Supreme court begins hearing major case on trans youth healthcare ban – live | Trump administration

As the arguments wrapped up, conservative supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Tennessee solicitor general Matthew Rice about how the state’s law should be viewed in the context of state’s rights.

“You are not arguing that the constitution take sides on this question … you are arguing that each state can make its own choice on this question. So, from your perspective, as I understand it, it’s perfectly fine for a state to make a different choice, as many states have, than Tennessee did and to allow these treatments,” Kavanaugh asked.

“That’s correct,” Rice replied, arguing that the question of how to regulate such care is one best left to legislatures to determine, not the courts.

“We think that’s because of what your honor has pointed out, that no matter how you draw these lines, there are risk and benefit, potential benefits and harms to people on both sides, and the question of how to balance those harms is not a question for the judiciary, it’s a question for the legislature,” he said.

Liberal supreme court justices were openly skeptical of the Tennessee law.

The state’s solicitor general Matthew Rice began by arguing that there are risks to gender-affirming care, leading justice Sonia Sotomayor to cut in: “I’m sorry, councilor, every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.”

Sotomayor argued that the law creates a “sex-based difference” in who can receive medical care, but Rice said he disagreed, arguing that the law is instead regulating different medical procedures.

“We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a six-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment as giving it to a minor who wants to transition. Those are not the same medical treatment,” he said.

Currently before the court is Tennessee’s solicitor general, Matthew Rice, who is arguing in favor of the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

“Tennessee lawmakers enacted SB 1 to protect minors from risky, unproven medical interventions. The law imposes an across-the-board rule that allows the use of drugs and surgeries for some medical purposes, but not for others. Its application turns entirely on medical purpose, not a patient’s sex. That is not sex discrimination,” he began.

“The challengers try to make the law seem sex-based this morning by using terms like masculinizing and feminizing, but their arguments can … conflate fundamentally different treatments, just as using morphine to manage pain differs from using it to assist suicide, using hormones and puberty blockers to address a physical condition is far different from using it to address psychological distress associated with one’s body.”

Back at the supreme court, liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was concerned that if the court upheld the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care, it would undermine decisions that outlawed forms of racial discrimination.

She specifically cited the landmark Loving v Virginia decision of 1967, which found laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

“We’re just sort of doing what the state is encouraging here in Loving, where you just sort of say, well, there are lots of good reasons for this policy, and who are we, as the court, to say otherwise? I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases,” Jackson said.

“I share your concerns,” ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio replied. “If Tennessee can have an end run around heightened scrutiny by asserting at the outset that biology justifies the sex-based differential in the law, that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Donald Trump has announced nominees for several top administration roles, including army secretary, Nasa administrator and advisers dealing with trade and hostages held overseas.

Among those selected was Peter Navarro, who served four months in prison earlier this year after being convicted of contempt of Congress. Trump appointed Navarro as senior counsel for trade and manufacturing, a role similar to one he held during the first Trump administration. Here’s what the president-elect said in making the appointment:

I am pleased to announce that Peter Navarro, a man who was treated horribly by the Deep State, or whatever else you would like to call it, will serve as my Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing. During my First Term, few were more effective or tenacious than Peter in enforcing my two sacred rules, Buy American, Hire American. He helped me renegotiate unfair Trade Deals like NAFTA and the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), and moved every one of my Tariff and Trade actions FAST …

The Senior Counselor position leverages Peter’s broad range of White House experience, while harnessing his extensive Policy analytic and Media skills. His mission will be to help successfully advance and communicate the Trump Manufacturing, Tariff, and Trade Agendas.

The president-elect announced three other appointments:

• Daniel Driscoll to serve as army secretary. An Iraq war veteran, Driscoll was most recently serving as an adviser to vice-president-elect JD Vance.

• Adam Boehler as special envoy for hostage affairs. Boehler was involved in negotiating the Abraham accords that normalized relations between Israel and some Arab states, and Trump said he “will work tirelessly to bring our Great American Citizens HOME”.

• Jared Isaacman as Nasa administrator. The billionaire was earlier this year the first private citizen to perform a spacewalk from a capsule from Elon Musk’s firm SpaceX.

The justices are now hearing from Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is also the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the supreme court.

Strangio said that the court should rule against the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Here’s his opening statement:

On its face, SB 1 bans medical care only when it is inconsistent with a person’s birth sex. An adolescent can receive medical treatment to live and identify as a boy if his birth sex is male, but not female, and an adolescent can receive medical treatment to live and identify as a girl if her birth sex is female, but not male.

