Thread by @SarahPPerry

Justice Alito is SCORCHING Solicitor General Prelogar who is arguing for the government. Brings up scientific studies from England, Sweden, demands she acknowledge the Cass report - which Alito says she's "relegated to a footnote."

#skrmetti #SCOTUS

Justice Gorsuch has no questions.

Justice Kagan softballs S.G. Prelogar about how sweeping the ban is, says Prelogar's issue is that the law is too broad and doesn't allow doctors or parents to weigh in on individual basis without individual determinations.

Prelogar agrees.

Justice Kavanaugh argues that the law doesn't discriminate based on sex but treats boys & girls the same. Mentions the loss of fertility, the risk of psychological damage to de-transitioners, urging, "We can't ignore the risks." Continues: "How do we choose which set of risks is more serious and prevent constitutionalizing this entire set of issues?"

S.G. Prelogar says the state could have instituted informed consent procedures rather than an outright ban, and that the risks of de-transition are low, and forcing them to go through puberty is itself a risk, because it could "increase the risk of suicide."

Kavanaugh goes back to the shaky scientific footing and reports out of Europe, mentions "countries who have been at the forefront [now] pumping the breaks on this."

Says this gives the court "a yellow light, if not a red light" in moving forward into this area.

Ooooh boy. Kavanaugh now mentions female athletes - and the impact the Solicitor General's argument would have, including how intermediate scrutiny would apply to women's sports.

S.G. Prelogar demurs, says "Courts have split on this issue, I hesitate to opinon on whether that would satisfy the [legal] standard..."

Side note: the Solicitor General's choice of language, including "cisgender" children, and her use of the opposite pronouns for children of another sex - is repulsive.

Chase Strangio, a biological woman presenting as a man, is arguing for the ACLU now. Is asked whether their arguments differ from the government's and Strangio says no.

The Chief Justice mentions that this is a "distinct type" of medical inquiry that the court should avoid.

Strangio says "it won't break new ground to apply heightened scrutiny here...the role is simply to shift the burden to the state to 'show their work.'"

Strangio says it's the role of the court to determine that Tennessee has advanced an "important governmental interest."

Justice Sotomayor mentions difference of 1% regret rate mentioned by the ACLU, and the 85% regret of those that receive these treatments mentioned by Tennessee.

Strangio says the 85% was only related to "pre-pubertal children."

But on CNN Strangio just said "children as young as 2 know they're transgender" and that it's time to transition.

More lies: x.com/CollinRugg/sta…

Justice Alito is back with the hammer: hits Strangio with the controversial nature of these treatments, and the shaky nature of the science.

Strangio says there's scientific disagreement, mentions that the Cass review only looked at studies up to 2022.

Justice Alito counters that on p.195 of the Cass report, the author notes that there is "no evidence that these treatments reduce suicide."

The Chief Justice makes the bombshell point on the rule of law:

He says this case is really about, "Constitutional allocations of authority." And then quotes Dobbs: "Perhaps we should leave this issue to the people and their elected representatives.

Justice Alito asks: is transgender status immutable? [Note: this has been the defining line for Equal Protection Clause challenges]

Strangio says, "it would satisfy an immutability test."

Alito then goes on to present various hypotheticals - those people who are gender fluid, change gender identities over time, who are non-binary. Strangio flounders.

Then Alito says:

"So transgender status is not an immutable characteristic, is it?"

Justice Kavanaugh grills Strangio - aren't we choosing the appropriate medical choice for these kids, eliminating the state's authority?

Strangio says no, the state is taking away the decision from adolescents, their parents, and their doctors. Says a more tailored response might satisfy the constitution.

Justice Kavanaugh identifies the major problem in ACLU logic:

"Is it logically & legally possible to say that SB1 does not satisfy intermediate scrutiny, but laws separating sexes in sports do? Why aren't they the same?" [i.e., they both regulate based on "sex" according to the ACLU]

Justice Jackson pitches a softball to Strangio, says she is "concerned" about the questions coming from some of the justices about the "role of the courts," and that the equal protection clause is always a role for the court.

She then references Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage).