Blog

Fisking the NY Times on Skrmetti

A Fisking of The New York Times’ Article on United States v. Skrmetti: A Synthesized Narrative

The New York Times article, “How a Landmark Case on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Was Built on Flawed Politics and Uncertain Science”, published on June 19, 2025, provides a detailed account of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The piece frames the ruling as a significant setback for transgender rights, attributing it to a conservative backlash and a strategic misstep by transgender advocates. While the article offers a nuanced perspective, blending personal stories with legal and medical analysis, it contains biases, omissions, and assumptions that warrant scrutiny. By synthesizing insights from conservative commentaries, including HotAir’s “An Excellent Story on the Recent History of the Trans Movement”, The Heritage Foundation’s analysis, The Federalist Society’s commentary, and James Kay’s originalist analysis, this narrative fisks The New York Times’ framing, exposing its slants and contextual gaps while integrating a broader perspective on the ruling’s implications.

Chronological Summary

In 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1), banning puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for minors with gender dysphoria, joining over 20 states with similar restrictions. The law prompted a lawsuit from families, including that of transgender minor L.W., backed by the ACLU, arguing it violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. On December 3, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. On June 18, 2025, the Court issued a 6-3 ruling upholding the ban, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

The New York Times’ Narrative: A Critical Overview

The New York Times portrays United States v. Skrmetti as a culmination of a conservative backlash against transgender rights, amplified during the Trump era. It argues that Tennessee’s 2023 law reflects a broader wave of state-level restrictions. The article centers on the personal story of L.W., whose family sued after the law disrupted her care, to humanize the impact. It critiques the transgender rights movement’s strategy, particularly the ACLU’s decision to frame the case as a violation of equal protection under Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which extended workplace protections to transgender individuals. The piece suggests this was a risky gamble, given the conservative-leaning Supreme Court and growing skepticism about the medical evidence for gender-affirming care, citing international restrictions in countries like Finland and Sweden.

The article acknowledges scientific uncertainty, referencing documents from a related Alabama case and the Cass Report, which question the efficacy and safety of pediatric gender treatments. It also notes internal divisions within the LGBTQ movement, with some leaders arguing the case was a strategic error. The ruling is presented as deferring to state legislatures, avoiding judicial overreach but potentially opening the door to broader restrictions on transgender healthcare. Sotomayor’s dissent, warning of “untold harm” to transgender youth, is highlighted as a counterpoint.

Fisking the Narrative: Key Points of Contention

  1. Framing the Ruling as a Conservative Backlash
    • The New York Times’ Claim: The article frames Skrmetti as part of a “ferocious backlash” against transgender rights, fueled by conservative politics and the Trump era’s cultural polarization.
    • Fisking: This characterization oversimplifies the ruling’s legal basis and dismisses its grounding in constitutional principles. James Kay’s originalist analysis argues that the decision reflects judicial restraint, not political animus. Roberts’ opinion applies rational basis review, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, which does not recognize transgender status as a suspect classification requiring heightened scrutiny. The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society echo this, noting that the Court deferred to Tennessee’s legislature due to unresolved scientific debates, not conservative ideology. The New York Times’ focus on a “backlash” ignores the ruling’s alignment with federalism, a principle also praised in Catholic World Report’s “Skrmetti Restores Some Sanity”, which likens it to Dobbs (2022) for respecting state authority.
  2. Critique of Transgender Rights Strategy
    • The New York Times’ Claim: The article suggests the ACLU’s reliance on Bostock to argue sex discrimination was a strategic overreach, criticized even within the LGBTQ movement.
    • Fisking: This point is largely accurate but underplays the extent of the miscalculation. HotAir calls the ACLU’s decision “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of trans activism,” a view Kay’s analysis supports by arguing that Bostock’s workplace protections do not extend to medical regulation under the Equal Protection Clause. The New York Times acknowledges internal dissent but softens its critique by framing it as a debate among advocates, rather than a fundamental legal error. Conservative sources, including The Federalist Society, note that the Court’s conservative majority was unlikely to expand Bostock to create new constitutional protections, especially given the lack of historical precedent for transgender classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. Scientific Uncertainty and Medical Evidence
    • The New York Times’ Claim: The article highlights doubts about gender-affirming care, citing the Cass Report and international restrictions in Finland and Sweden, but balances this with advocates’ claims of medical necessity.
    • Fisking: While the article acknowledges scientific uncertainty, it downplays the weight of evidence against pediatric gender treatments. The Heritage Foundation cites the Cass Report’s finding of “no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide,” a critical point that undercuts advocates’ claims. Kay’s analysis further notes risks like bone density loss and infertility, which the Court considered in deferring to Tennessee’s regulatory authority. The New York Times’ balanced approach risks equivocation, presenting contested medical claims as equally valid despite growing international skepticism, as seen in Sweden and Finland’s restrictions noted in the New York Times article.
  4. Human Impact and Emotional Appeal
    • The New York Times’ Claim: The article uses L.W.’s story to illustrate the ruling’s personal toll, emphasizing harm to transgender youth and quoting Sotomayor’s dissent about “untold harm.”
    • Fisking: This emotional appeal, while compelling, skews the narrative toward sympathy for transgender youth at the expense of legal objectivity. Conservative commentaries, like Kay’s, focus on the law’s equal application to all minors seeking gender-affirming care, not just transgender individuals, undermining claims of discrimination. The Federalist Society notes that SB1 allows puberty blockers for other medical conditions, suggesting the law targets treatment type, not identity. The New York Times’ focus on L.W. risks overshadowing the broader legal question, a tactic liberal critiques like Slate’s “John Roberts’ Anti-Trans Opinion” also employ to frame the ruling as anti-trans rather than constitutionally grounded.
  5. Implications for Future Rights
    • The New York Times’ Claim: The article warns that Skrmetti could enable broader restrictions on transgender healthcare, including for adults, and potentially other medical procedures opposed by conservatives.
    • Fisking: This fear, echoed in The Nation’s “US vs. Skrmetti: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Trans Rights”, exaggerates the ruling’s scope. Kay’s analysis clarifies that Skrmetti applies rational basis review to a narrow issue-pediatric medical treatments-not adult care or unrelated procedures. The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society emphasize the decision’s focus on federalism, not a blanket endorsement of anti-trans policies. The New York Times’ speculative leap ignores the Court’s explicit deference to state legislatures, which limits its applicability to federal law or adult healthcare. This framing aligns with liberal critiques but lacks evidence from the ruling itself.