Tennessee claims the sex-based line drawing is justified to protect children, but SB 1 has taken away the only treatment that relieved years of suffering for each of the … plaintiffs, and, critically, Tennessee’s arguments that SB 1 is sex-neutral would apply if the state banned this care for adults too, by banning treatment only when it allows an adolescent to live, identify or appear inconsistent with their birth sex. SB 1 warrants heightened scrutiny under decades of precedent because the sixth circuit failed to apply that standard, this court should vacate and remand.

Conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up the possibility that minors who receive gender-affirming care could later regret doing so.

“You say there are benefits from allowing these treatments, but there are also harms, right, from allowing these treatments, at least the state says so, including lost fertility, the physical and psychological effects on those who later change their mind and want to detransition, which I don’t think we can ignore,” Kavanaugh said.

Solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar replied that the alternative is to force young people with gender dysphoria to receive care only after they go through puberty – which can have long-lasting and negative psychological impacts:

The record evidence demonstrates that the rates of regret are very low for the population that has access to this treatment. So these are adolescents who have marked and sustained gender dysphoria that has worsened with the onset of puberty. They are very likely to persist in their gender identity. But if you’re thinking about this from the standpoint of, there’s no harm in just making them wait until they’re adults, I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical effects that are consistent with their birth sex, because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18.

So, essentially, what this law is doing is saying we’re going to make all adolescents in the state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth, even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and, I think, critically, make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as an adult. Because if you’re requiring someone to undergo a male puberty, and they develop an Adam’s apple, that’s going to be hard to reverse, and they’re more likely to be identified as transgender and subject to discrimination and harassment as adults.

So, I think the relevant question is, you have this population of adolescents, and there are documented very essential benefits for a large number of them, and maybe a small number that will regret this care, just like with any other medical care, but for the state to come in and just say, across the board, you can’t have the medication because of your birth sex – we don’t think that’s a tailored law.

Joan E Greve

The court’s conservatives, including the chief justice, John Roberts, appeared to suggest that this particular case differed from other cases related to sex discrimination because of its medical ramifications.

“It seems to me that the medical issues are much more heavily involved than in many of the cases that you look to,” Roberts told solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar.

“And if that’s true, doesn’t that make a stronger case for us to leave those determinations to the legislative bodies rather than try to determine them for ourselves?”

The first questions were from conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who signaled skepticism with Elizabeth Prelogar’s arguments.

The solicitor general got a more understanding reception from liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, who focused on the law’s impacts on transgender youths.

“One of the petitioners in this case describes throwing up every day, going almost mute … because of their inability to speak in a voice that they could live with. These are physically challenging situations as well, too,” Sotomayor said.

The observation gave Prelogar an opening to state that the Biden administration doesn’t disagree with the need to regulate gender-affirming care, but rather objects to the blanket nature of Tennessee’s ban on minors:

We don’t think that that means the states are entirely barred from regulating in this space. Obviously, they are grappling with these issues in a variety of contexts, but you’re right to say that when the state is using sex-based line drawing, a court needs to look at that. And the problem with Tennessee’s law here is not that it’s just a little bit over-inclusive or a little bit under-inclusive, but that it’s a sweeping, categorical ban where the legislature didn’t even take into account the significant health benefits that can come from providing gender-affirming care, including reduced suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, and where the state leaves unregulated entirely access to these treatments in all of their pediatric contexts, where there’s a similar risk-benefit trade-off and for the families affected by this, Justice Sotomayor, these are difficult decisions.

Obviously, anytime you’re thinking about a medical intervention, you need to weigh risks and benefits, but the state has come in here, and in a sharp departure from how it normally addresses this issue, it has completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions and trying to make those trade-offs.

Arguing for the Biden administration, solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar began by saying the Tennessee law, known as SB 1, unfairly singles out gender-affirming care in a way similar procedures are not.

“To be clear, states have leeway to regulate gender-affirming care, but here, Tennessee made no attempt to tailor its law to its stated health concerns. Rather than impose measured guardrails, SB 1 bans the care outright, no matter how critical it is for an individual patient, and that approach is a stark departure from the state’s regulation of pediatric care in all other contexts,” Prelogar said.

“SB 1 leaves the same medications and many others entirely unrestricted when used for any other purpose, even when those uses present similar risks.”

