Oral argument for Chiles v. Salazar, challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors is set to begin Me & @turban.bsky.social talked about the implications of the case in @jamapediatrics.com jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

Today at 1pm: @mccuskey.bsky.social, Nicole Huberfeld, and I will defy the laws of time by covering Skrmetti 🏳️‍⚧️, Mahmoud🏳️‍🌈, Braidwood💉, VanDerStok🔫, Medina🤰, Chiles🧑‍⚕️, Callais🗳️, 1st Choice🥸, & more in a mere 50min @buhealthlaw.bsky.social @bulaw.bsky.social @busph.bsky.social

Politicizing medicine, science, & expertise threatens everyone (eg, RFKJR attacks on vaccines) Sotomayor’s Skrmetti dissent: “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their parents to political whims.” ja.ma/4fnZkzM

Was there ever a doubt Alito would step in to protect the parental rights of those who want to shield their kids from the fact that gay and trans people exist while also giving zero shits about parents trying to get health care for their trans child

Justice Sotomayor dissenting on birthright citizenship case: "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Super-quick take while reading the ruling: This is going to be a much bigger deal for challenges to *other* Trump policies than to birthright citizenship (where it's likely that lower courts will still be able to block the policy on a nationwide basis even after this ruling). *That's* the import.

Soooo….where the originalists at

Prediction: Footnote 18 from the universal injunction opinion will not stand the test of time

"The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort."

The abortion blueprint also makes it clear that it’s not about whether you’re 18 or older. The point is to allow states to determine what is and isn’t valid medical practice, which can, does, and will include adults (who may regret a range of medical decisions) www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/h...

Thomas’s Skrmetti concurrence: “self-described experts…surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends” Quite a claim from someone drowning in political scandal and writing a blatantly political attack on “elites,” which poorly masquerades as legal analysis

A critical element of Skrmetti is the complete and unquestioned acceptance of every declaration Tennessee makes. Roberts cited to Cleburne but importantly SCOTUS didn’t just accept state claims of danger and protection as it does in Skrmetti. This treats RBR not as deferential but as a rubber stamp

Please stop the bullshit opinion endings of “these are serious issues, both sides have genuine care and concern, but alas we’re mere judges with no power to decide such serious issues, so don’t blame us if you disagree” Agree or disagree with opinions but nobody should buy this disingenuous garbage

And making Gonzales v. Carhart great again Does the State declare medical uncertainty? If so, who cares what medical experts think Is there evidence of widespread regret? Irrelevant if we’re talking about people with low decision-making capacity (for SCOTUS this is children and women)

Skrmetti opinion says gender-affirming care bans are not sex-based discrimination, rational basis review applies, and RBR is satisfied—Tennessee’s ban is upheld

Stellar plenary covering insanity happening in health care, admin law, immigration, FDA, long-term care, repro rights, & much more with Wendy Mariner, Joan Krause, @mblawrence.bsky.social @mdmakhlouf.bsky.social @akesselheim.bsky.social @mayamanian.bsky.social @ninakohn.bsky.social #ASLME #HLP2025

Elena Kagan: “okay, what if you lose everywhere and then you never take the case to us so there’s never a nationwide ruling?” “If I was in your shoes I would NEVER approach the Supreme Court with this case”

Slight edit: *fascinated by the completely and utterly bonkers editorial choice…

for alito especially, racism is fake, anti-LGBT bigotry is fake, and the only real discrimination is against conservative christians who can't make public school curriculum by decree

ACB: 2+2=4 and education on tolerating gender diversity is indoctrination Reality: 2+2 does equal 4 and this ⬇️ is someone who has modeled for women’s fashion, has been identified as a woman, has XY chromosomes, internal testes, and naturally looks this way

Justices are literally equating informing people of the reality that gay people exist to targeted discrimination against Catholics. I know plenty of Catholics who find this an incredibly offensive comparison to actual historical persecution against Catholics and many other religious groups

Did Gorsuch just say a woman in a leather jacket is equivalent to a dominatrix and/ or a sex-worker? He seemed genuinely confused that this wasn’t objectively accepted as true

Money keeps being mentioned for poor parents who can’t afford private schools/homeschooling…. Harris v. McRae: “financial constraints that restrict an indigent woman's ability to enjoy the full range of constitutionally protected freedom of choice are the product not of governmental restrictions”

Alito: not for long mofo

It’s always important to hear both sides to uphold civility and tolerance

Thanks to @imillhiser.bsky.social, @mjsdc.bsky.social, @stevevladeck.bsky.social, and @chrisgeidner.bsky.social, I have a handle on what went down at SCOTUS over the weekend. To put it in layman's terms, the court told Trump "stop playing in my face." Latest in @thenation.com

The discussion right now is why the religious parents will probably win: the district permits opt-outs for things like Halloween, birthdays, images of the prophet Muhammad, so that means its policy isn't generally applicable & needs to pass strict scrutiny. Same as the Fulton case a few years ago.

Using efforts to accommodate as an argument against the govt seems to be increasingly common. The message seems to be supporting stricter, less tolerant approaches—which DOES seem to be the goal, but only tolerating a very specific religiously-based conservative view

Are basic facts and framing questions disagreed upon in other doctrines as much as they are in LGBTQ/religion cases?

Then ACB: here’s a better argument for you, parents are coerced into having their kids educated (the horror😱) so it really is compulsion and coercive indoctrination

Alito says a book with a gay wedding has a clear message that people object to, but it’s not clear what he thinks that message is. The message can be tolerance without being approval or endorsement. Seems Alito’s really saying being taught to accept others is a problem

Justice Jackson referring to PLCAA as Plick-a instead of Plah-ka may be her first mistake since joining the Court

In @jama.com: Skrmetti is about whether SCOTUS will allow politicians to attack minority groups & ban disfavored health care/treatments for political reasons. Using fraudulent “experts” & studies after the fact means the implications are broad & put all care at risk jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

Thomas asks about whether this is an age-based discrimination since it’s only for minors (to get rational basis review) but Prelogar points out that it can be both age and sex-based and this doesn’t avoid heightened scrutiny

1/X An important Equal Protection case, United States v. Skrmetti, will be heard by the SCT tomorrow (Wed. Dec. 4). For those who have not been following the case closely, a 🧵 about the case, why it is important & what to watch for. I'll do my best to explain in lay terms & stay away from legalese.

Before Skrmetti oral arguments starts, remember this began as a political effort to find a new culture war topic to focus on, NOT over concern for trans youth https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/us/politics/transgender-conservative-campaign.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Gender-affirming care bans “provides no benefit while worsening the disparities affecting transgender young people [and] are legally inadequate to withstand any form of judicial review…what they are: strategic targeting of a marginalized group for political gain.” www.nejm.org/doi/full/10....

It’s a wrap on the American Journal of Law & Medicine symposium on Preventive Medicine Law & Policy In Light of Braidwood v. Becerra! W smiley health law scholars @mccuskey.bsky.social @rickweinmeyer.bsky.social @lsepper.bsky.social @michaelrulrich.bsky.social Nicole Huberfeld Ximena Benavides 😁

As many of us working on gun violence & the 2A continue the Bruen world tour, it is worth noting that between the symposium at Fordham Law 2 weeks ago and the symposium now at Minnesota Law there have been at least 587 fatal shootings that have killed 662 people (via Gun Violence Archive)

This is a big deal. Complaint is here: drive.google.com/file/d/1CNoW.... Facebook may raise First Amendment arguments similar to the ones they’re currently raising in opposing similar tort suits (including one that will be argued Friday), which I discuss here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.....