Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Supreme Court to hear what could be the biggest case of its term

Published

on

Supreme Court to hear what could be the biggest case of its term

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday in an appeal involving transgender rights that could be the most important case of the court’s term.

The legal question in the case, called United States v. Skrmetti, is whether a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. How the court answers the question could affect similar laws across the country and transgender rights more broadly.

Three lawyers are set to argue to the justices in Washington. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar represents the federal government and Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice represents the state, whose attorney general is Jonathan Skrmetti (hence the case name, United States v. Skrmetti). American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio represents the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit: transgender adolescents, their parents and a doctor who treats adolescents with gender dysphoria. Strangio will be the first openly transgender lawyer to argue at the court.

It’s not unprecedented for more than two parties to argue in a case. But the dynamic could be especially important here because the incoming Trump administration could take a different position than the Biden administration, which intervened in the suit against the state law. So it’s possible the group Strangio represents will be the only adversarial party to Tennessee when the justices eventually decide the case, if the federal government tells the court it no longer disagrees with the state after Trump takes office next month.

A decision is expected by the summer, when the court usually finishes ruling on cases heard during the term that started in October.

For now, at least, the federal government opposes the state. Arguing that the law, called SB1, is unconstitutionally discriminatory, Prelogar’s office wrote in a brief ahead of the hearing that, under the law:

… an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can. And that focus on sex and gender conformity is deliberate: SB1 declares that its very purpose is to “encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex” and to ban treatments “that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.”

“That,” the federal government argues, “is sex discrimination.”

Defending the law, the state wrote in its own brief that it’s “not unconstitutional discrimination to say that drugs can be prescribed for one reason but not another.” The state further argued that the law doesn’t classify people based on sex but rather “creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes.”

Like the federal government, the private parties represented by Strangio argue that the law “imposes differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth.” In support of their position, they cite the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which said that an employer violates federal civil rights law when they fire someone for being gay or transgender.

Notably, that 6-3 ruling was authored by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Robertsso those justices’ questions at the hearing will be among the important ones to watch for.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Elon Musk says President Donald Trump has ‘agreed’ USAID should be shut down

Published

on

Elon Musk says President Donald Trump has ‘agreed’ USAID should be shut down

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Agency for International Development is on the cusp of being shuttered, according the Trump administration’s billionaire adviser and Tesla CEO Elon Musk — who has been wrestling for control of the agency in recent days.

Early Monday, Musk held a live session on X Spaces, previously known as Twitter Spaces, and said that he spoke in detail about USAID with the president. “He agreed we should shut it down,” Musk said.

“It became apparent that its not an apple with a worm it in,” Musk said. “What we have is just a ball of worms. You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair.” “We’re shutting it down.”

His comments come after the administration placed two top security chiefs at USAID on leave after they refused to turn over classified material in restricted areas to Musk’s government-inspection teams, a current and a former U.S. official told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Members of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiencyknown as DOGE, eventually did gain access Saturday to the aid agency’s classified information, which includes intelligence reports, the former official said.

Musk’s DOGE crew lacked high enough security clearance to access that information, so the two USAID security officials — John Voorhees and deputy Brian McGill — believed themselves legally obligated to deny access.

The current and former U.S. officials had knowledge of the incident and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share the information.

Musk on Sunday responded to an X post about the news by saying, “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” He followed with additional posts on X about the aid agency.

Kate Miller, who serves on an advisory board for DOGE, said in a separate post that no classified material was accessed “without proper security clearances.”

It comes a day after DOGE carried out a similar operation at the Treasury Departmentgaining access to sensitive information including the Social Security and Medicare customer payment systems. The Washington Post reported that a senior Treasury official had resigned over Musk’s team accessing sensitive information.

Musk formed DOGE in cooperation with the Trump administration with the stated goal of finding ways to fire federal workerscut programs and slash federal regulations.

USAID, whose website vanished Saturday without explanation, has been one of the federal agencies most targeted by the Trump administration in an escalating crackdown on the federal government and many of its programs.

“It’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics. And we’re getting them out,” Trump said to reporters about USAID on Sunday night.

The Trump administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have imposed an unprecedented freeze on foreign assistance that has shut down much of USAID’s humanitarian, development and security programs worldwide — compelling thousands of layoffs by aid organizations — and ordered furloughs and leaves that have gutted the agency’s leadership and staff in Washington.

The U.S. is by far the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid, with USAID administering billions of dollars in humanitarian, development and security assistance in more than 100 countries.

Peter Marocco, a returning political appointee from Trump’s first term, was a leader in enforcing the shutdown. USAID staffers say they believe that agency outsiders with visitors badges asking questions of employees inside the Washington headquarters are members of Musk’s DOGE team.

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a post on Sunday that Trump was allowing Musk to access people’s personal information and shut down government funding.

“We must do everything in our power to push back and protect people from harm,” the Massachusetts senator said, without giving details.