Synthesized Narrative: A Balanced Perspective

The United States v. Skrmetti decision, upheld on June 18, 2025, is a pivotal moment in the debate over transgender rights, but The New York Times’ coverage tilts toward a narrative of conservative overreach and transgender victimization, understating the legal and scientific rationale behind the ruling. From an originalist perspective, as articulated by James Kay, the Court’s decision is a triumph of judicial restraint, correctly applying rational basis review to Tennessee’s law, which regulates medical treatments for minors without targeting a protected class. The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society reinforce this, noting that the Court deferred to Tennessee’s legislature amid unresolved scientific questions, as evidenced by the Cass Report and international restrictions.

The New York Times’ emphasis on a conservative “backlash” oversimplifies the ruling’s constitutional grounding, ignoring federalism’s role in allowing states to address contested medical issues. HotAir rightly calls out the ACLU’s strategic error in relying on Bostock, a workplace discrimination case, to argue for constitutional protections in medical regulation-a misstep the Court’s conservative majority was unlikely to endorse. The article’s focus on L.W.’s story, while humanizing, skews the narrative toward emotional appeal, sidelining the law’s equal application to all minors, as conservative sources emphasize.

The New York Times’ warning of broader rights erosions is speculative, as the ruling’s scope is limited to pediatric care and state authority. Liberal critiques, like Slate and The Nation, amplify this fear but overlook the decision’s narrow legal focus. Conversely, conservative commentaries risk understating the ruling’s impact on transgender youth, who face real barriers to care, as The New York Times notes.

Ultimately, Skrmetti reflects a clash between evolving social norms and constitutional limits, with the Court prioritizing legislative authority over judicial activism. The New York Times captures the human stakes but falters in presenting the ruling as primarily ideological, rather than a principled application of law amid scientific uncertainty. The conservative perspective, synthesized from Kay, HotAir, and others, offers a corrective: the decision upholds federalism and originalism, not anti-trans sentiment, though it leaves unresolved the broader societal debate over transgender healthcare.

Key Citations

Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer!

James K. Bishop

James K. Bishop is a conservative writer and raconteur hailing from Texas, known for his incisive and often provocative takes on political and cultural issues. With a staunch commitment to originalist constitutional principles, he emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and traditional American values. Active on X under the handle @James_K_Bishop, he frequently engages his audience with sharp critiques of progressive policies, media narratives, and overreaches by the federal government. His style is direct, often laced with humor and wit, which resonates strongly with his conservative followers.