I’ve written extensively over the past several months about United States v. Skrmetti, the case in which the Supreme Court will be deciding whether a Tennessee law that prohibits administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as treatment for minors with gender dysphoria violates the Equal Protection Clause. Oral argument in the case takes place tomorrow (Wednesday), so I figured I’d present various of my posts here:
On the hornet’s nest of impenetrable disputes that Court would spend the coming years trying to sort through if it were to commit the gross folly of concocting a new rule that laws affecting individuals who identify as transgender are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause:
On the Solicitor General’s embrace of politicized junk science in the Biden Administration’s certiorari petition:
Solicitor General’s ‘Overwhelming’ Nonsense on Transgender Medical Interventions—Part 1
Solicitor General’s ‘Overwhelming’ Nonsense on Transgender Medical Interventions—Part 2
On the Solicitor General’s continuing failure to confront the collapse of the politicized junk science:
Solicitor General’s Rhetorical Retreat on Transgender Interventions Masks Persisting Distortions
On the Solicitor General’s distorted attack on Tennessee’s declared interest in “encouraging minors to appreciate their sex”:
Tennessee’s Legitimate Interest in ‘Encouraging Minors to Appreciate Their Sex’ [added to this post on 12/4]
On Tennessee’s excellent brief:
On the shocking scandal of WPATH that the state of Alabama exposes in its amicus brief:
On how Bostock cuts strongly against the Equal Protection holding that the Biden administration seeks:
On the impact of the incoming Trump administration on this case: