How The Supreme Court Ended Trans Rights

00:22:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S80ivPamBoM

Summary

TLDRThe Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee's law banning certain gender-affirming treatments for minors does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex, thus only requiring rational basis review. The ruling has sparked significant debate regarding its implications for transgender rights and parental rights in medical decisions for minors. Dissenting justices argued that the law discriminates based on sex and should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Critics have raised concerns about the court's reasoning and the potential for future legislation that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.

Takeaways

  • ⚖️ Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law on gender-affirming treatments.
  • 🧑‍⚖️ Ruling was 6-3, authored by Chief Justice Roberts.
  • 📜 Law classifies based on age and medical use, not sex.
  • 🔍 Rational basis review applied, a lower standard of scrutiny.
  • 🚫 Law prohibits certain treatments for minors with gender dysphoria.
  • 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Concerns raised about parental rights in medical decisions.
  • 📈 Potential for similar laws in other states.
  • 🗣️ Dissenting justices argued for heightened scrutiny.
  • 📚 Bostock case not extended to equal protection in this ruling.
  • 🧐 Critics argue the ruling reflects an outcome-driven approach.

Timeline

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Tennessee passed a law aimed at encouraging minors to appreciate their birth-assigned sex, prohibiting certain medical treatments for gender dysphoria while allowing them for other medical reasons. The Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Skirmdi that this law does not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, with Chief Justice Roberts stating it does not classify based on sex, thus applying a rational basis review.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    The plaintiffs, consisting of transgender minors and a medical provider, challenged Tennessee's SB1, which bans specific medical treatments for transgender minors. The law defines sex based on immutable characteristics at birth and allows treatments for other medical conditions. The plaintiffs argue that SB1 violates the equal protection clause, which requires valid reasons for laws treating similar groups differently.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the standard of review for SB1. If it classified based on sex, heightened scrutiny would apply; if not, rational basis review would suffice. The court concluded that SB1 classifies based on age and medical use, not sex, thus only requiring rational basis review, which is a lower standard.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:22:20

    Chief Justice Roberts argued that SB1 does not discriminate against transgender individuals as a class, as it does not prohibit treatments based on sex but rather on age and medical use. The court dismissed arguments for heightened scrutiny, stating that the law's classifications were rationally related to protecting minors' health. Dissenting justices argued that SB1 does classify based on sex and should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, highlighting concerns about discrimination against transgender individuals.

Show more

Mind Map

Video Q&A

  • What is the purpose of Tennessee's law on gender-affirming treatments?

    The law aims to encourage minors to appreciate their birth-assigned sex and prohibits certain medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

  • What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the Tennessee law?

    The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

  • What classifications did the court find in the Tennessee law?

    The court found that the law classifies based on age and medical use, not sex.

  • What standard of review did the court apply to the law?

    The court applied a rational basis review, which is a lower standard of scrutiny.

  • What are the implications of this ruling for transgender rights?

    The ruling may limit protections for transgender individuals and raise concerns about the treatment of minors seeking gender-affirming care.

  • What did the dissenting justices argue?

    The dissenting justices argued that the law discriminates based on sex and should be subject to heightened scrutiny.

  • How does this ruling relate to parental rights?

    Critics argue that the ruling undermines parental rights to make medical decisions for their children.

  • What is the significance of the case Bostock v. Clayton County in this context?

    Bostock established that discrimination based on transgender status violates Title 7, but the court did not extend this reasoning to the equal protection clause in this case.

  • What is the potential impact of this ruling on future legislation?

    The ruling may embolden states to enact similar laws that restrict gender-affirming care for minors.

  • What criticisms have been made about the Supreme Court's reasoning?

    Critics argue that the court's decision reflects an outcome-driven approach and fails to recognize the discrimination faced by transgender individuals.

