INCREDIBLE🔽

1st Circuit Court of Appeals just held that parents have no right to know if a school is socially transitioning their child behind their backs, determining that a "safe and inclusive" learning environment does not restrict parental rights.

I have thoughts 🧵 In Foote v. Ludlow (per curiam opinion, 2/18/25), parents had challenged a school's policy of hiding gender identity information of minor children from their parents.

The school claimed that the policy is "appropriate and necessary to ensure a safe and inclusive school learning environment" for students.

TOMORROW:

The Supreme Court will consider in conference 2 huge cases on gender identity & free speech, and will make a determination on whether to grant review, deny review, or punt consideration for another day.

What are the cases, and what's at stake?

A 🧵 1. L.M. v. Town of Middleborough:

L.M. is a student whose Massachusetts public school promoted the view that sex and gender are limitless & have no biological foundation. L.M. disagreed, & wore a t-shirt to class that said "There are only two genders." The school censored him, & he responded by wearing a t-shirt that said "There are [censored] genders."

Despite no past or present disruption in school activities or interruptions due to his wearing of either shirt, the school district prohibited both t-shirts.

👉State Attorneys General (in NY, MN, WA, OR) suing over @POTUS's Executive Order prohibiting federal funding of "gender affirming" care for minors have all brought variations of the same claims.

So what is their likelihood of success?

Slim, at best.

Here's why 🧵 1. Claim #1:
"Transgender and gender-diverse individuals are fully protected by the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, and regulations targeting them for discriminatory treatment are subject to heightened scrutiny."

No, they're not.

⏰BREAKING

The Department of Justice has submitted a letter to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court notifying it of a change in position over "gender affirming care" for minors, which directly impacts the constitutional challenge to Tennessee's ban in U.S. v Skrmetti.

BUT the U.S. DOJ is NOT withdrawing its petition for cert (review) and pulling itself from the case.

Instead, the Deputy Solicitor General writes:

Nevertheless, the United States believes that the confluence of several factors counsels against seeking to dismiss its case in this Court. The Court’s prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts. Since granting certiorari last June, the Court has received full briefing and heard oral argument, including from the private plaintiffs, who have participated in this Court as respondents supporting the United States at the merits stage and who remain adverse to the state respondents in a dispute that has not become moot.

Accordingly, the Court may resolve the question presented without either granting the private plaintiffs’ pending petition for a writ of certiorari, see L.W. v. Skrmetti...or requesting further, likely duplicative briefing from the same parties about the same court of appeals judgment in the underlying suit between the private plaintiffs and the state respondents.

This was the best possible position for DOJ to take.

The court has heard all it needs to hear on the constitutionality of state bans on gender affirming care for minors. Briefing is done, oral arguments are done.

And though the official position of the U.S. is now different than it was under Biden, the issue remains salient, and the Court should still resolve it.

Failing to do so means trans-identified children will continue to suffer gender butchery in the states while litigation proceeds. States have a constitutional right to protect vulnerable children (my scholarship on the issue is included in the reply).

Now, we wait to see what SCOTUS will do. The Deputy Solicitor General's letter to the Supreme Court clerk: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/2…

➡️HAPPENING NOW: Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

The question: Can the state of Texas constitutionally require age-verification for access to porn sites in the state, or is that a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of porn users? So far, a large portion of the arguments have focused on the different nature of porn access in the present case (online, privately owned) vs. the brick-and-mortar nature of previous porn, regulated in earlier cases by the Court

🚨HUGE: The Supreme Court term just keeps getting bigger. The Court has granted review today in 2 more major cases:

- TikTok v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland), and

- Kerr v. Planned Parenthood

But what's at stake?

As it turns out, quite a bit.
🧵 1. TikTok v. Garland:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a Law forcing the sale or ban of TikTok in the United States, requiring app stores to remove the platform after January 19, 2025.

TikTok advanced a censorship/1st Amendment claim, but the Court disagreed:

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.

🚨🧵 BREAKING: Dept of Ed releases it's long-delayed #TitleIX rule interpreting the law which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

THE PROBLEM: It erases women and girls, ignores the constitution, eliminates due process, and compels speech.

In short, it's ILLEGAL. Under the new rule, girls and women will no longer have sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, or other educational programs--designed by the drafters of Title IX to secure their freedom from sex discrimination.