Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a powerful concurring opinion supporting the right of states to protect children from transgender mutilation. Justice Thomas's opinion clapped back on the reliance of the "expert class" in justifying the demonic abuse of children: There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class. First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the “wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993). Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance. Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not “sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.” Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952). **** When legislation does not cross constitutional lines, States must have leeway to effect the judgment of their citizens—no matter whether experts disagree. And, when this Court has nonetheless given exalted status to expert opinion, it has been to our detriment: Past deference to expertise provided the theory of eugenics “added legitimacy and considerable momentum,” with “[t]his Court thr[owing] its prestige behind the eugenics movement in its 1927 decision upholding the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced-sterilization law.” Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. and Ky., Inc., 587 U. S. 490, 499–500 (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (citing Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927)). Fortunately, we do not repeat that mistake today.