View more video summaries

Get instant access to free YouTube video summaries powered by AI!
Subtitles
en
Auto Scroll:
  • 00:00:00
    Apparently, when Tennessee passed a law,
  • 00:00:01
    the states's purpose is to encourage
  • 00:00:02
    minors to appreciate and not disdain
  • 00:00:05
    their birth assigned sex, and that
  • 00:00:06
    prohibits certain medical treatments for
  • 00:00:08
    minors seeking treatment for gender
  • 00:00:09
    dysphoria, but will allow those
  • 00:00:11
    treatments for other medical reasons.
  • 00:00:13
    Apparently, that does not draw
  • 00:00:15
    classifications based on sex and is
  • 00:00:16
    constitutional. Why? Because Chief
  • 00:00:19
    Justice John Roberts says so. That's
  • 00:00:21
    why. On June 18th, the Supreme Court
  • 00:00:22
    issued its heavily anticipated ruling in
  • 00:00:24
    the United States versus Skirmdi, a
  • 00:00:26
    lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law
  • 00:00:27
    banning certain gender- affirming
  • 00:00:28
    treatments for transgender minors. In a
  • 00:00:31
    six-3 decision divided along party lines
  • 00:00:33
    and authored by Chief Justice Roberts,
  • 00:00:34
    the court held that the Tennessee law
  • 00:00:36
    and issue does not violate the
  • 00:00:37
    Constitution's equal protection clause
  • 00:00:38
    and is therefore enforceable. And
  • 00:00:40
    regardless of what side of the issue
  • 00:00:42
    you're on, this case provides a
  • 00:00:43
    fascinating insight into the mental and
  • 00:00:45
    linguistic gymnastics the court will go
  • 00:00:47
    through to invoke the standard of review
  • 00:00:49
    that will best support its desired
  • 00:00:50
    outcome. Now, the screetti plaintiffs,
  • 00:00:52
    three transgender adolescence and their
  • 00:00:54
    families, as well as a Memphis-based
  • 00:00:56
    medical provider, brought a
  • 00:00:57
    pre-inforcement challenge to Senate Bill
  • 00:00:59
    1 of Tennessee, the prohibition on
  • 00:01:02
    medical procedures on minors related to
  • 00:01:04
    sexual identity. Enacted by Tennessee in
  • 00:01:06
    2023, SB1 bans the administration of
  • 00:01:09
    certain medical treatments for
  • 00:01:10
    transgender minors. Specifically, the
  • 00:01:12
    bill prohibits healthcare providers from
  • 00:01:13
    quote surgically removing, modifying,
  • 00:01:15
    altering, or entering into any tissues,
  • 00:01:17
    cavities, or organs of a human being, or
  • 00:01:19
    prescribing, administering, or
  • 00:01:21
    dispensing any puberty blocker or
  • 00:01:22
    hormone to any minor for the purpose of
  • 00:01:24
    one, enabling the minor to identify with
  • 00:01:26
    or live as a purported identity
  • 00:01:28
    inconsistent with the minor's sex, or
  • 00:01:30
    two, treating purported discomfort or
  • 00:01:32
    distress from a discordance between the
  • 00:01:34
    minor sex and asserted identity. Sex in
  • 00:01:36
    turn is defined as quote a person's
  • 00:01:38
    immutable characteristics of the
  • 00:01:39
    reproductive system that define the
  • 00:01:41
    individual as male or female as
  • 00:01:43
    determined by anatomy and genetics
  • 00:01:45
    existing at the time of birth. Now the
  • 00:01:46
    time SP1 permitted a healthcare provider
  • 00:01:48
    to administer puberty blockers or
  • 00:01:50
    hormones to treat a minor's congenital
  • 00:01:52
    defect preco puberty disease or physical
  • 00:01:54
    injury. The bill's prohibitions are
  • 00:01:56
    intended to quote protect minors from
  • 00:01:57
    physical and emotional harm by
  • 00:01:59
    encouraging minors to appreciate rather
  • 00:02:00
    than quote become disdainful of their
  • 00:02:02
    sex. Now, among other things, the
  • 00:02:04
    plaintiffs argue that SP1 violates the
  • 00:02:05
    Constitution's equal protection clause,
  • 00:02:07
    which provides that quote, "No state
  • 00:02:08
    shall deny to any person within its
  • 00:02:10
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the
  • 00:02:12
    laws." The 14th Amendment was enacted
  • 00:02:14
    shortly after the Civil War to combat
  • 00:02:16
    discrimination and ensure due process.
  • 00:02:17
    And the amendment's equal protection
  • 00:02:18
    clause requires the government to have a
  • 00:02:20
    valid reason for any law or official
  • 00:02:22
    action that treats similarly situated
  • 00:02:23
    people or groups of people differently.
  • 00:02:25
    So to this end, the equal protection
  • 00:02:27
    clause was instrumental in striking down
  • 00:02:29
    governmentally imposed racial
  • 00:02:30
    segregation, for example, in Brown
  • 00:02:32
    versus Board of Education and laws
  • 00:02:33
    prohibiting same-sex marriage in Obervel
  • 00:02:35
    versus Hodgeges. Now, in asserting equal
  • 00:02:37
    protection clause challenges, courts use
  • 00:02:39
    different standards of review to assess
  • 00:02:40
    the constitutionality of laws that
  • 00:02:42
    differentiate between groups of people.
  • 00:02:44
    Now, the three main standards of review
  • 00:02:45
    are strict scrutiny, intermediate
  • 00:02:47
    scrutiny, and rational basis review. And
  • 00:02:49
    the level of scrutiny that a court will
  • 00:02:51
    apply depends on the type of
  • 00:02:52
    classification at issue in the challenge
  • 00:02:54
    law. And as we'll talk about, sometimes
  • 00:02:56
    the level of review is the entire ball
  • 00:02:58
    game. So for example, laws that classify
  • 00:02:59
    on the basis of race, alienage, or
  • 00:03:01
    national origin trigger a court strict
  • 00:03:03
    scrutiny and will only pass
  • 00:03:05
    constitutional muster if they are quote
  • 00:03:06
    suitably tailored to serve a compelling
  • 00:03:08
    state interest. And that is a very very
  • 00:03:11
    high standard. Now, laws that classify
  • 00:03:13
    individuals on the basis of sex also
  • 00:03:14
