{"id":135023,"date":"2024-12-09T09:08:57","date_gmt":"2024-12-09T02:08:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=135023"},"modified":"2024-12-09T09:08:57","modified_gmt":"2024-12-09T02:08:57","slug":"breaking-down-scotus-oral-arguments-on-transgender-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=135023","title":{"rendered":"Breaking Down SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Transgender Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\r\n     data-ad-layout-key=\"-fb+5w+4e-db+86\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"7910942971\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script><br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and The Heritage Foundation\u2019s Sarah Parshall Perry on a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/podcasts\/morning-wire\/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400\">The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what\u2019s being called the marquee case of this term. In United States V. Skrmetti, three trans identifying teens, a Memphis physician and the Biden administration challenged a Tennessee state law that aims to protect children by banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of attempting to change a child\u2019s gender.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>* * *<\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Joining us to break down this week\u2019s oral arguments in United States V. Skrmetti and the broader implications is Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah, thanks for coming on \u2013 always good to talk to you.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Thank you for having me.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> So, this week we had the oral arguments for this landmark case. Now, we here at the Daily Wire have followed this case closely, in part because of the role <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/podcasts\/morning-wire\/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.<\/a> in this. His investigation into Vanderbilt helped prompt the law that this center\u2019s on. First, can you walk us through how we got to the Supreme Court hearing?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Yes. This actually came from a parental rights challenge. Three parents of transgender minors brought this challenge against SB1, which was a law that was enacted with bipartisan support in the state of Tennessee, saying that not only did it interfere with their rights to achieve this particular very controversial and experimental medical care for their children, but it was also a sex discriminatory law, and that would make it illegal, unconstitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause. <\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Well, both the Federal Trial Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found for Tennessee, basically determining that the state of Tennessee had satisfied the constitutional bar, and it had every interest in protecting minors from unproven sexism, scientifically sketchy procedures, and that this was well within their police power as the state.\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Well, by the time it got to the Sixth Circuit, the United States had filed a motion to intervene. It can do so when a state law challenging an equal protection clause violation is at issue. That\u2019s what they did here. And so by the time it got to the Supreme Court, it only granted review of the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400\">United States\u2019s claim<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> and not the parental rights claim. So what we heard was oral arguments specifically dedicated to whether or not this was sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN<\/b><b>:<\/b> S<span style=\"font-weight:400\">o, let\u2019s unpack that a bit more. What is the argument for this being sex discrimination and the argument against it?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Well, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General for the United States, argues for the Biden administration that because the law makes a distinction on boys who are identified as boys at birth who want to get testosterone, but will not allow girls who are identified as boys who want as male at birth \u2013 being transgender, of course \u2013 they cannot get access to testosterone, that that\u2019s a facially discriminatory characteristic.\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400\">But what the law actually does, and the state legislators were very careful to engage in this type of analysis, is to simply restrict for both males and females any access to the drugs determined by their<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> age alone<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> \u2013 which the Supreme Court has never held to be a class requiring elevated scrutiny \u2014 and also <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400\">based on the use<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> to which the drugs would be put. So restricted only based on use and age, nothing more, and treated men and women equally under the law.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><iframe style=\"width:100%;max-width:660px;overflow:hidden;border-radius:10px\" src=\"https:\/\/embed.podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/high-court-weighs-tennessees-transgender-law-12-8-24\/id1576594336?i=1000679633865\" height=\"175\" frameborder=\"0\" sandbox=\"allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> And to be clear, what is barred here is to use these controversial procedures, these hormone treatments, these puberty blockers, in order to attempt to change the gender or sex of a minor, correct?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> That\u2019s exactly it. In fact, there is no restriction on the use of these puberty blockers for endocrine disorders like precocious puberty, which obviously indicates that those are appropriate medical uses. And of course, the state of Tennessee restricts the use of other drugs for particular purposes as well. It wants to make sure that the dangers of \u201coff-label use\u201d \u2014 And that\u2019s exactly what\u2019s involved here. This is off-label use of unproven drugs for gender dysphoria. They want to make sure that that use is restricted, and they\u2019re constitutionally permitted to do that.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> For those who aren\u2019t familiar with that term, \u201coff-label\u201d \u2013 which is actually crucial in this case \u2013 what does that mean in this context?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has never approved puberty blockers for \u201cgender dysphoria.\u201d It has never approved those particular drugs for which these minor children and their parents, and the United States, have all argued to get access to. Instead, it\u2019s only approved them for endocrine disorders. So the state of Tennessee does not want minor children assuming the risk of off-label use and making determinations that could have lifetime consequences.