Long Island advocates worried about Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on transgender care for minors

Kerry Thomas always knew he was different, even at the age of 5.

In grade school, Thomas, who was born female, gravitated toward the toys selected by boys and sports dominated by males.

After attempting to take his own life at age 16, Thomas decided to transition — beginning puberty blockers at age 18, testosterone three years later and eventually completing his surgery. 

Thomas, 39, of East Northport, now worries that other youths who feel they too were assigned the wrong sex at birth might not be afforded the same opportunity.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, upheld Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, arguing the law did not violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

"When these issues are up for debate, it’s essentially like someone’s humanity is also up for debate," said Thomas, who works as a social worker.

Thomas is not alone in his concern.

On Wednesday, Long Island transgender advocates, along with individuals who've received gender-affirming treatment and their loved ones, worried about the overarching impact of the high court's decision.

Micah Schneider, director of programs at the Hauppauge-based LGBT Network, who identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, said the ruling is "deeply concerning" for transgender youths.

"This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that threatens not only access to essential medical treatment but also the broader rights and dignity of transgender and nonbinary people," Schneider said. "While states like New York offer protections, many across the country — especially trans youth — are left vulnerable to harm. Everyone deserves access to lifesaving care. Why should this be any different?"

Tennessee's law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors and imposes financial penalties on doctors who violate the prohibition.

The ruling clears the path for the 26 other states that have similar laws in place to also limit medical treatment for transgender youth.

"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the majority. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the court retreated "from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most" and "abandons transgender children and their families to political whims."

The decision — which comes amid a renewed national debate about transgender rights, sparked in part by President Donald Trump's return to the White House — does not affect New York State, which has laws in place protecting access to transition-related medical treatment for transgender minors. 

The ruling leaves intact a 2020 Supreme Court decision which found that transgender individuals, along with gays and lesbians, are protected from workplace discrimination.

In April, Trump signed an executive order stipulating that the federal government will recognize only two sexes and that federal agencies must use the term "sex" and not "gender" on all documents, including government-issued IDs. 

The Trump administration is also pushing to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19; kicked transgender troops out of the military; and sued Maine for not complying with the government’s push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports.

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, estimates there are roughly 300,000 people in the United States between the ages of 13 and 17 who identify as transgender.

David Kilmnick, president of the LGBT Network, said the "Supreme Court has effectively handed over the basic health care rights of trans young people to the political agendas of state legislatures. Let’s be clear: gender-affirming care is lifesaving, backed by every major medical association in this country, and essential for the health and dignity of trans youth. Denying that care puts lives at risk."

Jennifer Hovestadt-Molloy, 54, of East Yaphank, who has two transgender adult children, said the Supreme Court was eliminating a vital lifeline for minors while empowering politicians, rather than parents and medical providers, to make decisions that can affect the health and safety of vulnerable youths.

"Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children, for any reason," Hovestadt-Molloy said. "If your child had cancer or diabetes ... and they needed medical treatment, they’re not gonna ask a politician for permission. And it’s the same for gender-affirming care." 

And she offered a message to the parents of transgender youths: "Listen to your children and support your children in any way you can."