For Immediate Release: 06-18-25
Contact: Josue Sierra, media@indlawcenter.org
The following statements are in response to the decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v. Skrmetti:
The following statement can be attributed to Randall L. Wenger, Esq., Chief Counsel, Independence Law Center
“Today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is a decisive affirmation of the right—and responsibility—of states to protect children from irreversible medical harm. The Court rightly upheld Tennessee’s law as a constitutional exercise of its authority to safeguard minors from risky, experimental procedures.
As Chief Justice Roberts noted in the majority opinion, Tennessee found that ‘administering puberty blockers or hormones to a minor… can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences’. These concerns are grounded in medical evidence, not politics—and they reflect a growing international recognition of the dangers and long-term uncertainties surrounding these interventions.
We were honored to contribute an amicus brief on behalf of international nonprofit organizations representing families impacted by these very treatments. Our brief highlighted the shift across countries like Sweden, England, and Finland—nations that once facilitated these procedures but have now reversed course based on systematic reviews of the science. The Court’s ruling reflects this rising consensus and affirms the state’s compelling interest in protecting the well-being of vulnerable children.”
The following statement can be attributed to Lauren Hackett, Esq., Legal Counsel, Independence Law Center
“The Supreme Court today reinforced what should be a universal principle: our laws must prioritize evidence-based care and the long-term health of children over ideological trends. By upholding Tennessee’s law, the Court recognized that states have the right—and the responsibility—to stop risky and unproven interventions when it comes to children.
Justice Thomas, concurring with the majority, underscored the problem with deferring to activist medical institutions, noting that recent reports from NHS England and other countries have concluded that ‘the long-term effects [of these treatments] are little known’ and that the evidence is ‘insufficient and inconclusive’.
This case was never about politics—it’s about protecting children from irreversible decisions they may come to regret. We applaud the Court for standing with common sense and reaffirming the role of states in setting responsible medical standards for minors.”
About Independence Law Center
The Independence Law Center is a public-interest civil rights law firm affiliated with the Pennsylvania Family Institute, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that works to preserve religious liberty, promote marriage and the family, and protect human life.
To arrange an interview, contact Josue Sierra at media@indlawcenter.org.