    warrant a heightened scrutiny. And such
  • 00:03:16
    laws are subject to what's called
  • 00:03:17
    intermediate scrutiny under which the
  • 00:03:19
    state must show that the classification
  • 00:03:21
    quote serves important governmental
  • 00:03:23
    objectives and that the discriminatory
  • 00:03:25
    means employed are substantially related
  • 00:03:27
    to the achievement of those objectives.
  • 00:03:29
    Now, in contrast to these rigorous or
  • 00:03:30
    semi-rigorous levels of scrutiny,
  • 00:03:32
    there's what's called rational basis
  • 00:03:34
    review or rational basis inquiry, which
  • 00:03:36
    is a differential relaxed standard of
  • 00:03:37
    review that applies to laws that do not
  • 00:03:39
    burden a fundamental right or target a
  • 00:03:41
    suspect class. And for the most part,
  • 00:03:43
    most laws would fall under this
  • 00:03:45
    particular level of review. Under a
  • 00:03:47
    rational basis standard, the court will
  • 00:03:49
    uphold a statutory classification if
  • 00:03:51
    there is any quote reasonably
  • 00:03:53
    conceivable state of facts that could
  • 00:03:54
    provide a rational basis for the
  • 00:03:56
    classification or the law. So basically
  • 00:03:59
    under rational basis review if there is
  • 00:04:01
    any plausible reason for the challenged
  • 00:04:02
    governmental action the court's inquiry
  • 00:04:04
    is quote at an end. So basically if the
  • 00:04:07
    court is reviewing something for a
  • 00:04:08
    rational basis that law is almost
  • 00:04:10
    certainly going to pass. If the court is
  • 00:04:12
    reviewing it under strict scrutiny that
  • 00:04:14
    law is almost certainly going to fail.
  • 00:04:16
    And if it's intermediate scrutiny it
  • 00:04:17
    could be somewhere in between. Now it's
  • 00:04:18
    probably important to note that
  • 00:04:19
    absolutely none of that is written into
  • 00:04:21
    the constitution. Those are just the
  • 00:04:22
    rules that the Supreme Court has come up
  • 00:04:23
    with. But it has been using some version
  • 00:04:26
    of that for say the last h 100red years
  • 00:04:28
    or so. But the reason that we're talking
  • 00:04:29
    about all this is because the main issue
  • 00:04:30
    in this decision was which standard of
  • 00:04:32
    review the court should use to assess
  • 00:04:34
    the constitutionality of SB1. This is a
  • 00:04:36
    critical question as the standard of
  • 00:04:37
    review is often case determinative. If
  • 00:04:39
    SP1 created classifications based on
  • 00:04:41
    sex, then the Supreme Court must apply a
  • 00:04:43
    heightened scrutiny to the law, either
  • 00:04:45
    intermediate scrutiny or strict
  • 00:04:47
    scrutiny, and possibly strike it down
  • 00:04:50
    unless the court's prohibitions are
  • 00:04:51
    substantially related to important
  • 00:04:53
    governmental objectives. And if SP1 does
  • 00:04:55
    not create a sexbased classification,
  • 00:04:56
    then the differential rational basis
  • 00:04:58
    standard of proof applies, meaning the
  • 00:04:59
    law will be upheld as long as there is
  • 00:05:01
    any rational basis for it. Spoiler, it's
  • 00:05:03
    clear that this court is not going to
  • 00:05:04
    consider transgender individuals a
  • 00:05:06
    protected class. And frankly, time will
  • 00:05:08
    tell if they're going to roll back
  • 00:05:09
    protections for other currently
  • 00:05:11
    protected classes. But taking a bird's-
  • 00:05:13
    eye view of the current media landscape
  • 00:05:14
    surrounding transgender rights issues
  • 00:05:16
    makes the possibility of political and
  • 00:05:17
    cultural influence impossible to ignore.
  • 00:05:19
    So, I want to take a quick moment to
  • 00:05:21
    thank our sponsor, Ground News. Not only
  • 00:05:23
    do they give an invaluable tool that we
  • 00:05:24
    use to research our coverage, but
  • 00:05:26
    they've been a longtime supporter of our
  • 00:05:27
    mission to demystify and explain the
  • 00:05:29
    law. I particularly love that Ground
  • 00:05:30
    News gives me an insight into the
  • 00:05:32
    broader cultural and political dialogue
  • 00:05:33
    about the law that I wouldn't get if I
  • 00:05:35
    only got my news from a few sources.
  • 00:05:36
    Here we see that trans rights is one of
  • 00:05:38
    the most frequently covered topics with
  • 00:05:40
    over 700 stories published in the past
  • 00:05:41
    three months split equally between left
  • 00:05:43
    center and right-leaning sources. And
  • 00:05:45
    when you examine the headlines using
  • 00:05:46
    their built-in features, you notice some
  • 00:05:48
    interesting patterns that give clues
  • 00:05:49
    into the minds of the Roberts court. A
  • 00:05:51
    few months ago, the court upheld that
  • 00:05:52
    Trump could ban transgender people from
  • 00:05:54
    serving in the military. This was a big
  • 00:05:55
    story with about 450 sources reporting
  • 00:05:57
    with 25% coming from the left, 25%
  • 00:05:59
    coming from the right, and 50% coming
  • 00:06:01
    from the center. And headlines and
  • 00:06:02
    coverage varied greatly depending on the
  • 00:06:04
    source. On the left, sources said that
  • 00:06:06
    the court ruling was backwards bigoted
  • 00:06:07
    and bad or framed it as a favor to
  • 00:06:09
    Trump. In the center, sources largely
  • 00:06:11
    focused on reporting that Trump's ban
  • 00:06:12
    was allowed to go into effect. But on
  • 00:06:14
    the right, the ruling was largely seen
  • 00:06:15
    as a cultural victory against the quote
  • 00:06:17
    paralyzing distraction of Marxian woke
  • 00:06:19
    activism. And these stark differences
  • 00:06:21
    show how media bias can influence
  • 00:06:23
    everything. And that's why I love Ground
  • 00:06:24
    News. The Nobel Peace Center called
  • 00:06:25
    Ground News quote, "An excellent way to
  • 00:06:27
