Strict Scrutiny Podcast Summary: “Leave Trans Kids Alone You Absolute Freaks” (with Chase Strangio)
Release Date: December 9, 2024
Host/Author: Crooked Media
Duration: Approximately 76 minutes
Overview
In the episode titled “Leave Trans Kids Alone You Absolute Freaks,” hosts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray delve deep into a pivotal Supreme Court case challenging bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Featuring an insightful conversation with Chase Strangio, the first known transgender lawyer to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, the episode explores the legal, social, and cultural ramifications of the case, as well as its broader implications for the United States' legal landscape.
1. Introduction and Episode Setup (00:00 – 01:16)
The episode begins with a brief advertisement segment promoting Angelina Jolie’s latest film but swiftly transitions to the hosts setting the stage for the main discussion.
2. Main Topic: Challenge to Bans on Gender-Affirming Care (01:16 – 05:07)
Melissa Murray welcomes listeners back to Strict Scrutiny, introducing the episode's focus: the Supreme Court’s consideration of a significant case on gender-affirming care.
Kate Shaw outlines the episode's agenda:
- Recapping the Supreme Court arguments in the gender-affirming care case.
- Discussing recent rulings by the Fifth Circuit and the District Court of Texas.
- Reviewing other cases heard by the Supreme Court in the past week.
Chase Strangio provides background on SB1, a Tennessee bill introduced in 2023 aimed at banning gender-affirming medical care for minors. Strangio explains the bill's rapid passage, its initial inclusion of a child abuse provision (later removed), and the subsequent legal challenge filed by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Aiken Gump.
Chase Strangio [02:50]: “We quickly filed a lawsuit and that's the lead up to the litigation that would become United States vs. Scurmeti at the US Supreme Court.”
3. Political and Social Context (05:07 – 07:39)
Melissa Murray connects the surge in 2023 legislative actions banning trans healthcare to broader political movements, including curriculum bans and book restrictions in schools.
Kate Shaw emphasizes the intersection of these bans with abortion rights post-Dobbs decision, highlighting global influences like Hungary's “Don't Say Gay” bill and the rise of far-right governments.
Kate Shaw [06:38]: “But I do think two things that are super important... the connection between these bans on trans healthcare and abortion... and then the global context is really important too.”
4. Supreme Court Oral Argument Analysis (07:39 – 30:44)
Equal Protection Clause and Sex Classification (07:39 – 16:10)
The discussion shifts to the core legal issue: whether SB1 constitutes a sex-based classification under the Equal Protection Clause, thereby triggering heightened scrutiny.
Chase Strangio argues that SB1 explicitly discriminates based on sex by prohibiting medical treatments inconsistent with an individual's sex. He criticizes the lower courts' dismissal of this as merely an age or medical purpose classification.
Chase Strangio [10:50]: “Can I just pipe in about that dumbest argument ever just to make clear about it...”
Melissa Murray and Chase Strangio express frustration with Justice Alito's attempts to shoehorn the case into the framework of Bostock v. Clayton County, a statutory case unrelated to constitutional equal protection.
Melissa Murray [14:57]: “All I ask is no textualism. We're in a position...”
Justice Gorsuch's Silence and Court Dynamics (16:10 – 25:06)
One of the episode's highlights is the unexpected silence of Justice Neil Gorsuch during the oral argument, leaving the hosts speculating about his stance.
Leah Lippman [17:02]: “This was really the surprise of the argument...”
Chase Strangio and Kate Shaw discuss the emerging factions within the Court: liberals advocating for judicial protection of minority rights, conservatives favoring legislative deference, and moderates grappling with the Court's institutional role.
Kate Shaw [45:07]: “Oh no, Melissa with the unexpected 333.”
Justice Kagan and Concerns Over Judicial Roles (30:44 – 49:37)
Justice Elena Kagan questions the Court's role in scrutinizing laws based on suspect classifications, drawing parallels to Loving v. Virginia. She emphasizes the necessity of the Court in ensuring that legislative classifications meet constitutional standards.
Justice Kagan [46:58]: “Does that accord with your understanding of what we normally do?”
