The Supreme Court’s most recent term concluded at the end of June, delivering consequential decisions related to issues around transgender athletes, conversion therapy, and generic pharmaceuticals—all with significant bioethics implications. Greenwall Faculty Scholar Alums weighed in on the cases over the course of the term as well as the types of issues and cases the Supreme Court has opted not to hear. Read what they had to say below.
I. Glenn Cohen, JD, in SCOTUSblog:
Reproductive Technologies and the Federal Constitutional Vacuum
August 4, 2026
“Questions about the propriety of destroying embryos, whether women can lawfully agree to sell their reproductive labor as surrogates, gene editing, radically new forms of family formation, as well as questions of dignity, access, and equality, cut to the quick of what kind of country we are. To the extent we view the Constitution as the ultimate repository of those values, the court’s current silence on what the Constitution means feels deafening.”
Craig Konnoth, JD, in SCOTUSblog:
Why the Supreme Court Decided the Wrong Issue in the Transgender Athletes Cases
July 27, 2026
“Ultimately, it would have made the most sense…to send the case back to the trial court and let it decide – as trial courts do, after weighing expert testimony – which of the numerous characteristics that we associate with different sexes were actually relevant to competitive equity and safety, the proffered goals of the state, and which were not.”
Craig Konnoth, JD, in Slate Magazine:
Brett Kavanaugh’s Anti-Trans Ruling Takes a New and Disturbing Turn
July 7, 2026
“Most importantly, the plaintiffs in these cases never went through male puberty, though they did grow breast tissue and lack testosterone levels typical of men. Are they, in fact, ‘biological males,’ as Kavanaugh insisted? And are the justices—none of whom has an advanced degree in any biological science—qualified to make that determination?”
Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, in Endpoints News:
The Supreme Court will Determine How a Fish Oil Pill Shakes Up the Generics Market
April 28, 2026
“Brand-name companies will be able to prevent the timely availability of generics by just setting up larger and larger thickets of patents[.]”
Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, in JAMA:
Skinny Labels at the Supreme Court—Generic Competition, Patent Inducement, and Affordable Medicines
April 9, 2026
“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to curb the strategic gamesmanship that can undermine [the skinny label] pathway. Without it, we risk returning to an era of prolonged monopolies and delayed access to affordable medicines.”
Craig Konnoth, JD, in The Hill:
Supreme Court’s Conversion Therapy Ruling Erases Gay, Transgender Identity
April 9, 2026
“Reams of research show that ‘survivors of conversion therapy continue to suffer from [post-traumatic stress disorder], anxiety, and suicidal ideation.’ And major medical associations all agree, no evidence demonstrates the efficacy of conversion efforts.”
Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, on the Stanford Legal podcast:
Navigating Uncertainty and Unprecedented Shifts in Federal Health Policy
November 6, 2025
“In both the Skrmetti case and the case…about conversion therapy, there were concerns on how can we rely on medical consensus as the loadstar, because can’t we think of instances where the whole profession was just wrong in…a really big way about something? And of course we can.”