    stay informed, avoid echo chambers, and
  • 00:06:28
    expand your worldview." And I couldn't
  • 00:06:30
    agree more. Not only does Ground News
  • 00:06:32
    gather related articles from around the
  • 00:06:33
    world and across the political spectrum,
  • 00:06:34
    so you can see the bias and compare
  • 00:06:36
    coverage, but every story comes with a
  • 00:06:37
    quick visual breakdown of the political
  • 00:06:39
    bias, factuality, and ownership of the
  • 00:06:40
    sourc's reporting, all backed by ratings
  • 00:06:42
    from three independent news monitoring
  • 00:06:43
    organizations. I also love their blind
  • 00:06:45
    spot feature, which shows you stories
  • 00:06:46
    that are under reportported by either
  • 00:06:47
    side of the political spectrum. And it's
  • 00:06:49
    because of features like this that make
  • 00:06:50
    Ground News my favorite way to get the
  • 00:06:52
    news. And as a legal eagle, you can save
  • 00:06:53
    40% off the Ground News Vantage
  • 00:06:55
    subscription by scanning the code that's
  • 00:06:56
    on screen or clicking on the link down
  • 00:06:57
    below. This subscription gives you
  • 00:06:59
    unlimited access to every feature,
  • 00:07:00
    including the bias insight tool and
  • 00:07:02
    blind spot feed. So, click now or scan
  • 00:07:04
    the code or I'll see you in court. Now,
  • 00:07:06
    the plaintiffs asserted that the Supreme
  • 00:07:07
    Court should apply a heightened standard
  • 00:07:09
    of review to SP1 because the bill relies
  • 00:07:11
    on sexbased classifications. But Chief
  • 00:07:13
    Justice Robert disagreed, stating that
  • 00:07:14
    SP1 does not classify on any basis that
  • 00:07:16
    warrant heightened review. Specifically,
  • 00:07:18
    Robert opine that SP1 does not classify
  • 00:07:20
    on the basis of sex, but rather
  • 00:07:21
    classifies solely on the basis of age
  • 00:07:23
    and medical use. Because in Robert's
  • 00:07:25
    opinion, SP1 merely prohibits the
  • 00:07:27
    administration of puberty blockers and
  • 00:07:28
    hormones to minors for certain medical
  • 00:07:30
    uses regardless of minor sex. It is
  • 00:07:33
    subject to only the rubber stamping of a
  • 00:07:34
    rational basis review. Quote, on its
  • 00:07:36
    face, SP1 incorporates two
  • 00:07:37
    classifications. First, SP1 classifies
  • 00:07:39
    on the basis of age. Healthcare
  • 00:07:41
    providers may administer certain medical
  • 00:07:43
    treatments to individuals 18 and older,
  • 00:07:45
    but not to minors. Second, SP1
  • 00:07:47
    classifies on the basis of medical use.
  • 00:07:48
    Healthcare providers may administer
  • 00:07:50
    puberty blockers or hormones to minors
  • 00:07:52
    to treat certain conditions but not to
  • 00:07:54
    treat gender dysphoria, gender identity
  • 00:07:56
    disorder, or gender in congruence.
  • 00:07:58
    Classifications that turn on age or
  • 00:07:59
    medical use are subject only to rational
  • 00:08:01
    basis review. So, in his opinion, a law
  • 00:08:03
    that allows specific medical treatments
  • 00:08:04
    to remedy early onset puberty or
  • 00:08:06
    congenital defect, but does not allow
  • 00:08:08
    the same medical care to treat trans
  • 00:08:10
    kids suffering from gender dysphoria is
  • 00:08:11
    not based on gender classifications and
  • 00:08:13
    therefore deserves differential review.
  • 00:08:15
    The majority decision emphasized
  • 00:08:16
    repeatedly that SB1 is subject only to a
  • 00:08:18
    rational basis analysis because the bill
  • 00:08:20
    quote does not prohibit conduct for one
  • 00:08:22
    sex that it permits for the other. The
  • 00:08:24
    fact that these issues by their very
  • 00:08:26
    definition do not affect members of the
  • 00:08:27
    cisgender population didn't factor into
  • 00:08:30
    the calculation. And Robert's majority
  • 00:08:31
    opinion further rejects the plaintiff's
  • 00:08:33
    arguments that SB1 creates sexbased
  • 00:08:35
    classifications by defining the
  • 00:08:36
    prohibited medical care based on the
  • 00:08:38
    patients sex. And generally speaking,
  • 00:08:39
    intermediate scrutiny had been used in
  • 00:08:41
    the past to strike down laws that
  • 00:08:42
    preferenced or disadvantaged one sex
  • 00:08:45
    over the other. But Robert's majority
  • 00:08:47
    opinion further rejects the plaintiff's
  • 00:08:48
    argument that SP1 creates sexbased
  • 00:08:49
    classifications by defining the
  • 00:08:51
    prohibited medical care based on the
  • 00:08:53
    patients sex. In this regard, the
  • 00:08:54
    plaintiffs maintain that the bill
  • 00:08:56
    prohibits certain treatments for minors
  • 00:08:58
    of one sex while allowing those same
  • 00:08:59
    treatments for minors of the opposite
  • 00:09:01
    sex. For instance, under the bill, a
  • 00:09:03
    minor whose biological sex is female
  • 00:09:05
    cannot receive puberty blockers or
  • 00:09:06
    testosterone to live and present as
  • 00:09:08
    male. But a minor whose biological sex
  • 00:09:10
    is male can, while a minor whose
  • 00:09:12
    biological sex is male cannot receive
  • 00:09:14
    puberty blockers or estrogen to live and
  • 00:09:16
    present as a female. But a minor whose
  • 00:09:18
    biological sex is female can. This, the
  • 00:09:21
    plaintiffs argued, dictates the
  • 00:09:22
    availability of medical care based on a
  • 00:09:23
    person's sex, creating a sex-based
  • 00:09:25
    classification requiring a heightened
  • 00:09:27
    standard of review. The decision,
  • 00:09:28
    however, dismisses this argument on the
  • 00:09:30
    basis that the plaintiffs are contorting
  • 00:09:31
    the meaning of the term medical
  • 00:09:32
    treatment by overlooking the underlying
  • 00:09:34
    medical concern the treatment is quote
  • 00:09:36
    intended to address. Uh, per the
  • 00:09:38
    majority's reasoning, the intended usage