___

Associated Press writers Michelle L. Price in New York, Matthew Lee in Panama City and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

___ This story has been updated to correct the surname name of one of the USAID security officials. He is John Voorhees, not John Vorhees.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

‘Serial disappointer’ Sen. Collins indicates she’ll vote for Tulsi Gabbard

Published

on

‘Serial disappointer’ Sen. Collins indicates she’ll vote for Tulsi Gabbard
  • Trump pauses tariffs on Canada and Mexico; China hits back at U.S. tariffs

    14:25

  • ‘One of the coolest gigs a comedian can get’: Amber Ruffin tapped for WHCA dinner

    05:30

  • Julia Stiles makes directorial debut with ‘Wish You Were Here’

    07:19

  • Steve Rattner: Trump’s tariffs disrupt the markets

    03:12

  • Trump, Netanyahu set to discuss ongoing ceasefire today at White House

    05:49

  • Not confident Trump will prevail: Scholar on his attempts to take Congress’ power of the purse

    11:47

  • Now Playing

  • UP NEXT

    Rahm Emanuel on fears of FBI purge: This will not play out well

    11:43

  • ‘This makes America less safe’: Growing fears of Trump WH FBI purge

    11:01

  • ‘The whole thing is nuts’: Writer reacts to defrocked priest imitating Musk’s salute

    06:26

  • USAID staffers told to stay out of D.C. headquarters after Musk said Trump agreed to close it

    10:52

  • Crews to remove wreckage from Potomac today

    08:13

  • Joe: When you gut USAID, the big winners are those that wish the U.S. harm

    14:06

  • ‘Utter madness’: Canadian PM candidate slams Trump’s tariffs

    08:17

  • Dow futures drop more than 650 points after Trump hits U.S. trading partners with tariffs

    03:26

  • Gabbard ‘stumbled through her hearing’ Thursday, says Rep. Himes

    04:41

  • Trump tariffs could take effect tomorrow

    04:30

  • ‘Anti-safety agenda’: Trump went race-baiting route because of cuts, senator suggests

    11:28

  • Families mourn 67 victims after midair collision

    03:27

  • Tom Costello: Army helicopter’s black box will be critical in investigation

    08:47

  • UP NEXT

    Trump pauses tariffs on Canada and Mexico; China hits back at U.S. tariffs

    14:25

  • ‘One of the coolest gigs a comedian can get’: Amber Ruffin tapped for WHCA dinner

    05:30

  • Julia Stiles makes directorial debut with ‘Wish You Were Here’

    07:19

  • Steve Rattner: Trump’s tariffs disrupt the markets

    03:12

  • Trump, Netanyahu set to discuss ongoing ceasefire today at White House

    05:49

  • Not confident Trump will prevail: Scholar on his attempts to take Congress’ power of the purse

    11:47

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

There’s a lot of craziness in D.C. right now. But you can safely ignore these stunts.

Published

on

There’s a lot of craziness in D.C. right now. But you can safely ignore these stunts.

When I took a job years ago managing a website about Congress, I was shocked to discover that the most-searched bill was an obscure piece of legislation called the Blair Holt Act.

The bill, which would require gun licenses and background checks, was going nowhere. It had two sponsors in the House — one of whom was a nonvoting member representing the Virgin Islands. It didn’t have a companion bill in the Senate. It was what people in Washington call a “messaging bill” designed to signal to voters that the lawmaker takes a particular issue seriously. But every month, it was at the top of our Google Analytics.

In this case, the bill had inadvertently provoked another group of voters — gun owners who believed the Blair Holt Act was the first sign that the government was coming for their firearms. They were sharing the legislation on message boards and in conspiracy theory-minded emails, panicking over a bill that was never going to be signed into law.

As the president has signed executive orders right and left, some lawmakers seem to feel left out.

Now this dynamic is playing out in a novel fashion in President Donald Trump’s chaotic first two weeks in office. Normally members of Congress reserve messaging bills for closer to the next election. But as the president has signed executive orders right and left, some lawmakers seem to feel left out. They’re turning to messaging bills earlier to draw attention and getting more extreme than we’ve seen in the past. The worst of these aren’t so much messaging bills as the legislative equivalent of what people euphemistically call “trashposting” on the internet. And some of the president’s critics are falling for it.

In January, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., filed a bill to direct the interior secretary to “arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore.” The bill, which has no co-sponsors, was dutifully referred to a House committee, where it will die a quiet death. But in the meantime, Trump might hear about it and think nicely of Luna, or she can tout it on social media posts about triggering the libs.

That same month, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., proposed a constitutional amendment to allow presidents to serve third terms — as long as their other two terms weren’t consecutive, a loophole that appears designed to give Trump a pass while keeping, say, Barack Obama, on the sidelines.

The bill, which also has zero co-sponsors, is about as serious as the Mount Rushmore proposal. If anything, it’s an even heavier lift than carving into the side of a mountain in South Dakota. A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of states. That’s just not going to happen, much less in time for an 82-year-old Trump to run again in 2028.

In Ogles’ case, he might have another motive for trying to score points with Trump. A week after he filed his bill, federal prosecutors in Nashville withdrew from a criminal investigation into why Ogles misrepresented how much money he lent his campaign on federal forms. That case will now be handled entirely from the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters, which Trump has vowed to exert more control over.

Other lawmakers seem emboldened by Trump’s dramatic proposals to remake the federal government, and, to be honest, it’s understandable if the average voter can’t tell if they are serious or not. Here are a few more examples:

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona proposed a bill to abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which handles workplace safety (no co-sponsors).

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia proposed two bills to “expunge” Trump’s first-term impeachments (10 co-sponsors each).

And Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter of Georgia proposed a bill to abolish the IRS and enact a national sales tax (11 co-sponsors).

These bills aren’t going to pass. They’re interesting as a sign of the current thinking among the outer reaches of today’s Republican Party, but you don’t need to ever think about them again.

Amid the uncertainty of Trump’s second term, it’s important to take a breath, check the sources and make sure we’re not getting riled up over a messaging bill going nowhere. First, is it dramatic and easy to explain? Second, does it have almost no co-sponsors? If the answer to both questions is yes, then it’s a trashposting bill.

There are a lot of unnerving things going on in Washington these days. It’s important to save your attention — and your outrage — for the ones that are real.

Ryan Teague Beckwith

Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for BLN. He has previously worked for such outlets as Time magazine, Bloomberg News and CQ Roll Call. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending