In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s commonsense ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors — including hormones, puberty blockers, and irreversible surgeries — declaring the law constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision marks a powerful blow to the radical transgender movement and a victory for parents, children, and states’ rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion, made it clear that the Court’s role is not to legislate from the bench but to uphold the Constitution — something too many judges have forgotten in recent years.

“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. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts emphasized judicial restraint and reaffirmed the constitutional authority of elected legislatures to craft policy in their states.

“Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,” he continued. “Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

This ruling effectively affirms that states have the constitutional right to protect children from experimental and often irreversible gender procedures — a right that cannot be overruled by activist judges or federal overreach.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts in the majority.

Predictably, the Court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, continuing their pattern of legislating from the bench and embracing the ever-changing dogmas of the radical left.

In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the majority of enabling discrimination, writing that the ruling “does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.” She further lamented that the decision “authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.”

Sotomayor’s response laid bare the ideological divide: while the majority deferred to democratic self-governance and legal interpretation, the dissent relied on emotional appeals and subjective claims of “harm” to justify judicial activism.

Conservatives across the country celebrated the ruling as a decisive affirmation of parental rights and state sovereignty. One X user called it “a major victory for the country, and a devastating loss for the transgenderist left.” Others expressed gratitude to God for the outcome, recognizing the moral implications of the Court’s defense of children.

In essence, the Supreme Court refused to twist the Constitution to enable radical gender ideology — a message the left would do well to heed.

Despite the fierce objections from liberal justices, the majority opinion sends a clear message: the Constitution does not require states to stand by while children are subjected to irreversible medical procedures based on political trends.