  • 00:09:40
    of various medications should control
  • 00:09:41
    whether their prohibition creates a
  • 00:09:43
    sexbased classification. Chief Justice
  • 00:09:44
    Roberts states, quote, "The Food and
  • 00:09:46
    Drug Administration proves drugs and
  • 00:09:47
    requires that they be labeled for
  • 00:09:48
    particular indications. The disease or
  • 00:09:50
    conditions that they treat, prevent,
  • 00:09:52
    mitigate, diagnose, or cure. Different
  • 00:09:53
    drugs can be used to treat the same
  • 00:09:55
    thing. Would you like Advil or Tylenol
  • 00:09:57
    for your headache? And the same drug can
  • 00:09:58
    treat different things. Take Dayquil to
  • 00:10:00
    ease your cough fever, sore throat, and
  • 00:10:01
    or minor aches and pains. For the term
  • 00:10:03
    medical treatment to make sense of these
  • 00:10:05
    various combinations, it must
  • 00:10:07
    necessarily encompass both a given drug
  • 00:10:08
    and the specific indication for which it
  • 00:10:10
    is being administered. When properly
  • 00:10:12
    understood from the perspective of the
  • 00:10:13
    indications that puberty blockers and
  • 00:10:15
    hormones treat, SP1 clearly does not
  • 00:10:17
    classify on the basis of sex. Both
  • 00:10:18
    purity blockers and hormones can be used
  • 00:10:20
    to treat certain overlapping indications
  • 00:10:22
    such as gender dysphoria and each can be
  • 00:10:24
    used to treat a range of other
  • 00:10:25
    conditions. These combinations of drugs
  • 00:10:27
    and indications give rise to various
  • 00:10:28
    medical treatments. When, for example, a
  • 00:10:30
    transgender boy whose biological sex is
  • 00:10:32
    female takes puberty blockers to treat
  • 00:10:34
    his gender in congruence, he receives a
  • 00:10:36
    different medical treatment than a boy
  • 00:10:37
    whose biological sex is male who takes
  • 00:10:39
    puberty blockers to treat his precocious
  • 00:10:41
    puberty. SP1 in turn restricts which of
  • 00:10:43
    these medical treatments are available
  • 00:10:44
    to minors. The majority also declined to
  • 00:10:46
    address the plaint of separate argument
  • 00:10:47
    that SP1 requires heightened scrutiny
  • 00:10:49
    because it discriminates against
  • 00:10:51
    transgender individuals as a quasi
  • 00:10:52
    suspect class, which is a group of
  • 00:10:54
    people who have historically faced
  • 00:10:55
    discrimination and are therefore
  • 00:10:57
    entitled to a rigorous standard of
  • 00:10:58
    review. In response, Roberts writes that
  • 00:11:00
    quote, "This court has not previously
  • 00:11:02
    held that transgender individuals are a
  • 00:11:03
    suspect or quasi suspect class and that
  • 00:11:06
    the present case does not even raise
  • 00:11:07
    that question because SP1, which
  • 00:11:09
    includes quote only two classifications
  • 00:11:11
    of age and medical use, does not
  • 00:11:12
    classify on the basis of transgender
  • 00:11:14
    status." Now, in reaching this
  • 00:11:16
    conclusion, the court relies on the
  • 00:11:17
    infamous case of Gdelig versus IO 1974
  • 00:11:20
    sex discrimination case that concluded
  • 00:11:22
    that discrimination on the basis of
  • 00:11:24
    pregnancy does not constitute
  • 00:11:25
    discrimination on the basis of sex.
  • 00:11:27
    Gdeltic challenged a California
  • 00:11:29
    insurance program that excluded coverage
  • 00:11:31
    for disabilities arising from pregnancy.
  • 00:11:33
    In upholding that insurance program, the
  • 00:11:35
    court had explained that it did not
  • 00:11:36
    exclude any individuals from coverage
  • 00:11:38
    eligibility because of sex, but rather
  • 00:11:40
    remove pregnancy from the list of
  • 00:11:41
    compensible disabilities. The court said
  • 00:11:43
    there, quote, "The program divides
  • 00:11:45
    potential recipients into two groups,
  • 00:11:46
    pregnant women and non-pregant persons.
  • 00:11:48
    While the first group is exclusively
  • 00:11:50
    female, the second includes members of
  • 00:11:52
    both sexes. Because women fell into both
  • 00:11:54
    groups, the program was held not to
  • 00:11:56
    discriminate against women as a class.
  • 00:11:57
    Drawing a parallel between the
  • 00:11:58
    California law and SB1, Chief Justice
  • 00:12:00
    Roberts wrote that SP1 does not exclude
  • 00:12:02
    any individual for medical treatments on
  • 00:12:04
    the basis of transgender status, but
  • 00:12:06
    rather removes one set of diagnoses,
  • 00:12:09
    gender dysphoria, gender identity
  • 00:12:10
    disorder, and gender in congruence from
  • 00:12:12
    the range of treatable conditions. Along
  • 00:12:14
    these lines, SP1 divides minors into two
  • 00:12:16
    groups. quote those who might seek
  • 00:12:18
    puberty blockers or hormones to treat
  • 00:12:20
    the excluded diagnoses and those who
  • 00:12:22
    might seek puberty blockers or hormones
  • 00:12:23
    to treat other conditions. The first
  • 00:12:25
    group quote includes only transgender
  • 00:12:27
    individuals. The second group in
  • 00:12:29
    contrast encompasses both transgender
  • 00:12:30
    and non-transgender individuals. Based
  • 00:12:32
    on this finding, Roberts concluded that
  • 00:12:34
    SB1 does not draw a line based on
  • 00:12:35
    transgender status. All I'll say is that
  • 00:12:37
    there were very good very obvious
  • 00:12:39
    reasons why Gdaldig and its reasoning
  • 00:12:42
    was rarely cited since it was decided.
  • 00:12:44
    But these scream plaintiffs also argued
  • 00:12:46
    that the Supreme Court's decision in
  • 00:12:47
    Bosto versus Clayton County demonstrates
  • 00:12:49
    that SB1 is a sex-based classification
  • 00:12:51
    subject to heightened scrutiny. In
  • 00:12:53
    Bostock, the Supreme Court held that an
  • 00:12:54
    employer who terminates an employee for
  • 00:12:56
