Judge of the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown Jackson drew criticism Wednesday after she compared a Tennessee law banning gender transitions for minors to past laws banning interracial marriage.
Jackson and the other judges heard it more than two hours of oral arguments during the case of US v. Skrmetti, which concerns the constitutionality of state laws banning gender transition medical procedures for minors.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that state laws have the effect of ‘sex discrimination’, as the gender of the minor is crucial in determining specific medical treatments for those who wish to transition.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sparked a backlash Wednesday after she compared a case on health care for transgender minors to a ban on interracial marriage, in a reference to the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
After the comments of Prelogar and exchanges with the other judgesJackson said she saw a “parallel” between U.S. v. Skrmetti and the landmark 1967 case Loving v. Virginia.
“Interesting to me that you mentioned precedent, because some of these questions about who decides and the concerns and legislative prerogatives, etc., sound very familiar to me,” Jackson said. “They echo the same kinds of arguments that were made at the time – 1950s, 1960s – regarding racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking of Loving v. Virginia in particular, and I’m wondering if you’ve thought about the parallels, because I see one about how this statute works and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia worked.
Jackson also said there was a “possible comparison” between the Loving case and Skrmetti and questioned whether Virginina could have banned interracial marriages by following Tennessee’s reasoning.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was chosen by President Biden. (Photo by United States Supreme Court Collection via Getty Images) (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)
Jackson’s comments caused an uproar on social media.
HIGH COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE
Rep. Matt GaetzR-Fla., called Jackson’s statements an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
“Yes, because banning a white person from marrying a black person is like cutting off the genitals of a 10-year-old,” said Trending Politics co-owner Collin Rugg.
“How can someone who doesn’t know what a woman is decide on a case involving gender?” one commenter posted, referring to Jackson’s confirmation hearing when she was asked to define what a woman is and what she couldn’t do.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told Fox News Digital that GOP officials refusing to comply with the Biden administration’s Title IX revisions are “undermining the rule of law.”
“Supreme Court Mad Libs,” said Greg Scott, senior vice president of communications for Alliance Defending Freedom. “We live in non-serious times,” he added.
Shannon Bream and Bill Mears of Fox News contributed to this report.
