The impact of these decisions—across US v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—is sweeping. Together, they create new barriers to accessing care, compromise inclusive education, and narrow the legal avenues available to challenge state abuses. These decisions do not exist in a vacuum. They arrive in the midst of a coordinated political campaign to roll back LGBTQ+ rights—through federal executive actions, state legislation, school system censorship, book bans, healthcare restrictions, and hateful rhetoric from elected officials. 

Statement from Kelley Robinson, President of the Human Rights Campaign:

“This Supreme Court term marks a breaking point. One by one, the Court dismantled access to affirming healthcare, sanctioned the silencing of LGBTQ+ stories in schools, and limited our ability to fight discrimination in court. These decisions are not isolated—they are part of a disturbing pattern of judicial hostility toward our community. LGBTQ+ people are being pushed out of public life, out of their healthcare clinics, and out of their classrooms. The cruelty is calculated, and the impact is personal. But let me be clear: while the Court has abandoned its duty to protect all Americans, we will never abandon each other. We have lost at the Court before only to fight our way to victory. Our movement is powerful, our people are resilient, and we will rally, organize, and keep showing up until every LGBTQ+ person can live freely, safely, and with dignity.”

How the Court’s Decisions Hurt LGBTQ+ People:

This term, the Supreme Court delivered four separate rulings that will have profound, real-world ramifications for LGBTQ+ people across the country. Below is a summary of each decision and the tangible ways it affects our communities.

• US v. Skrmetti
  • Ruling: The Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for youth.
  • Impact: Sets a dangerous precedent that will make it harder to challenge similar bans across the country, stripping thousands of transgender youth of access to best-practice, medically necessary care. By wrongly interpreting the ban as one based on age and medical use, thus meriting a lower level of legal scrutiny, the Court narrowed the legal tools used to fight discrimination based on sex and gender identity. However, this ruling does not close down other legal pathways to challenge laws that target the transgender community. 
• Mahmoud v. Taylor
  • Ruling: The Court allowed parents to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks in public schools.
  • Impact: Undermines inclusive curricula and opens the door to widespread censorship of LGBTQ+ voices, sending a harmful message that queer stories—and students—don’t belong in the classroom.
• Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
  • Ruling: The Court ruled that Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue to enforce their right to choose their own healthcare provider.
  • Impact: Allows states to block access to trusted providers like Planned Parenthood, jeopardizing access to care for LGBTQ+ people who rely on Medicaid for critical services like STI testing, cancer screenings, and gender-affirming care.
• Kennedy v. Braidwood
  • Ruling: The Court upheld affordable preventive care under the ACA, which continues free access to PrEP, but elevated the Health and Human Services Secretary’s influence over the scientific integrity and independence of healthcare recommendations.
  • Impact: For now, protects LGBTQ+ people’s access to free, preventive healthcare services like PrEP, STI screenings, and cancer checks—care that many rely on, particularly Black, Brown, and transgender communities.