    being gay or transgender violates Title
  • 00:12:58
    7's prohibition on discharging employees
  • 00:13:00
    because of their sex. The plaintiffs
  • 00:13:02
    argued that under Bosto, SP1
  • 00:13:04
    discriminates on the basis of sex
  • 00:13:05
    because it penalizes members of one sex
  • 00:13:07
    for traits and actions that it tolerates
  • 00:13:09
    in another. The court reaffirmed the
  • 00:13:10
    reasoning in Bosto as applied to Title
  • 00:13:12
    7, but declined to expand its reach to
  • 00:13:14
    cases arising from the equal protection
  • 00:13:16
    clause. The court stated, quote, "We
  • 00:13:18
    have not yet considered whether Bosto's
  • 00:13:19
    reasoning reaches beyond the title 7
  • 00:13:21
    context, and we need not do so here
  • 00:13:23
    because unlike in Bosto, changing a
  • 00:13:25
    minor sex or transgender status does not
  • 00:13:27
    alter the application of SP1. If a
  • 00:13:29
    transgender boy seeks testosterone to
  • 00:13:30
    treat his gender dysphoria, SP1 prevents
  • 00:13:32
    a healthcare provider from administering
  • 00:13:34
    it to him. If you change his biological
  • 00:13:36
    sex from female to male, SP1 would not
  • 00:13:38
    permit the hormones he seeks because he
  • 00:13:40
    would lack a qualifying diagnosis for
  • 00:13:41
    testosterone such as a congenital
  • 00:13:43
    defect, precocious puberty disease, or
  • 00:13:45
    physical injury. Under Boston, quote,
  • 00:13:46
    neither his sex nor his transgender
  • 00:13:48
    status is the but for cause of his
  • 00:13:50
    inability to obtain testosterone. So
  • 00:13:52
    after rejecting all the plaintiffs
  • 00:13:53
    profered reasons for applying heightened
  • 00:13:55
    scrutiny review to SB1 because it
  • 00:13:56
    classified based on sex, the Supreme
  • 00:13:58
    Court proceeded to analyze the bill
  • 00:13:59
    under the permissive rational basis test
  • 00:14:02
    concluding that quote SB1 clearly meets
  • 00:14:04
    the standard. In support of this
  • 00:14:05
    conclusion, the court stated that the
  • 00:14:06
    bill's classification based on age and
  • 00:14:08
    medical diagnoses were rationally
  • 00:14:10
    related to the purported findings about
  • 00:14:11
    the risk associated with administration
  • 00:14:13
    of purity blockers and hormones and the
  • 00:14:15
    objective of protecting minors health
  • 00:14:16
    and welfare. And the court dismissed the
  • 00:14:18
    plaintiff's arguments that per the
  • 00:14:19
    court's own reasoning, such gender
  • 00:14:21
    treatments may also carry comparable
  • 00:14:22
    alleged risk for cisgender minors
  • 00:14:24
    undergoing treatment unrelated to gender
  • 00:14:26
    dysphoria. Quote, "We afford states wide
  • 00:14:28
    discretion to pass legislation in areas
  • 00:14:30
    where there is medical and scientific
  • 00:14:31
    uncertainty. The fact that the line
  • 00:14:33
    might have been drawn differently at
  • 00:14:34
    some points is a matter of legislative
  • 00:14:36
    rather than judicial consideration."
  • 00:14:37
    Justice Thomas concurred with the
  • 00:14:38
    majority's decision, asserting that
  • 00:14:40
    Bosto was wrongly decided, and in any
  • 00:14:42
    event, there was quote no reason to
  • 00:14:43
    import Bostock's Title 7 analysis into
  • 00:14:45
    the equal protection clause. Justice
  • 00:14:47
    Leto also concurred, finding a strong
  • 00:14:48
    argument that SP1 classified on the
  • 00:14:50
    basis of transgender status, yet agreed
  • 00:14:52
    that the classification would not
  • 00:14:53
    warrant heightened scrutiny, concluding
  • 00:14:55
    that neither transgender status nor
  • 00:14:56
    gender identity is a suspect or quasi
  • 00:14:58
    suspect class. And Justice Barrett also
  • 00:15:00
    filed a concurring opinion arguing that
  • 00:15:02
    transgender status should not be
  • 00:15:03
    recognized as a suspect class, an issue
  • 00:15:05
    that the majority opinion did not
  • 00:15:07
    address, which is important to point
  • 00:15:08
    out. This particular opinion didn't
  • 00:15:10
    quite go as far as it possibly could
  • 00:15:12
    have. So it doesn't completely rule out
  • 00:15:13
    the possibility that status as being
  • 00:15:16
    transgender is suspect or quasic suspect
  • 00:15:18
    class, which would entitle
  • 00:15:21
    laws that discriminate on that basis to
  • 00:15:24
    heightened review, which would make them
  • 00:15:25
    more likely to be struck down. But I
  • 00:15:27
    would not expect this court to make that
  • 00:15:29
    finding anytime soon. But in support of
  • 00:15:31
    Justice Barrett's conclusion, uh she
  • 00:15:33
    stated that transgender people were not
  • 00:15:34
    marked by quote obvious, immutable, or
  • 00:15:36
    distinguishing characteristics as race
  • 00:15:37
    or sex and were quote, "An
  • 00:15:39
    insufficiently discreet and insular
  • 00:15:40
    minority that had not proven a quote
  • 00:15:42
    long-standing pattern of discrimination
  • 00:15:43
    in the law." Barrett indicated that she
  • 00:15:45
    would not recognize any new suspect
  • 00:15:47
    classes absent a sufficiently voluminous
  • 00:15:49
    history of legal discrimination. Justice
  • 00:15:50
    Soayor dissented joined by Justice
  • 00:15:52
    Jackson saying stating that SB1 quote
  • 00:15:54
    expressly classifies on the basis of sex
  • 00:15:55
    and transgender status warranting
  • 00:15:57
    intermediate scrutiny and that the bill
  • 00:15:59
    would fail that analysis. Justice Kagan
  • 00:16:01
    joined most parts of Justice Stormayor's
  • 00:16:03
    descent but stated she reached no
  • 00:16:04
    conclusion about whether SB1 would
  • 00:16:06
    satisfy heightened scrutiny. But Justice
  • 00:16:08
    Stomayor further stated that the
  • 00:16:09
    majority's decision quote invites
  • 00:16:10
    legislators to engage in discrimination