The supreme court just started hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

No decision is expected for several months, but how the conservative-dominated court rules could have impacts nationwide. Twenty-six states have passed laws limiting access to the care used by transgender people. Here’s more on the case:

The incoming Senate majority leader, John Thune, said Donald Trump’s defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, can expect to face “hard questions” as he meets with senators today.

“At the end of the day, these nominees need to have the opportunity to make their case,” said Thune, who is one of the senators Hegseth is scheduled to meet with today.

“And I think the readouts from these meetings are, he’s very smart, and he’s got, you know, great experience, obviously, as a combat veteran. So, we’re going to give him the chance to make his argument, make this case. Clearly, he’s going to have to answer some hard questions, which he is, based on the reports I’m getting from the meetings he’s attended so far, but that that is part of our process.”

At one point in her interview on Fox News, Penelope Hegseth directly addressed Donald Trump, who is known for watching the network.

“I want to say thank you for your belief in my son. We all believe in him. We really believe that he is not that man he was seven years ago. I’m not that mother, and I hope people will hear that story today and the truth of that story,” she said.

Despite email being one of the more traceable forms of communication, Penelope Hegseth said she did not know how the New York Times obtained her message to her son criticizing his treatment of women.

“You know, I haven’t been able to track that, like, like my blind copy or my copy,” Hegseth replied, when asked who else received the email. “I don’t think that’s important right now. I think what’s important is that the truth be told about that email and that we look at Pete today, not then.”

She also repeatedly criticized the New York Times for contacting her for comment about the email, which is something typical of journalists to do:

I want to say something about the media, and part of today is to discredit the media and how they operate. When they contact you, I let a few phone calls go, but then they call you and say, they threaten you. That’s the first thing they do. They say, unless you make a statement, we will publish it as is, and I think that’s a despicable way to treat anyone. Threats are dangerous and they’re hard on families.

In an interview with Fox News, Pete Hegseth’s mother said she stood by her son, as he faces allegations of mistreatment of women and excessive drinking that could derail his nomination for the role of defense secretary.

“He doesn’t misuse women,” Penelope Hegseth told the network, where her son worked as a host until recently. “He’s been through some difficult things. I’m not going to list them by name, but I would just say that some of those attachments or descriptions are just not true, especially any more.”

Last week, the New York Times reported that Penelope Hegseth had sent her son an email in 2018 criticizing his treatment of women, saying: “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

Speaking to Fox, Penelope Hegseth said she sent that email in the midst of her son’s divorce and retracted it hours later:

Pete and his wife at the time were going through a very difficult divorce. It was a very emotional time, and I’m sure many of you across the country understand how difficult divorce is on a family. There’s emotions. We say things, and I wrote that in haste. I wrote that with deep emotions. I wrote that as a parent, and about two hours later … my husband tells me I should think through things a little bit more, but Pete and I are both very passionate people. I wrote that out of love, and about two hours later I retracted it with an apology email. But nobody’s seen that.

Asked about reports that her son is known for drinking excessively, cheated on his partners, mismanaged the finances of two charities and faced an allegation of sexual assault, Hegseth replied:

I don’t believe any of that is true.

Good morning, US politics blog readers. Things are not looking great for the prospect of the Senate confirming Donald Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to the job. The former Fox News host was one of the first picks Trump made after winning re-election, but in the weeks since, news broke that Hegseth was accused of sexual assault, which he denies, is known to drink excessively and allegedly financially mismanaged two charities. Over the past few hours, reports have emerged that it’s all becoming too much for the Republican senators tasked with confirming him, and that Trump is considering pulling the nomination and instead asking Florida’s governor and one-time rival Ron DeSantis to lead the Pentagon.

But it’s not over yet for Hegseth. His mother, who wrote an email criticizing him for his treatment of women, gave an interview to Fox News this morning billed as setting the record straight, while Hegseth will today be on Capitol Hill for further meetings with lawmakers who will decide his fate. We’ll see if his nomination survives the day.

Here’s what else is going on:

• The supreme court will at 10am ET begin hearing arguments in a case concerning Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors, which could have implications nationwide.

• The precise balance of power in the House of Representatives has been determined. With ballot counting finally finished in a tight race in central California, Republicans will control the chamber with 220 seats to the Democrats’ 215 – but the GOP’s majority will immediately shrink as several lawmakers head for jobs in Trump’s cabinet.

• Joe Biden continues his trip to Angola, and will be heading back to the US later today.