Supreme Court Case US v. Skrmetti update 2025
My letter to Tennessee attorneys Mathew Rice and David Skrmetti following the 6-3 Supreme Court Decision
U.S. v Skrmetii was a battle of rights and an assessment of how culture wars shaping society can detrimentally impact lives, especially when medical authority figures, hailed as advocates, are involved. It’s also a battle of truth and ethics.
Dear Mrs. Rice and Skrmetti, my name is Johnathan Edwards. I’m one of the medical doctors who contributed to the medical portion of the Amicus Brief, a document that provides additional information and perspective to the Supreme Court from a third party, authored by attorney Diana Lutfi. Ms. Lutfi first approached me at the 2024 Rescue the Republic event (organized by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) in Washington, DC, because she was having trouble finding a doctor to help her write Part 1B, Health Care is Discriminatory for a Good Reason. Just like that, I found myself in the fight of the detransitioners to help end this butchery of young children that we all strive so fervently to stop. And so, it began. I wrote Part 1B and provided many references. “And such an approach would be especially inappropriate in the medical context, where some treatments and procedures are uniquely bound up in sex.” See page 2 on Majority (Statement mirrors the section on ‘Healthcare is inherently discriminatory for good medical reasons’). This is the piece I wrote for the Amicus Brief; see the article here.
This decision became the legal precedent of this country, made legal history, and echoed so much of the Larger Detransitioners Community Amicus from the highest court of the land. This is the binding authority for generations to come. Most significantly, Justice Clarence Thomas cited the amicus that I primarily authored, organized, and involved the detransitioners community directly in. This recognition gave them space, voice, and vision, reflecting the fact that their stories and voices cannot and will not be taken away from them by any organization or institution.
Just for context, it’s exceedingly rare for any amicus to be included in U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and this case has 88 amicus briefs filed. The vast majority of attorneys and organizations submitting amici could only hope for a Justice to read their brief and make mention of their perspective. This was even more significant because our brief (which was organized/authored in two weeks) was included in the historical textual decision of the holding, and the opinion and conclusions of this holding mirrored it. Diana said, “I cannot think of a better honor and better proof that Justice is prevailing. Our group furthermore voluntarily came out to D.C. and camped out to watch this case. I cannot begin to express what an honor it is to know all of these individuals, making U.S. history with them, and continuing to make U.S. history with so many others to this day.”
On the eve of the oral arguments, I flew to Washington, D.C., and met many of the detransitioners, including Prisha Mosely, Chloe Cole, Elle Palmer, and others. I met many of the other people on Ms. Lutfi’s team, including politicians Lana Theis (Senator, MI) and Sarah Penn (Rep. Wyoming District 13). Diana did a fantastic job mobilizing physicians, politicians, and others around this movement. I met many physicians from other organizations who were also supporting this movement. I slept on the sidewalk to earn a ticket and enter the Supreme Court to hear the oral arguments. I successfully gained one of the last tickets to the Supreme Court that day. I sat in the back, and I watched you magnificently orate the oral arguments to the Supreme Court justices in favor of stopping this trans butchery.
And even more surreal, I was there as Mr. Rice read my piece, Medicine is Discriminatory for a Good Reason, to Justice Alito in the summary arguments, finally asking, “when are we going to butcher enough children and say it’s enough?” I was so proud of that moment, and I thank you, Mr. Rice and Mr. Skrmetti, for your spirit and pure attempt. Your dedication and eloquence in presenting this case to the Supreme Court justices was truly inspiring.
I would like to take issue with one thing, though. Out of the over 80 Amicus Briefs that were drafted, you utilized Ms. Lutfi’s document, which I signed onto and helped draft. Notable scholars, such as Dr. Jordan Peterson, signed the document, and many physicians and politicians also signed on. You used that document spectacularly, and when the oral arguments finally came out in our favor, six to three, Ms. Lutfi’s amicus brief was the one most frequently referenced by the justices.
Here is the following from Ms. Lutfi:
We made history. We did it! Please see: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court ruled 6-3, upholding Tennessee’s ban on child castration, sterilization, and mutilation — the result of Matt Walsh’s investigation into Vanderbilt Hospital.
The US Supreme Court explicitly cited our amicus brief and arguments! That, perhaps, is far, far more significant than any other win for all of us. It is on the legal record. This decision has had a profound impact on American culture and the American medical-legal system. Lawyers, policymakers, legislature, and others can now cite and reference this brief and this case, a testament to our collective efforts and the power of the law.
Diana Lutfi, JD, authored the Amicus Brief and wrote, “I am personally lost for words and in tears of joy about this Supreme Court decision. Even more so about the court’s arguments, which not only cited our arguments throughout the majority and the concurring opinions (see referenced examples below) but also explicitly referenced our brief for additional state legislative consideration.”
The Supreme Court went on to write: “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 concern; 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. 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.” See page 24 on majority (this was our conclusion on page 36 of the Amicus). See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/328719/20241018182632065_241012a%20v2%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf).
“The voices of ‘detransitioners’—individuals who have undergone sex-transition treatments but no longer view themselves as transgender—provide States with an additional reason to question whether children are providing informed consent to the medical interventions described above.” Their voices, as highlighted on page 17 of Justice Thomas’s Concurrence, and throughout his concurring opinion, have been instrumental in shaping the Court's decision.
What this means and why it is historic: The Supreme Court decision has a profound impact on culture and society today. This win, this cultural shift, and the understanding that everyone has equal rights and equal protection under the law, which experts do not get to circumvent, is a huge step and victory towards justice and truth prevailing.
Ms. Lutfi works tirelessly and, to a fault, asking for nothing in return. Please consider extend your heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Lufti for her unwavering efforts in drafting this critical piece of legislation and making history. Her dedication and leadership have been invaluable to our cause.
Sincerely,
Johnathan Edwards MD
Way to go, Doc! Proud to be in your corner.
Coach Cal