  • 00:16:12
    by hiding blatant sex classifications in
  • 00:16:14
    plain sight. Uh referencing Barrett's
  • 00:16:16
    opinion, Sotomayor explained that quote,
  • 00:16:18
    "Those searching for more evidence of
  • 00:16:20
    durade discrimination against
  • 00:16:22
    transgender individuals need look no
  • 00:16:23
    further than the president. The federal
  • 00:16:25
    government, for example, has started
  • 00:16:26
    expelling transgender service members
  • 00:16:28
    from the military and threatening to
  • 00:16:29
    withdraw funding from schools and
  • 00:16:31
    nonprofits that espouse support for
  • 00:16:32
    transgender individuals." Now, apart
  • 00:16:34
    from the descent, many legal
  • 00:16:35
    commentators have criticized the
  • 00:16:36
    robber's court on the basis that it is
  • 00:16:38
    outcome first, or rather that it
  • 00:16:39
    determines the conclusion it wishes to
  • 00:16:41
    reach and then forges legal avenues to
  • 00:16:44
    arrive at that destination. And it does
  • 00:16:46
    require some mental gymnastics to look
  • 00:16:47
    at a law that specifically targets
  • 00:16:49
    transgender youth and find that it
  • 00:16:51
    doesn't target transgender youth. As a
  • 00:16:53
    court famously stated in a 1993 opinion,
  • 00:16:56
    attacks on wearing yarmikas is attacks
  • 00:16:58
    on Jews. But the majority seemed to go
  • 00:17:00
    out of its way to ensure that the law
  • 00:17:01
    would receive an easy blessing under the
  • 00:17:03
    rational basis review. Additionally,
  • 00:17:04
    critics have pointed out that the
  • 00:17:06
    decision addresses the equal protection
  • 00:17:07
    challenge in a vacuum without
  • 00:17:08
    acknowledging the parents due process
  • 00:17:10
    right to direct the care, custody, and
  • 00:17:12
    control of their children, thus
  • 00:17:13
    appearing to violate states rights over
  • 00:17:15
    parental rights. As recognized by the
  • 00:17:16
    Supreme Court in a case called Troxil
  • 00:17:18
    versus Granville, the interest of
  • 00:17:19
    parents in the care, custody, and
  • 00:17:21
    control of their children is quote
  • 00:17:22
    perhaps the oldest of the fundamental
  • 00:17:23
    liberty interests recognized by this
  • 00:17:25
    court. The Troxal court invoked this due
  • 00:17:27
    process right in striking down a
  • 00:17:28
    Washington law allowing broad visitation
  • 00:17:30
    rights to non-parents, noting that
  • 00:17:32
    quote, "There is a presumption that fit
  • 00:17:34
    parents act in the best interest of
  • 00:17:35
    their child and that quote, there will
  • 00:17:37
    normally be no reason for the state to
  • 00:17:38
    inject itself into the private realm of
  • 00:17:40
    the family to further question the
  • 00:17:42
    ability of that parent to make the best
  • 00:17:43
    decisions concerning the rearing of that
  • 00:17:45
    parent's children." And this right has
  • 00:17:47
    been recognized in the context of
  • 00:17:48
    parents seeking medical care for their
  • 00:17:50
    children. The Scredddi plaintiff of
  • 00:17:51
    Cersiiori petition was based in part on
  • 00:17:53
    the argument that quotes SB1 is an
  • 00:17:55
    attempt by the state to inject itself
  • 00:17:56
    into the private realm of the family in
  • 00:17:58
    violation of Troxil. And in the state
  • 00:18:00
    law context, the Ohio Court of Appeals
  • 00:18:02
    recently held in Mo versus Yoast that an
  • 00:18:03
    Ohio law banning gender affirming care
  • 00:18:05
    for transgender minors violated the Ohio
  • 00:18:07
    Constitution where the law infringed on
  • 00:18:09
    the substantive due process right of the
  • 00:18:11
    parents to direct the care and
  • 00:18:13
    upbringing of their children under the
  • 00:18:14
    state's due course of law clause. Now
  • 00:18:16
    again this is limited to one particular
  • 00:18:18
    state but in reaching this conclusion
  • 00:18:20
    the Ohio court looked to the decisions
  • 00:18:21
    of the US Supreme Court for guidance
  • 00:18:23
    noting that parents have a quote
  • 00:18:25
    essential and basic civil right to raise
  • 00:18:27
    their children and a quote fundamental
  • 00:18:29
    liberty interest in the care custody and
  • 00:18:30
    management of their children. So
  • 00:18:32
    applying strict scrutiny the Ohio court
  • 00:18:34
    refused to hold that the state's
  • 00:18:35
    interest in protecting children from
  • 00:18:37
    allegedly dangerous medical treatments
  • 00:18:38
    justify the categorical ban on purity
  • 00:18:40
    blockers and hormone therapy for minors
  • 00:18:42
    diagnosed with gender dysphoria. quote,
  • 00:18:44
    "We conclude that parents have a
  • 00:18:46
    fundamental right to seek medical care
  • 00:18:48
    for their children, which naturally
  • 00:18:49
    includes the right of parents to, in
  • 00:18:50
    conjunction with their minor child's
  • 00:18:52
    consent and their medical provider's
  • 00:18:54
    recommendation, make a judgment that
  • 00:18:55
    such medical care is necessary." And a
  • 00:18:58
    third criticism is contrary to the
  • 00:18:59
    majority's opinion, the facts of
  • 00:19:01
    Skreetti appear to fit squarely within
  • 00:19:02
    the prohibition on animus against a
  • 00:19:04
    politically unpopular group. In ROR
  • 00:19:06
    versus Evans, where the Supreme Court
  • 00:19:07
    struck down a Colorado constitutional
  • 00:19:09
    amendment preventing protected status
  • 00:19:11
    based on homosexuality or bisexuality,
  • 00:19:14
    the court explained that quote, "If the
  • 00:19:15
    constitutional conception of equal
  • 00:19:16
    protection of the law means anything, it
  • 00:19:18
    must at the very least mean that a bare
  • 00:19:20
    desire to harm a politically unpopular
  • 00:19:22
    group cannot constitute a legitimate
  • 00:19:24
    governmental interest." And the ROR
  • 00:19:25
