S6, Ep. 06: Oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti: Medical care for transgender youth and the Equal Protection Clause

Respecting Religion

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.

SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented

For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care

Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments

The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court’s website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments.

We played four clips from the courtroom:

• The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument)
• A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument)
• The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument)
• An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument)

Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What’s next for religious liberty?”

Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners

Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”

Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.