to U.S. v. Windsor (2013), which struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and Romer v. Evans (1996) which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from enacting any LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination rules.
Lau said those cases are examples of where the Supreme Court has found indirect evidence of impermissible animus in the laws under consideration by the way they were designed or structured, as opposed to more direct evidence like overt expressions of sex stereotypes, fear, and disgust toward a particular group that might arise during the legislative process.
These cases and the animus doctrine, Lau added, are closely associated with the late former Justice Anthony Kennedy, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who was the “swing vote” responsible for ultimately deciding many of cases considered by the Roberts court where the justices were split 5-4.
Following his retirement in 2018 and the emergence of a 6-3 conservative majority, there is less certainty about how the justices might evaluate animus related arguments in the context of disputes over issues of gay or transgender rights, Lau said, especially relative to how they were expected to look at the reasoning central to the Bostock decision just five years ago.
“I would have liked to see more” engagement with animus in the Skrmetti opinions, Lau said. Barrett in her concurrence did address the question, writing that there was a rational basis for Tennessee legislators’ SB 1, in contrast with the court’s findings in Romer, where the “sheer breadth” of law was “so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the [law] seem[ed] inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affect[ed]”.)
“To be sure, an individual law ‘inexplicable by anything but animus’ is unconstitutional,” Barrett said. “But legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied.”
Lau said that notwithstanding her position on Skrmetti, the fact that Barrett “did make reference to the animus jurisprudence suggests that there is potentially a future for animus doctrine, even in the post-Kennedy Supreme Court.”
Rather than the animus doctrine or Bostock’s reasoning that gender identity discrimination constitutes sex based discrimination, the court relied on Geduldig v. Aiello (1974), Lau said, which found that pregnancy discrimination “is not a type of sex discrimination” and remains a case that “strikes so many people as being incorrectly decided.”
“Whenever I teach Geduldig v. Aiello, my students are shocked by the court’s reasoning,” he said, “and it’s so formalistic in its reasoning that it’s so divorced from people’s lived experiences.”
The same can be said for the majority opinion and concurrences in Skrmetti, Lau said, where the justices said “that even if transgender kids are the only ones seeking treatment for gender dysphoria, not all transgender kids are seeking this treatment, and kids can still get the treatment if they have a different type of diagnosis” such as any of the conditions delineated in the exceptions that were written into SB 1 and similar laws in other states.
“One day, I imagine teaching [Skrmetti] and my students will be, likewise, shocked at the Court’s exceedingly formalistic reasoning,” he added.
Legal challenges to anti-trans healthcare bans in a post-Skrmetti world
After Skrmetti, Lau said he expects to see cases challenging bans and restrictions on healthcare for trans youth that are based on state constitutional claims, noting “a case where there was a recent victory in Montana based on Montana’s constitution,” a win that came despite the fact that it was decided in a place that “might not strike you as particularly hospitable to transgender rights.”
“The state constitutional law claims are particularly promising,” he said, “but it’ll be very context specific,” with the cases ultimately turning on the language contained in these different constitutions and “what sort of jurisprudence we have in each particular state.”
Per Lambda Legal, “On Dec. 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that (Senate Bill) 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on state constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Lau said the remaining two primary avenues for challenging anti-trans healthcare restrictions are likely to be animus based claims and cases grounded in arguments about parental rights, a phrase that often crops up in the context of efforts to undermine rather than strengthen freedoms and protections for LGBTQ people.
The reasoning was cited in a 2023 decision by a federal judge in Idaho who temporarily struck down the state’s ban on gender affirming care for kids, writing: “Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law … Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”
Asked whether he believes jurists will consider parental rights or animus the more persuasive argument, Lau demurred, telling the Blade “I would be hesitant to say which one is more promising,” noting that animus claims often turn on very specific evidence that might show for example that the lawmakers behind a ban or restriction on transgender medicine were driven by sex stereotypes, irrational fear, or disgust toward a particular group.