    court held that Colorado's amendment
  • 00:19:27
    didn't even satisfy the rational basis
  • 00:19:29
    test because it was a quote statusbased
  • 00:19:31
    enactment divorced from any factual
  • 00:19:33
    context from which we could discern a
  • 00:19:34
    relationship to legitimate state
  • 00:19:36
    interests. And the court concluded that
  • 00:19:37
    the amendment classified people not to
  • 00:19:39
    further a proper legislative end, but
  • 00:19:41
    rather to make them unequal to other
  • 00:19:43
    citizens. Further, as a court explained
  • 00:19:44
    in holding the Defense of Marriage Act
  • 00:19:46
    unconstitutional in United States versus
  • 00:19:47
    Windsor, the design, purpose, and effect
  • 00:19:49
    of the challenge law should be
  • 00:19:51
    considered in deciding whether a law is
  • 00:19:52
    constitutionally valid and not motivated
  • 00:19:54
    by animus. In particular, the court
  • 00:19:56
    noted that quote, "A desire to harm a
  • 00:19:58
    politically unpopular group cannot
  • 00:19:59
    justify disperate treatment of that
  • 00:20:01
    group and that discrimination of an
  • 00:20:03
    unusual character requires especially
  • 00:20:05
    detailed consideration." Now,
  • 00:20:07
    unfortunately, there is nothing that I
  • 00:20:08
    can do about a Supreme Court decision,
  • 00:20:09
    but I can help some of you if you have
  • 00:20:11
    suffered a personal injury. Now, after I
  • 00:20:13
    started this channel, every week I'd get
  • 00:20:15
    hundreds of comments and emails from
  • 00:20:16
    viewers who were dealing with legal
  • 00:20:17
    problems. People would DM or email and
  • 00:20:19
    ask if I could help them find a lawyer
  • 00:20:21
    or how do they know if their attorney
  • 00:20:23
    was any good. And there's just a massive
  • 00:20:25
    gap in our justice system. It's not just
  • 00:20:26
    that legal help is expensive, though it
  • 00:20:28
    absolutely is. It's that people don't
  • 00:20:30
    know how to find the right lawyer for
  • 00:20:31
    their specific situation. They're
  • 00:20:33
    scared. They're overwhelmed. and they
  • 00:20:34
    end up either doing nothing or hiring
  • 00:20:36
    the first attorney who calls them back.
  • 00:20:37
    And that really bothered me. And so I
  • 00:20:39
    asked myself, what if there was a
  • 00:20:40
    different way? What if we could build a
  • 00:20:42
    law firm that actually lived up to the
  • 00:20:43
    values I talk about on this channel?
  • 00:20:45
    Transparency, accessibility, and putting
  • 00:20:47
    clients first instead of just chasing
  • 00:20:48
    billable hours, a firm where you don't
  • 00:20:50
    need to pay anything upfront and your
  • 00:20:51
    lawyers only get paid if you do to
  • 00:20:53
    maximize your opportunity for justice.
  • 00:20:54
    So a few years ago, I decided to fix the
  • 00:20:56
    problem. I decided to start my own
  • 00:20:58
    personal injury law firm. And honestly,
  • 00:21:00
    it wasn't an easy choice. But I realized
  • 00:21:02
    I was in this unique position. And I had
  • 00:21:03
    this platform, this community, and the
  • 00:21:05
    experience. And that's why we started
  • 00:21:06
    the law firm Eagle Team. Not to get
  • 00:21:08
    rich. Trust me, there are easier ways to
  • 00:21:10
    make money than starting a law practice.
  • 00:21:11
    But we did it because access to justice
  • 00:21:13
    shouldn't be a luxury. Because finding
  • 00:21:15
    the right legal representation shouldn't
  • 00:21:16
    feel like playing Russian roulette with
  • 00:21:18
    your future. And when you work with my
  • 00:21:19
    firm, you're not just getting a lawyer,
  • 00:21:20
    you're getting a team that understands
  • 00:21:21
    that behind every case is a real person
  • 00:21:23
    with real stakes. If we can't represent
  • 00:21:25
    you or you're in a state where we don't
  • 00:21:26
    practice, we'll take the time to try to
  • 00:21:28
    match you with an attorney in my
  • 00:21:29
    personal network of lawyers. A national
  • 00:21:31
    network of some of the best lawyers in
  • 00:21:33
    the country who actually specialize in
  • 00:21:34
    what you're going through, not just
  • 00:21:36
    whoever happens to be available, located
  • 00:21:38
    right where you are. So, if you're
  • 00:21:39
    dealing with a personal injury, a car
  • 00:21:41
    crash, a data breach, sexual harassment,
  • 00:21:43
    or a social security or workers comp
  • 00:21:44
    issue, give us a call at the number on
  • 00:21:46
    screen or click on the link below. I
  • 00:21:48
    can't represent everyone who watches
  • 00:21:49
    this channel. I wish I could, but what I
  • 00:21:51
    can do is make sure that when you need
  • 00:21:52
    legal help, you have somewhere to turn
  • 00:21:54
    to that you can trust. So whether it's
  • 00:21:56
    me handling your case or the incredible
  • 00:21:57
    attorneys we partner with, you'll get
  • 00:21:58
    the same principles of honesty and
  • 00:22:00
    education that we bring to every video.
  • 00:22:01
    So if you're dealing with a legal issue
  • 00:22:03
    and you're not sure where to start,
  • 00:22:04
    check out the link in the description.
  • 00:22:05
    Let's have a conversation about how we
  • 00:22:07
    can help you find not just a lawyer, but
  • 00:22:09
    the right lawyer for your situation.
  • 00:22:10
    Because at the end of the day, that's
  • 00:22:11
    what this is all about. Making sure that
  • 00:22:13
    when life gets complicated, you don't
  • 00:22:14
    have to face it alone. Which is why if
  • 00:22:16
    you need a lawyer, you don't just need a
  • 00:22:18
    legal team, you need the Eagle
Tags
  • Tennessee law
  • gender-affirming treatments
  • Supreme Court
  • equal protection clause
  • Chief Justice Roberts
  • transgender rights
  • parental rights
  • Bostock v. Clayton County
  • rational basis review
  • legal implications