Sonia
Sotomayor
(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
This
case
presents
an
easy
question:
whether
SB1’s
ban
on
certain
medications,
applicable
only
if
used
in
a
manner
“inconsistent
with
.
.
.
sex,”
contains
a
sex
classification.
Because
sex
determines
access
to
the
covered
medications,
it
clearly
does.
Yet
the
majority
refuses
to
call
a
spade
a
spade.
Instead,
it
obfuscates
a
sex
classification
that
is
plain
on
the
face
of
this
statute,
all
to
avoid
the
mere
possibility
that
a
different
court
could
strike
down
SB1,
or
categorical
healthcare
bans
like
it.
The
Court’s
willingness
to
do
so
here
does
irrevocable
damage
to
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
and
invites
legislatures
to
engage
in
discrimination
by
hiding
blatant
sex
classifications
in
plain
sight.
It
also
authorizes,
without
second
thought,
untold
harm
to
transgender
children
and
the
parents
and
families
who
love
them.
Because
there
is
no
constitutional
justification
for
that
result,
I
dissent.
—
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor,
in
the
closing
paragraph
of
her
dissent
in
U.S.
v.
Skrmetti,
where
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
Tennessee’s
law
barring
gender-affirming
care
for
transgender
minors
is
not
subject
to
heightened
scrutiny
under
the
Equal
Protection
Clause.
In
summarizing
her
dissent
from
the
bench,
Sotomayor
said,
“[T]he
majority
subjects
a
law
that
plainly
discriminates
on
the
basis
of
sex
to
mere
rational-basis
review.
By
retreating
from
meaningful
judicial
review
exactly
where
it
matters
most,
the
Court
abandons
transgender
children
and
their
families
to
political
whims.
In
sadness,
I
dissent.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.