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Now, judging from what we heard on Wednesday, where do you think the justices are leaning in this case?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> I think there\u2019s a very strong reason to believe that at least five of the justices are going to be skeptical of the United States\u2019 arguments. In fact, Justice Alito himself was fairly excoriating in his refusal to allow Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, to be creative with her legal analysis and to ignore the science. In fact, he said that she\u2019s relegated to a footnote in the bombshell Cass Review Report, which came out of England earlier this year, but in fact the science itself is we also know that Justice Kavanaugh said there is \u201ca red light\u201d here to prevent us from getting involved in new areas and constitutionalizing new areas of medicine. Justice Barrett said this is a question better left for the legislature, as did the Chief Justice himself, who actually quoted, without citing the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health by saying this issue is better suited for the people and their elected representatives. Strangely silent was Justice Gorsuch, who had nothing to say during two and a half hours, and he may be the swing vote in this.<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_838801\" style=\"width:874px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-838801\" class=\"size-large wp-image-838801\" src=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg\" alt=\"Police stand between demonstrators in support of gender affirming treatment, left, and demonstrators in support of the Tennessee case against gender affirming treatment for minors, right, outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024. The US Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of state laws that ban gender-affirming treatments for minors less than five years after the justices outlawed job discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.\" width=\"864\" height=\"576\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2187611773-864x576.jpg 864w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2187611773-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2187611773-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2187611773.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px\"\/><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-838801\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Credit: Photographer: Al Drago\/Bloomberg via Getty Images.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Justice Gorsuch was notably silent. Do you have any sense of why that might have been the case?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> You know, it could be one of two things. First of all, I think it\u2019s wise to remember that Justice Gorsuch was the majority opinion author in Bostock versus Clayton County dating to the year 2020. And in that case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, relative to employment discrimination, was expanded not only to prohibit sex discrimination, but also to prohibit anti-racism and gender identity discrimination. Now, he was that opinion\u2019s majority author. He may have been dealing with the fact that there is now a recognition that the Bostock opinion was a Pandora\u2019s box. The Biden administration has used the Bostock opinion to expand the administrative state, and to force gender identity into concepts like medicine, school lunches, education, and more. That is something I think with which he will have to ultimately reckon because Elizabeth Preloger, the Solicitor General, mentioned the similarity to Bostock, so he very much may have been curling his toes underneath the table.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> So will this ruling potentially override that \u2013 will this set a new precedent in terms of that discrimination clause writ large?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Well, as the other justices noted, particularly conservative justices, the analysis for a constitutional claim, a violation, for example, of the Equal Protection Clause and whether it discriminates based on sex, is slightly different than a discriminatory analysis based on sex under civil rights law. The Constitution holds to a higher bar, what\u2019s called intermediate or heightened scrutiny, and that\u2019s a higher bar for a state to achieve. But that analysis is different enough where Bostock is different from the current issue. I do think what it will do, however, is pin back the ears a little bit, the reach of the Bostock determination, and ensure that equal protection claims are not brought alongside statutory civil rights discrimination claims.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> All right so that was the conservative response \u2013 what did we hear from the Left-leaning justices?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of histrionic commentary about trans kids dying and that these are proven scientific interventions, when in fact we know that is not the case. But the most interesting comparison came from Justice Kanji Brown Jackson, who cited Loving v. Virginia as a analogous case law study, and in Loving v. Virginia, that was the case in which the Supreme Court invalidated the interracial marriage ban from that state under the Equal Protection Clause, essentially overriding the judgment of the state legislature. She argued for the United States to be able to do so here, but ignored the fact that, once again, sex is not the defining characteristic at issue.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Right \u2013 and Brown\u2019s questions in particular gained a lot of negative attention online. Now, it\u2019s notable that the conservatives seem to suggest that this issue is more appropriate to be dealt with by state legislatures rather than the court. And I think the implication there is that science is constantly being updated and reexamined, the best practices are often changing. Is the idea here that a federal court ruling can be too permanent in a sense for medical practices?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Well, I\u2019ll harken back to the Dobbs decision again, and we know the line of viability, for example, that Roe v. Wade set shifted and changed over the fifty years before Dobbs versus Jackson women\u2019s health. And in writing the majority opinion, Justice Alito mentioned the fact that they should not be constitutionalizing areas of medical regulation. That was wholly within the state\u2019s authority. I think they are very likely here to make the exact same determination, especially with so recent a ruling like that on the books.