The liberal justices keep referring to the plaintiff in Little v Hecox as "she," which of course begs the merits question of how the gender classification operates in this case. If the plaintiff was female, Idaho's law wouldn't bar the plaintiff from playing women's sports.
BARRETT: You don't need your laws to be so tailored they fit everybody perfectly.
JACKSON: I don't understand why you can't just make exceptions.
WV: That's literally what tailoring is.
ALITO: To decide if there is discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX, we need to define what sex is, right?
ACLU: Yes.
ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman, boy or girl?
Sotomayor: "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government."
Sotomayor rambling on about why the current Court should think it is smarter than the "renowned" jurists who *dissented* in Myers v US
Kagan: Doesn't it invade the separation of powers to give presidents control over agencies when those agencies "do a LOT of legislating" and "a LOT of judging"?
Anyone who wants the executive agencies to go back to being executive in nature:
Both Thomas & Alito have already told the Solicitor General that they believe she's misleading the Court. Never heard Thomas do that. Roberts told her SCOTUS is not "best situated" to decide evolving medical treatment questions.
Alito arguing that Bostock involved "particular language in a particular statute," whereas this case is under the Equal Protection Clause. Clearly an argument aimed at Gorsuch.
Prelogar: Classifying by pregnancy is not a proxy for sex.