The Supreme Court's New Term Will Further Erode LGBTQ+ Rights
Source: Hila Keren. "LGBTQ+ people are again in the Supreme Court's crosshairs.." October 6, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court is poised to continue a troubling trend of ruling against LGBTQ+ rights, especially harming transgender youth, through several cases this term involving public funding for discriminatory religious schools, parental ability to block LGBTQ-supportive youth services, and restrictions on transgender prisoners' healthcare. She warns that these cases follow a pattern set by recent rulings and urges readers to pay close attention before it's too late to respond.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's upcoming term poses a serious, continuing threat to LGBTQ+ rights, particularly for transgender youth, and people should closely monitor the Court's actions throughout the term.
Premises
- In recent terms, the Court ruled against LGBTQ+ interests in multiple cases (303 Creative v. Elenis, U.S. v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, Chiles v. Salazar, West Virginia v. B.P.J., Mirabelli v. Bonta), establishing precedents that embolden further anti-LGBTQ+ litigation
- Two scheduled cases this term (St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy and International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson) seek to let religious institutions receive public funding while excluding LGBTQ+ families, and to let parents block minors' access to state-protected shelters and counseling
- An emergency docket case (Trump v. Kingdom) could soon strip trans prisoners of healthcare and accommodations before public awareness develops
- Pending petitions (Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, Trump v. Thakur) seek to let teachers misgender trans students and let the government withhold research funding related to LGBTQ+ and DEI topics
- These cases originate from coordinated efforts by the White House, Department of Justice, and conservative legal advocacy groups (Becket Fund, First Liberty Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom)
- The pattern across these cases shows a dual strategy: directing public funds to institutions that exclude LGBTQ+ people while reducing protections in institutions meant to serve everyone
Assumptions
- The current conservative majority on the Court is likely to continue ruling against LGBTQ+ interests based on past voting patterns
- Religious liberty and parental rights claims in these cases are being used primarily as vehicles to restrict LGBTQ+ protections rather than for their stated purposes
- Public awareness and advocacy can meaningfully influence or respond to Court decisions if people monitor proceedings closely enough
- The listed precedent cases were wrongly decided or represent harm to LGBTQ+ people rather than legitimate legal outcomes
- Emergency docket rulings receive insufficient public scrutiny compared to full opinions