<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_838675\" style=\"width:816px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-838675\" class=\"size-large wp-image-838675\" src=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg\" alt=\"WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: Transgender rights supporters and opponent rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution\u2019s equal protection guarantee.\" width=\"806\" height=\"576\" srcset=\"https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2188237026-806x576.jpg 806w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2188237026-300x214.jpg 300w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2188237026-768x549.jpg 768w, https:\/\/dw-wp-production.imgix.net\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-2188237026.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 806px) 100vw, 806px\"\/><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-838675\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch\/Getty Images.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> When do we expect a decision to be handed down on this case?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Well, there are quite a number of high-profile decisions, but I would argue this is the most high-profile, which indicates to me we are not likely to see an outcome here until probably the end of June 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Okay, so beyond the Supreme Court and constitutional issues here, looking at the broader legal issues here \u2013 one of the things that the Matt Walsh investigation uncovered was an apparent financial incentive for promoting the kind of very controversial, permanent treatments that we\u2019re seeing with these transgender minor operations procedures. Do you foresee legal trouble for those that have been involved in these kinds of programs?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> That\u2019s a good question. We know that this is a three to $5 billion a year industry and some estimates are as high as $10 billion. On average, gender medicine yields a doctor $8,000 per single procedure in sole profit. So we know money had to be spent, quite a bit to do with this and with the incentive of doctors to medicalize these minor children, but there is good news. We\u2019ve already seen a lawsuit coming out of California brought by Harmeet Dhillon\u2019s law firm and she\u2019s done excellent work. They are suing Kaiser Permanente for rushing three minor girls, three young teen girls, through the gender medicine gambit without getting informed consent. I do believe a reckoning is coming.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> You mention Harmeet Dhillon, we actually caught up with her recently and she gave as an overview of her cases involving transition procedures. Here\u2019s some of what she said:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>HARMEET:<\/b> <span style=\"font-weight:400\">We literally filed the first, second, and third lawsuits on this issue in the country. I think other lawyers are joining us and so these cases are winding their way through the court system or through arbitration, because Kaiser tries to force people into arbitration, so do other medical providers. And one of the issues why there\u2019s so few cases is because there\u2019s statute of limitations that are very short that really keep the window very narrow for these young women \u2014 largely women \u2014 to file lawsuits. And so it\u2019s heartbreaking the number of people we simply can\u2019t help because of these statute of limitations issues. I do think that\u2019s going to make a difference, but the bigger and faster and more effective long term difference is going to be legislatures banning these procedures on children. Medical boards taking away the licenses of doctors who commit medical malpractice, which I believe most of these doctors are doing. I mean, you literally have cases where people go in, some guidance counselor sends them for one session with some rubber stamper who then goes and gets the girl\u2019s breasts cut off. It\u2019s shocking and outrageous, it\u2019s insane and it needs to stop. And we shouldn\u2019t rely on the courts and lawyers. We should ask Republican legislatures and Democrat legislatures, frankly, if they care about humans, to stop this practice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Final question: How significant will this ruling ultimately be? Is it fair to say that this ruling will change how the issue of laws about trans procedures in the other states are handled by the courts?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>SARAH:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\"> Yeah, I think that\u2019s exactly accurate. In fact, there are other cases relative to the notion of gender identity pending on the Supreme Court\u2019s docket. But I think the first shot across the bow is the particular notion of gender medicine, because that is at bottom such a controversial notion. I do believe for the 26 other states who are watching keenly what happens with Tennessee\u2019s ban, when they themselves have almost identical bans within their own states. They are very hopeful that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of states rights and their ability to protect minor children, which is something that the Supreme Court has recognized for more than a hundred years.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>JOHN: <\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400\">A consequential decision coming this summer. Sarah, thanks so much for coming on. That was Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow <\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400\">Sarah Parshall Perry and this has been a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/podcasts\/morning-wire\/high-court-weighs-tennessee-s-transgender-law-12-8-24\">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>***<\/b><\/p>\n<h3><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/get.dailywire.com\/gift-guide\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\r\n     data-ad-layout-key=\"-fb+5w+4e-db+86\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3711241968723425\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"7910942971\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><div data-type=\"_mgwidget\" data-widget-id=\"1660802\">\r\n<\/div>\r\n<script>(function(w,q){w[q]=w[q]||[];w[q].push([\"_mgc.load\"])})(window,\"_mgq\");\r\n<\/script>\r\n<br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/5-billion-industry-breaking-down-scotus-oral-arguments-on-transgender-case\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and The Heritage Foundation\u2019s Sarah Parshall Perry on a Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/?p=135023\" class=\"more-link\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8629],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=135023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=135023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=135023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hotvideos24.online\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=135023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}