Animus and the intersex exceptions
Asked whether anti-trans legislators are being counseled to avoid overt expressions of anti-trans sentiment or prejudice for fear that they might provide grounds for a successful legal challenge against their gender affirming care bans, he said “I think that’s very possible,” adding that “legislators are savvier now in terms of concealing their motives and their biases.”
“Philosopher Martha Nussbaum was monumental and unpacking disgust as an element of animus,” Lau said. “And so in my article, I try to unpack it to help readers connect the dots that there is this visceral disgust towards both intersex children and transgender minors, and that that can be connected to the doctrine of animus.”
In their paper, Lau and Fedders focused on the potential for courts to find inferred animus in laws like Tennessee’s SB 1 based on how they are structured, with sweeping restrictions on the one hand coupled with exceptions on the other that would allow families to pursue medical interventions for their children only when they have certain conditions or diagnoses.
“If we couple that with evidence from the legislative record” pointing to animus “there may be a case to be made,” Lau said.
Both the opinions in Skrmetti and the language of the SB 1 statute address how the law allows otherwise prohibited treatments or interventions to be administered to minors when they are indicated for diagnoses other than gender dysphoria or used for purposes other than gender transitions.
“They don’t call them intersex exceptions,” Lau said, but rather “exceptions for congenital defects,” defined as “including DSDs, disorders in sexual development — or what many intersex advocates would now refer to as ‘differences’ in sexual development.”
Interact, an intersex rights organization, “filed an amicus brief in Skrmetti that dovetailed with my article in that they argued the intersex exceptions support the idea that there are sex stereotypes that undergird the gender affirming care bans,” he said.
“I would like to see more discussion of the interplay between transgender rights and intersex rights,” Lau added, noting how questions about intersex vis-a-vis trans identities are relevant beyond the context of healthcare restrictions. For instance, he pointed to the Trump-Vance administration’s directive for the State Department to not allow passport holders to have the gender markers on their documents changed to align with their gender identity, also removing the option to select ‘X’ rather than the male/female binary category.
“The restrictions on passports not only affect transgender folks, but also non-binary and intersex folks as well,” Lau said. “And with respect to the bans on gender affirming care, not only do they restrict transgender youth’s access to gender affirming care, but they reflect and reinforce this understanding of intersex conditions that is very harmful and damaging to intersex youth.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
U.S. Supreme Court
As Supreme Court weighs trans sports bans, advocate and former athlete speaks out
PFLAG staffer Diego Sanchez competed at University of Georgia in 1970s
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday addressing the legality of banning transgender women and girls from participating in sports under the 14th Amendment.
Though the two cases differ slightly in their fact patterns, they ultimately pose the same constitutional question: whether laws that limit participation in women’s sports to only cisgender women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In both cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — trans girls filed lawsuits against their respective states, Idaho and West Virginia, arguing that the bans violate their right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to different standards than cisgender girls.
Lindsay Hecox, now 24, filed her lawsuit in 2020 while attending Boise State University. That same year, Idaho enacted the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which barred trans women from participating in any sport in public schools, from kindergarten through college. Although Hecox underwent hormone therapy that significantly lowered her testosterone levels, she was still excluded under the law when she attempted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams.
The second case centers on B.P.J., a 15-year-old trans girl who has identified as female since third grade and has been on puberty blockers since the onset of puberty. In 2021, West Virginia enacted the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires sports teams to be designated by “biological sex” rather than gender identity. B.P.J.’s mother filed suit on her behalf after her daughter was barred from participating on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams.
A key distinction between the two cases is that attorneys for B.P.J. have argued that because puberty blockers were part of her development, her body is more aligned with that of a cisgender girl than a cisgender boy. Despite these differences, both cases raise the same constitutional issue: whether it is lawful to bar someone from participation in sports based on sex assigned at birth.
The Washington Blade spoke with PFLAG Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez.
Sanchez is a trans elder with firsthand experience as a college athlete at the University of Georgia and later became the first openly trans legislative staff member on Capitol Hill.
