Have You Ever Been Discriminated Against?

Well I don’t really know… is being refuse service discrimination? What about getting a door slammed in your face? What about getting murdered, is that discriminated?

Amy Coney Barrett’s Mind-Boggling Question in Supreme Court Trans Case
Surprise! The conservative Supreme Court justices don’t seem to have any basic understanding of trans rights in this country.
The New Republic
Malcolm Ferguson
December 4, 2024


Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barret asked a team of ACLU lawyers advocating for trans rights if trans people had ever really been discriminated against.

The court on Wednesday held oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a landmark case originating from Tennessee that could decide just how far the federal government has to go, if at all, to protect the rights of trans people. In 2023, Senate Bill 1 became law in Tennessee, banning hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors and imposing civil penalties on doctors who don’t fall in line. Skrmetti is challenging S.B. 1, but the conservative justices don’t seem to be having any of it.

“One question I have is, at least as far as I can think of, we don’t have a history—that I know of—we don’t have a history of de jure discrimination against transgender people,” Coney Barrett said during oral arguments on Wednesday morning. “You point out in your brief that in the last three years there might have been these laws, but before that we might have had private societal discrimination.… Is there a history that I don’t know about where we have de jure discrimination?”

NPR reported that;

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared skeptical Wednesday of a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender children.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the issues should be left to state legislatures rather than the courts.

"The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," he said.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar put the government's case this way: "States have leeway to regulate gender-affirming care. But here, Tennessee made no attempt to tailor its law to its stated health concerns."

But she faced intense questioning from the court's conservatives. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote a majority opinion in a historic case that granted employment protections to gay and transgender workers, remained silent through the hours-long arguments.

Um… are we going to see another “Let the states decide.” passing of the buck?

CNN…

The Supreme Court appeared likely to back a divisive Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors after more than two hours of oral arguments on Wednesday in which the court delved into a culture war battle that has become even more politically fraught since the election.

Several conservative justices – notably Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – signaled deep reservations with the idea of courts second-guessing lawmakers who have approved bans on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors in roughly half of the nation’s states.

The court’s three liberal justices appeared to be aligned in favor of the trans youth and their parents who challenged the Tennessee law and the Biden administration in saying that transgender Americans should receive heightened protection under the law. And one key conservative – Justice Neil Gorsuch – was notably silent.

The Washington Post,

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to uphold a state ban on certain gender transition care for transgender minors, with a majority of conservative justices expressing concern about the courts intervening in a bitter national debate over whether young people should have access to the treatments.

The justices were reviewing a Tennessee law that prohibits young people from using hormones and puberty blockers for gender transition. It is one of the most-watched cases of the term, coming at a time when a growing number of young people are identifying as transgender — though only a small fraction participate in the medical treatments — and after a presidential campaign that highlighted the polarizing issue.

Whatever the court decides will affect the law in Tennessee and the 23 other states that have banned similar treatments in recent years.

This does not bode well for us.

Two points I want to make.

• This is not the court that ruled on R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case, this is a Trump packed court!
• Second Trump will probably appoint another justice.