Chase Strangio criticizes Justice Alito's conflation of constitutional interpretation with statutory interpretation, highlighting his reliance on flawed analogies from other cases like Dobbs.
Chase Strangio [49:09]: “But the 20 plus states on the...”
Parental Rights Argument and Future Implications (49:37 – 56:51)
The hosts discuss why the Supreme Court may have avoided addressing the parental rights argument, which was also part of the lower court’s decision. They speculate on the Justices’ hesitance to engage with broader constitutional questions amidst controversial topics.
Melissa Murray [50:41]: “Because he seems to be saying and articulating, I think, a new role...”
Kate Shaw draws attention to Justice Barrett's chilling aside, suggesting that while the Court rejects the current classification, it might leave avenues open for future challenges.
Kate Shaw [30:44]: “She had an aside that I found sort of chilling...”
5. Broader Legal Developments (56:51 – 75:40)
Beyond the main case, the hosts provide updates on other significant court decisions:
Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Ruling (56:51 – 59:04)
The Fifth Circuit ruled to uphold Texas' actions at the border, challenging federal supremacy by preventing the federal government from removing barbed wire fences erected by Texas officials.
Melissa Murray [57:47]: “Remember McCulloch vs. Maryland...”
District Court Decisions in Texas and Florida (59:04 – 73:05)
-
Corporate Transparency Act Challenge: A Texas district court invalidated the Act under the Commerce Clause, sparking concerns about federal regulatory overreach.
-
Target Shareholders Class Action: In Florida, a district court denied Target’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company misled shareholders about the risks of its Pride Week marketing campaign.
Melissa Murray [61:05]: “This is a very important victory for affirmative action...”
Other Supreme Court Cases: FDA vs. White Lion and More (73:05 – 75:40)
The episode touches on the oral arguments in FDA vs. White Lion, where the denial of flavored e-cigarettes was challenged. The hosts express cautious optimism regarding procedural arguments rather than substantive scientific disagreements.
Melissa Murray [66:39]: “All right. Yeah. And then there's the switch to...”
6. Conclusion and Wrap-Up (75:40 – End)
The hosts conclude by reflecting on the Court's handling of the SB1 case and its broader implications for transgender rights and constitutional law. They acknowledge the ongoing challenges in the legal battles ahead and express cautious hope for future victories.
Notable Quotes
-
Chase Strangio [10:50]: “Can I just pipe in about that dumbest argument ever just to make clear about it.”
-
Justice Kagan [46:58]: “Does that accord with your understanding of what we normally do?”
-
Melissa Murray [50:41]: “Because he seems to be saying and articulating, I think, a new role...”
-
Kate Shaw [06:38]: “But I do think two things that are super important... the connection between these bans on trans healthcare and abortion...”
-
Kate Shaw [45:07]: “Oh no, Melissa with the unexpected 333.”
-
Chase Strangio [25:13]: “Stare decisis is for suckers, unless it's an opinion taking away people's rights.”
Key Takeaways
-
SB1’s Legal Challenge: The Tennessee bill SB1, which bans gender-affirming care for minors, is being scrutinized under the Equal Protection Clause for sex-based discrimination, potentially triggering heightened judicial scrutiny.
-
Supreme Court Dynamics: The Court exhibits clear internal factions, with conservative Justices advocating for legislative deference and liberal Justices pushing for judicial protection of minority rights. The silence of Justice Gorsuch and the active questioning by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor highlight the contentious nature of the case.
-
Broader Implications: The outcome of this case could significantly influence future legislative actions and court rulings related to transgender rights, parental rights, and the scope of federal versus state authority.
-
Other Legal Developments: Recent decisions in the Fifth Circuit and district courts in Texas and Florida indicate a shifting legal landscape with potential challenges to federal supremacy and corporate transparency regulations.
Final Thoughts
“Leave Trans Kids Alone You Absolute Freaks” offers a comprehensive analysis of a landmark Supreme Court case, enriched by Chase Strangio’s expert insights. The episode underscores the high stakes involved in the legal battles over transgender rights and anticipates the profound impact the Court’s decision will have on American society and constitutional law.
Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny on your favorite podcast platform to stay updated on the latest Supreme Court cases and legal analyses. Don’t forget to rate and review to help others find the show!