Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling in United States v. Skrmetti has drawn severe criticism for being incoherent, filled with contradictions and confusing legal reasoning. This decision threatens to set back LGBTQ+ rights, particularly for transgender minors, yet it also leaves an opening for lower courts to interpret the ruling in ways that could protect trans rights. The divided opinions among justices reveal deeper disagreements and indicate that the ruling's convoluted nature might restrict its potential harmful consequences for future cases regarding discrimination against transgender individuals.
Roberts' opinion in United States v. Skrmetti is an incoherent mess of contradiction and casuistry, injecting immense confusion into the law of equal protection.
The ruling potentially sets back LGBTQ+ rights but its confusion may provide lower courts room to defend trans rights despite this setback.
Three justices wanted to issue a broad declaration against discrimination of transgender people, emphasizing that such discrimination is not inherently suspect under equal protection.
Skrmetti's garbled results will harm transgender minors, yet its poorly reasoned arguments might limit the ruling's own destructive impact.
Collection
[
|
...
]