Supreme Court's Rulings on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Explained

The Supreme Court's decision to largely reinstate Idaho's ban on gender-affirming care for minors was accompanied by a confusing set of opinions, with justices split into three different camps on how the Court should handle cases arising on its "shadow docket." The opinions did not extensively discuss the ban's constitutionality, but rather focused on procedural issues. Justice Kavanaugh's opinion suggests a likelihood of upholding the ban, raising concerns for transgender children. The justices' differing approaches to shadow docket cases and universal injunctions reveal potential implications for future decisions on contentious issues.