US v. Skrmetti:

This case challenges Tennessee’s law (Senate Bill 1), that bans transgender medical care for youth in the state. The Supreme court will determine what kind of legal review gender identity based discrimination should receive:

• LOSS: Rational basis review analysis (under which states are more likely to win), or
• WIN: Intermediate review analysis that sex discrimination receives (under which people impacted by discriminatory laws or policies are more likely to win). 

Additionally, the Supreme Court could decide whether Tennessee's ban on transgender healthcare violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. To read more about the potential outcomes and impacts of the case, check out our factsheet here. 

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic:

This case challenges South Carolina’s attempt to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from its state Medicaid program, categorizing them as a non-qualified provider. Many LGBTQ+ people rely on Planned Parenthood clinics to receive crucial services and resources needed to be safe and healthy, including cancer screenings, STI testing and treatments as well as reproductive healthcare. The Supreme Court will rule on whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue to enforce their “free choice of provider” right as outlined in the Medicaid Act. 

• LOSS: If the Supreme Court determines that Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue to enforce their “free choice of provider” right, it would limit pathways for legal challenges against South Carolina’s attempt to remove Planned Parenthood or other providers from its program—compromising patients’ rights to choose their own healthcare providers and restricting access to essential healthcare for thousands of people. 
• WIN: If the Supreme Court determines that Medicaid beneficiaries can sue to enforce their “free choice of provider” right, the Court would then send the case back down to the lower court to determine whether South Carolina has the authority to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from its state Medicaid program. 

Kennedy v. Braidwood:

This case challenges the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) preventive care ratings that requires healthcare plans to cover recommended preventive services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These recommended preventive services include the HIV prevention medicine PrEP, which Black and Latiné gay, bisexual men, and transgender women, who are disproportionately impacted by HIV, rely on to stay safe. Other preventive services at stake include breast cancer screenings, depression screenings, Hepatitis B and C and other STI counseling and screenings. In their ruling, the Supreme Court will determine whether the USPSTF is constitutional and therefore has the authority to mandate coverage of these preventive services recommendations.

• LOSS: If the Supreme Court rules the USPSTF is unconstitutional, private insurance plans will no longer be mandated to cover these preventive services, imposing barriers to affordable, lifesaving healthcare for the LGBTQ+ community and other marginalized groups. 
• WIN: If the Supreme Court rules the USPSTF is constitutional, mandated coverage of the USPSTF’s preventive services recommendations must remain intact by nearly all private insurance plans at no cost to enrollees—protecting affordable access for LGBTQ+ and other policyholders. 

Mahmoud v. Taylor:

This case will determine whether the inclusion of LGBTQ+ storybooks in a public school curriculum without a notice-and-opt-out provision is in violation of parents’ First Amendment religious freedom protections. 

• LOSS: The Supreme Court could rule that inclusion of LGBTQ+ storybooks in public school curriculum without an opt-out provision is in violation of parent’s First Amendment religious freedom protections. 
  • This would open the door for parents to opt-out children for any subject they find “objectionable” and sends a message to LGBTQ+ students and their families that their experiences and stories aren’t equally important. Additionally, this would create major hurdles for educators and administrators, who would have to find solutions for supervision and alternative options for opted-out students—exhausting educational resources. 
• WIN: The Supreme Court could rule that inclusion of LGBTQ+ storybooks in curriculum without an opt-out provision is not a violation of parent’s First Amendment religious freedom protections. 
  • This would allow both LGBTQ+ students and their peers to continue reaping the benefits of inclusive education—gaining diverse perspectives, creating welcoming classrooms and maintaining the quality of our country’s public education system. 

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) people, with 3.6 million members and supporters. The HRC Foundation (a 501(c)(3)) works to ensure LGBTQ+ people are safe, seen and supported where it matters most: at school, at work and in every community across the country. From the courtroom to the classroom, from Congress to corporate America, HRC and the HRC Foundation build power through partnerships, storytelling, and action—working to create a future rooted in equity, freedom and belonging for all LGBTQ+ people.