Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling (U.S. v. Skrmetti) upholding a Tennessee law that protects minors from gender transition procedures, that decision had already borne fruit in another pending case. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) announced on Wednesday that the activists who challenged Idaho’s law had dismissed their case, allowing the state to pursue “full enforcement” of the law.

“Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act recognizes that children suffering from gender dysphoria need love, support, and medical care rooted in biological reality — not life-altering drugs and surgeries,” said Labrador. “With this lawsuit now dismissed, Idaho can fully enforce our law protecting children, families, and biological reality.”

These salutary side effects are possible because the Supreme Court actually addressed the merits of the Tennessee law, instead of disposing of the case on procedural grounds.

“The court rejected the notion that the Equal Protection Clause somehow institutionalizes one side’s view of an active medical debate, and instead reinforced a fundamental principle of our constitutional structure, which is that the power to resolve these types of political decisions rest with the democratic process,” explained Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice on “Washington Watch.” “Tennessee … looked at the scientific evidence and decided that there simply was no scientific evidence to support gender interventions in minors.”

The merit-based ruling establishes a Supreme Court precedent in favor of laws like Tennessee’s. A majority of states (27) have passed such laws, although most face legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s Skrmetti ruling will significantly shape the legal landscape of those lawsuits in favor of the state laws.

But Skrmetti will not affect all states equally, so here is a brief rundown.

Federal Lawsuits

Transgender activists have brought federal lawsuits against eight states, besides Tennessee and Idaho, that protect minors from gender transition procedures.

Two of those lawsuits ended even before the Supreme Court’s Skrmetti ruling. After a loss before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Boe v. Marshall), the left-wing lawyers dismissed their challenge to Alabama’s law on May 1, 2025. A case (Koe v. Noggle) in neighboring Georgia, affected by the same 11th Circuit precedent, was terminated on September 13, 2024, “pending the resolution of United States v. Skrmetti in the Supreme Court.” Since the Supreme Court agreed with the 11th Circuit, the Georgia case will likely not be reopened.

Three more states have won their arguments before their respective appellate courts, so there should be no point in the challengers seeking an appeal. On September 28, 2023, the Sixth Circuit reversed a preliminary injunction against Kentucky, in a case (Doe v. Thornbury) combined with the Tennessee case (U.S. v. Skrmetti). On August 26, 2024, the 11th Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction against Florida pending appeal (in Doe v. Ladapo). On November 13, 2024, the Seventh Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction against Indiana (in K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board).

Two other lawsuits are in progress, although no judge has ruled against the state. On October 5, 2023, a federal judge in the northern district of Oklahoma denied a preliminary injunction against that state’s law, and it now sits before the 10th Circuit on appeal (Poe v. Drummond). On October 11, 2023, a lawsuit (Voe v. Mansfield) was filed against North Carolina’s law in federal court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Both cases saw virtually no activity for nearly two years, presumably because they were waiting on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Skrmetti.

Last but not least is Arkansas. The very first state to enact legislative protections for minors from gender transition procedures is also the only state where a federal judge has issued (Brandt v. Rutledge) a permanent injunction (June 20, 2023) against its SAFE Act — a testament to how rapidly the judicial landscape has swung in favor of such laws.

“We really were in on the ground floor in Arkansas, which was in fact, the first state to pass a law like this comprehensively protecting kids from gender transition procedures,” said Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council. “That was an effort that came out of FRC, but it really came out of prayer and collaboration, both here on the team and with other allies. … The hand of God was very, very clear on this from the very beginning.”

“Arkansas was a dam break in this, and it really led to the point where we now have the president of the United States affirming that children are born perfect in their bodies just the way they are. There’s been a real switch in our understanding of this issue,” Gonzalez added on “Washington Watch.” “It has provided a turning point,” agreed FRC President Tony Perkins, “when many thought that this transgender train was barreling down the tracks and couldn’t be stopped. It has been stopped. And it’s been turned.”

Arkansas appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit on November 7, 2023, where it awaits further action. “There’s been no announcement yet out of Arkansas, but I fully expect that we will see a similar outcome there and in other states,” where the Supreme Court’s Skrmetti ruling decides cases in favor of state SAFE Acts.

State Lawsuits

In eight additional states, laws protecting minors from gender transition procedures have been challenged in state court, not federal court. Consequently, the federal precedent set forth in Skrmetti may prove less than decisive.

This problem is felt most acutely in Montana, where the state Supreme Court (in Cross v. State of Montana) upheld a preliminary injunction against the state’s law on December 11, 2024.

Other state supreme courts have decided in the state’s favor. On June 28, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court vacated (Loe v. Texas) a temporary injunction against Texas’s law protecting minors. On July 26, 2024, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled (Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers) in favor of Nebraska’s law (which was only challenged on a procedural question). On April 29, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the state a procedural stay (in Moe v. Yost) from a preliminary injunction while the state appeals an adverse ruling by the appellate court.

Missouri (Noe v. Parson, November 25, 2024) and North Dakota (T.D. v. Wrigley, June 5, 2024) also successfully defended their laws in state courts, and those rulings have evidently not been appealed.

Finally, there have been lawsuits filed against laws protecting minors from gender transition procedures in Kansas (Loe v. Kansas, May 28, 2025) and Louisiana (Soe v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, January 8, 2024), but no ruling has been issued in those cases.

No Lawsuits

A third category of states includes those which have passed a law protecting minors from gender transition procedures, but which have faced no legal challenge (or, at least, an LGBT activist group is not aware of any). This category includes nine states, including these five: Iowa, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

The other four states in the category have weaker laws that have probably gone unchallenged because there is not much to challenge: Arizona and New Hampshire only ban gender transition surgeries for minors. Utah’s law regulates rather than bans. And West Virginia’s law lacked any enforcement mechanisms (the state passed a better law last month, but the upgraded version has not yet taken effect).

Regardless, states in all three categories will likely benefit to some extent from the downstream effects of the Skrmetti decision. “I think that those states’ laws are greenlit after today’s decisions,” Rice reflected. “The court essentially returned this issue to the legislature and to the elected representatives.”

“This is a monumental victory,” gushed González. “It’s a victory for kids. It’s a victory for parents. And it’s a victory that we at FRC have been looking for a very long time. We’re really celebrating here.”

Originally published here.