On December 4th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 2 ½ hours in U.S. v Skrmetti, a landmark case that could impact medical care for confused children under 18 by legalizing controversial transgender treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries.

Connect with others in your state in prayer.

View Comments (32)

In this case, the Supreme Court is asked to determine if Tennessee’s state ban regarding transgender care for minors is constitutional. The plaintiffs in the case, three families, a doctor, and Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ), argue that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution. The petitioners claim that denying transgender children the right to care is sex-based discrimination.

Tennessee argues the ban on children receiving transgender treatments is based on harmful medical purposes with unproven benefits and not on a patient’s sex.

Highlights from Oral Arguments

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that “an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can.” That is sex discrimination she suggested.

Tennessee’s Solicitor General, Matthew Rice, argued the government has a responsibility to stop harmful medical practices. He referred to past practices such as eugenics and lobotomies which once had widespread medical approval, just as transgender care does today. Rice argued the state has a right to intervene to protect children from what he called “irreversible and grave consequence.”

During questioning, Preloger admitted that taking blockers and hormones can affect fertility. She referred to the risk of infertility as a “hard tradeoff.”

Another foundational argument of the transgender lobby as well as medical associations is that transgender treatments are a medical necessity to prevent suicide. This is an unproven false claim. Yet many parents are bullied by their doctors into agreeing to drugs and surgery for their minor children with the line, ‘Do you want a living trans daughter or a dead son?”.

Justice Alito referred to Britain’s Cass Report that found that allowing children to transition does not prevent suicide. ACLU attorney, Chase Strangio, a transgender man, was forced to agree. In fact, a recent study (May 2024) funded by the National Institute of Health, reveals that suicide risk increases 12 times after gender surgery.

Many of the justices appeared skeptical of petitioners’ argument that transgender identity is an undeniable protected characteristic that cannot be used as a basis for discriminatory treatment.

Justice Brown-Jackson who couldn’t define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing likened the bans on sex changes for children to bans on interracial marriage. The marriage bans were overturned based on the Equal Protection Clause. As such, she saw a “parallel” between the two bans.

But Justice Alito argued that civil rights are based on immutable human traits. In other words, traits such as skin color which cannot be changed. Trans activists argue that gender is fluid and can change. So by their own definition, if gender is fluid, then it is not immutable. Strangio was forced to admit that many decide to “de-transition” and return to living as their biological sex. So not immutable.

Justice Sotomayor compared the health risks of the irreversible damage of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and life-altering surgeries done to a child’s body to the risks of taking aspirin.

Justice Kavanaugh asked, “The Constitution is neutral on the question [of transgender treatments]. Why isn’t it best to leave it to the democratic process?” i.e. elected legislators. Chief Justice Roberts concurred saying, “The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.”

Justice Kavanaugh also raised concerns about the impact the Skrmetti case would have on girl’s sports, asking Preloger “If you prevail here, what would that mean for women’s and girl’s sports? And would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play on girls sports teams notwithstanding the competitive fairness and safety issues raised by some female athletes?”

If the court rules for the plaintiffs, the Skrmetti case could become the precedent case to future LGBTQ+ lawsuits whereby gender identity would be considered a protected class deserving the same civil rights as the protected rights based on race.

Half of the nation’s states have bans on transgender treatments for minors, as well as bans on transgender student athletes playing on teams not aligned with their biological sex, i.e. biological males playing on female teams.

IFA was at the Supreme Court

IFA’S Chief Program Officer, Kris Kubal, led a delegation of IFA State Leaders to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. She and the team arrived at 5 a.m. to stand in line in the frigid cold outside the courthouse, praying for the justices and the proceedings for five hours. Unfortunately, they were unable to gain entrance to the courtroom due to the large number of people in attendance.

But that did not dampen their enthusiasm or their purpose for being there. As Kris said in IFA’s Thursday morning webcast, “It was a blessing to be there onsite praying with other believers from all over the country, plus knowing IFA Intercessors in every state were with us in spirit and in prayer. We truly felt the peace of God and His presence at the Supreme Court. The Court had been well-soaked in prayer, and I felt the ground had been tilled and prepared by God.”

Joining Kris at the Supreme Court and on the webcast was lawyer and friend of IFA, Phillip Jauregui of Judicial Action Group. Phillip is an expert in constitutional law and judicial policy. Phillip is very familiar with the workings of the Supreme Court. His take on the proceedings was very heartening.

“God is doing an incredible work at the Supreme Court and blessing the whole nation,” Phillip said. “I have never felt the peace of God so strongly at the Court as I did on Wednesday. The Justices were very principled in their approach to the law and the Constitution. You don’t want to assume how justices will decide, but I felt very positive based on their comments and questions. I think we have at least 5 justices who will decide to uphold Tennessee’s ban.”

He’s not alone in his thinking. It’s being reported that pro-trans activists are pessimistic about the likely outcome. Left-leaning website, Axios, ran a headline after oral arguments that stated, ‘Supreme Court seems likely to uphold ban on gender-affirming care.’

“It was such a blessing to see the Body of Christ come together to pray at the court and around the nation for God’s glory,” Phillip said.

What’s Next for this Case?

Phillip explained that once oral arguments are completed, the justices will conference shortly afterwards to discuss. They may even take an initial vote.

Once the vote is taken, Chief Justice Roberts will assign a justice to write the majority opinion, which they will make public in June 2025.

But the case is not over until the Supreme Court makes it public. So, we must continue to pray for God’s righteous verdict in this case because anything can happen between now and June 30, 2025.

That’s because justices can change their mind at the last minute, such as Chief Justice Roberts changing his mind on his vote to uphold Obamacare in 2012. He had originally voted to strike it down.

Then as we saw in the Dobbs case overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, the decision was leaked early and justices were intimidated and threatened to change their votes. Protests were held outside their homes. Justice Kavanaugh was even the target of an assassination attempt.

You can hear more from Kris, Phillip and IFA state leaders who were at the Supreme Court by watching Thursday’s webcast, IFA Prays for Justice at the Supreme Court.

The Trump Effect on the Case

According to the New York Times, when Donald Trump assumes office on January 20^th, he could overrule Biden’s DOJ argument that the Tennessee ban violates the Constitution. If that occurs, the Supreme Court would have nothing to decide as both sides would now agree that the bans are constitutional.

But in this case, the other plaintiffs, the families and the doctor, had filed a separate petition to the Supreme Court. The Court had agreed to hear the DOJ’s petition only. The Court could still dismiss the case outright or grant the families’ companion petition. If the Court decides to take up the companion petition, the Court could ask for another oral argument or rely on the arguments held Wednesday.

We shall see what post-inauguration January will bring in this case. It may be dismissed outright or continue without the government as a party to the case.

More Prayer is Needed

So let us continue to pray for the Justices to discern God’s wisdom and decide righteously so they may please God and not the transgender lobby.

Let us pray that if the case does continue after President Trump takes office, the Justices will uphold the constitutionality of the state bans, and not be taken in by the emotion or the falsehood and lies of the transgender ideology.

Let us pray for the protection of every justice that they will not be harmed in any way or their families.

Let us pray for any justice that is leaning to overturn the bans that they will look to true biological science and not to liberal ideology or a trans political agenda when making their decision.  Let us pray that their desire to protect children from medical and physical harm will outweigh any other consideration.

Let us pray for a very decisive decision that will put a halt to the transgender assault on America’s children.

This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Zechariah 7:9

You can watch Phillip Jauregui, Kris Kubal, and other IFA leaders discuss the case by watching the embedded webcast below:

Share this article to get people praying.

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Mathieu Landretti – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=121600018.