His dual experience — as a former athlete and a longtime policy expert deeply familiar with constitutional law — gives him a unique perspective on the questions now before the Supreme Court. Sanchez will also be one of the featured speakers at a rally on the steps of the court as the justices hear arguments.
When asked how attitudes toward trans athletes differ from when he competed at the University of Georgia from 1976-1980 to today — when 27 states have passed laws restricting trans participation in sports — Sanchez said the contrast is stark.
“I had the good experience of being supported by my teammates and my coach,” Sanchez said. “The thing that’s so different today is that these [trans] kids are able to go home and get kisses and hugs from their parents, being lauded in the stands by their families, and then being told that who they are doesn’t necessarily fit with who they’re allowed to be in their expression at the moment, and that to me, seems a terrible injustice.”
Sanchez emphasized that sports offer lessons that extend far beyond competition.
“When you’re an athlete, you learn an awful lot of things about life,” he said. “You learn about leadership, but you also learn that your best effort becomes part of a team effort … how you feel as an individual contributor is affected by what ends up being part of how you live your life as an adult.”
After his time as an athlete, Sanchez began working in government, eventually serving as senior policy advisor to then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) until Frank’s retirement in 2013. Sanchez said that one of the most important aspects of his role was simply being visible as a trans person in spaces where many lawmakers had never knowingly met one before.
“My job was to make sure that no one, no legislator, could say that they had never met a trans person,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez also addressed the broader implications the Supreme Court’s decision could have on how gender is treated within institutional systems.
“I don’t think it affects how people perceive their own gender or express their own gender, but I do think that it could create barriers if it doesn’t welcome the way that community and society actually are,” he said. “The most important thing for people to know … is to remember that every person is an individual, and that the right to contribute to society should be something that is supported by the government, not hindered.”
He added that the court’s role must be understood within the framework of checks and balances established by the Constitution.
“The risk, of course, here is always remembering that we have three branches of government, so that this action by the judiciary branch may or may not have implications on whether or how things can be perceived or executed at other branches,” Sanchez said. “I would hope that our government is interested in letting the future generations and current generations be the best that they can be as well.”
“Do people get to live their lives as they are, or is the government an obstruction or a support?”
When asked what message he would share with young trans athletes watching the Supreme Court take up these cases, Sanchez said community support remains critical, regardless of how the justices rule.
“Make sure that the environment that you put yourself in is something that honors who you know you are and supports you becoming the best person you can be, and that anything that takes away from that is purely dissonance,” he said.
“What we do with dissonance is what distinguishes us as whether we excel or doubt.”
That same sense of community, Sanchez said, is what rallies — like the one planned outside the Supreme Court — are meant to reinforce, even as decisions are made inside the building.
“Rallies, including tomorrow’s, are about people knowing they’re not alone, and hearing from other people who support who they are,” he said. “There is support across the country … I wish that I had had someone my age now that I could have looked to, but I am the role model, but I didn’t have any.”
Looking ahead to the possibility that the court could uphold bans on trans athletes, Sanchez said the immediate challenge will be ensuring that families and communities continue to affirm trans youth amid legal uncertainty.
“Having the endorsement of being supported who you are, it helps you so much,” he said. “You cannot put the issue of rights back into the genie’s bottle once people experience what freedom and welcoming is.”
For Sanchez, whose life has spanned decades of change in both sports and government, the cases before the Supreme Court represent a pivotal moment — not just legally, but culturally.
“Living your life, for me, does not require bravery,” he said. “It’s just taking one step and then another.”
National LGBTQ Task Force brings Creating Change conference back to D.C.
Van Hollen speaks at ‘ICE Out for Good’ protest in D.C.
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Ruby Corado sentenced to 33 months in prison
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
AHF client in Venezuela welcomes Maduro’s ouster
Hundreds protest ICE killing of Renee Nicole Good in D.C.
Support the Blade as mainstream media bend the knee for Trump
PHOTOS: ‘ICE Out For Good’
