GOP AG predicts which side has advantage in historic SCOTUS transgender case with 'divided' justices

In oral aruments, Supreme Court justices discussed the high-profile, first-of-its-kind case involving transgender medical treatment for children. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the lawmaker at the center of the suit against the Biden administration, told Fox News Digital that over the next few months, the justices will be "thinking a lot about the case." 

When asked whether he ever foresaw himself in such a high-profile legal matter, he said, "not remotely."

"I do think the fact that there's so much disagreement weighs in favor of our side," Skrmetti said in a phone interview. "This is an area where the court really shouldn't come in and pick a winner. The data is still very underdeveloped."

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL 'TREATMENTS' TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

"All the research that both sides point to is unresolved," Skrmetti said. "This is an unsettled area of science, and in situations like that, the best way to resolve it is through the democratic process. Our legislators appropriate people to deal with that uncertainty and make the call for each individual state."

The justices appeared divided on Wednesday after oral arguments, and the three appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session.

For its part, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Protection Clause, which ensures equal treatment under the law for similarly situated individuals, bars states from prohibiting medical providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to help minors transition to a different gender. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti and is challenging Tennessee's state law which bans medical procedures for minors.

Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators rallied both for and against gender transition treatments for children. One of those rally-goers, detransitioner and activist Chloe Cole, told Fox News Digital in an interview that if the justices oppose the ban on trans medical treatments, "it's going to make things a lot more difficult on legislative fronts in terms of protecting our children and our youth."

'THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING': EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

"If we want to create a precedent for other states, for first this law, to be upheld in courts and for other states to be upheld as well, we have to do this now," Cole said.

Cole, who detransitioned at the age of 16, told Fox News Digital that doctors had done an "incredible disservice" to her at a young age by helping her transition in the first place.

"I'm never going to even have a chance at nursing my children with what God gave me," Cole said. "An incredible disservice has been done to me by these irresponsible doctors who knew better. They knew better than to do this to a child. They still chose to do it. But they messed with the wrong kid, and I am going to make sure there is never another child in America who is abused in the same way I was ever again."

The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. A decision is expected by July 2025.

"So if the court puts a thumb on the scale and says that the courts could be second-guessing state governments on these issues, I think you're going to see an inhibited debate, and we've seen this happen before in other contexts where democracy is subverted by judges who step a little too far into the policy arena, and that ultimately hurts the country," Skrmetti said. 

"It de-legitimates the government," he added. "It makes people feel alienated from the political process. The alternative is it stays open to our democratic system of resolving disagreements, and you'll see a lot of debate, and different states will go in different directions, and over time, we'll have better research, and people will have a chance to debate this extensively, and that's just the better way to come to a resolution on such a hot button issue where the Constitution is silent."

The Justices' decision may also influence broader debates about whether sexual orientation and gender identity qualify as protected classes under civil rights laws, akin to protections for race and national origin.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

When asked whether Skrmetti believes the incoming Trump administration could persuade the justices one way in the case, he said, "It's ultimately up to the court how they want to handle that." Trump promised during his campaign he would outlaw transgender medical procedures for minors and open the doorway to allowing individuals to sue medical providers for conducting them.

"But there is a path there for them to continue this, and I think it's important that we get clarity soon, because there are so many cases involving these issues, and the lower courts have not been consistent and are looking for guidance, and it would do everyone good to have a more clear answer to the state of the law," he said.

Fox News Digital's Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.