SCOTUS Grants SG's Petition in Transgender-Minor Case

The Court did not grant petitions from the ACLU and Jenner Block. Will the Trump DOJ switch positions in January 2025?

Way back in November 2023, three cert petitions were filed in cases challenging laws which regulated medical treatment for transgender minors. Two were filed in Skrmetti, the Tenessee case, by the Biden Justice Department and the ACLU. One was filed in the Kentucky case by Jenner Block.

These cases lingered in docket purgatory. John Elwood provides the breakdown:

(rescheduled before the Mar. 15, Mar. 22, Mar. 28, Apr. 12, Apr. 19, Apr. 26 and May 9 conferences; relisted after the May 16, May 23, May 30, June 6 and June 13 conferences)

Seven reschedules and five relists! Usually a case with this record is destined for a cert denial, coupled with a dissent from denial of cert.

But here, after three months of docket purgatory, we get a grant. But not a grant in all three cases. There is only a grant in the DOJ case. The Court is (presumably) holding the other two petitions.

This case will likely be argued in November 2024 or so—before or shortly after the election. But a decision probably would not come until June 2025. Will the Trump Justice Department switch positions after the inauguration, and dismiss the petition? If so, the Court could dodge the issue altogether. Had the Court granted the petitions from the ACLU and Jenner Block, the controversies would have remained regardless of what happens with the election. But by granting only the DOJ petition, the Court has limited the case. Maybe that's what led the Court to only grant the SG's petition.

This outcome would be like another Grimm case where an important issue goes unresolved for years on end with a change in administrations.

Comments

[apedad]

"Will the Trump Justice Department switch positions after the inauguration, and dismiss the petition? If so, the Court could dodge the issue altogether."

Here is how one person responded when administrations switched positions previously.

"If two administrations manage to read the same federal statutes in opposite ways, he wrote, something may be amiss.

'Where an incoming administration reverses a previous administration's interpretation of statute simply because a new sheriff is in town.' he wrote, 'courts should verify if the statute bears such a fluid construction.' "

Do you know who wrote this?

Hint, his initials are Josh Blackman.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/02/when-the-solicitor-general-changes-his-position-upon-further-reflection/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Are you disagreeing with his analysis?

[apedad]

I'm pointing out Prof. Blackman's hypocrisy.

My one cent opinion is of course administrations can and SHOULD change positions - and it's the Court's hypocrisy to even point this out, e.g., Dobbs.

[John F. Carr]

I don't see any judgment in that part of the post. It is a prediction.

[F.D. Wolf]

It’s not even a prediction. He merely poses the question, “Will the Trump Justice Department switch positions after the inauguration, and dismiss the petition?” He does not predict that it will or will not, much less suggest that it should or should not.

[not guilty]

Even if Trump wins election, I am not sure that the Department of Justice can unilaterally withdraw its cert petition after the petition has been granted. For SCOTUS to dismiss a petition for certiorari as improvidently granted requires five votes, including that of at least one justice who voted to grant cert.

If the case is argued before Biden leaves office, the case will have been submitted. If not, the incoming Solicitor General could decline to argue on behalf of the United States, but the Court could appoint counsel to argue for the United States.

[F.D. Wolf]

This case has nothing to do with the interpretation of a federal statute. The Biden Administration is challenging a Tennessee state statute which bans surgical sex changes for minors, alleging the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (I doubt very much the current Court will be very sympathetic to that argument, assuming it ultimately hears the case.)

[Josh R]

Correct. And I agree my first reaction was a majority of SCOTUS is sympathetic with Tennessee. Maybe Gorsuch provided the fourth vote for cert based on a Bostock-like sex discrimination analysis, and he hopes to persuade one other conservative justice.

That being said, I am still left wondering why have an off ramp if Trump wins? Or perhaps, Blackman is reading too much into the grant?

[not guilty]

"The Biden Administration is challenging a Tennessee state statute which bans surgical sex changes for minors, alleging the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (I doubt very much the current Court will be very sympathetic to that argument, assuming it ultimately hears the case.)"

The District Court here did not enjoin enforcement of the statute's prohibition of surgical sex changes for minors, finding that no plaintiff had standing to litigate that issue. The Court did enjoin enforcement regarding other medical procedures. https://casetext.com/case/l-w-v-skrmetti-1

[Michael Ejercito]

How does Jacobson v. Massachussetts, Buck v. Bell, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization relate to the merits of this case?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any thoughts on which justices would have addressed timing petition selection based on conservative bigotry?

[Michael Ejercito]

Biology is not bigotry.

[Joe_dallas]

Biology is bigotry with the woke advocates

A more rational understanding is taking place in Europe

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/06/13/europe-pulls-back-on-transgender-treatment-for-minors/

[SRG2]

I agree. But many people who cry "biology" don't know what the actual biology is and insist that their limited knowledge, oft accompanied by prejudice, nonetheless represents reality.

[Michael Ejercito]

Some girls, for whatever reason, can never get pregnant.

No boy can ever get pregnant.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Whatever that means.

Trans people want health care arising from their biology.

People can have bigoted views about biological things. For instance, blindness is biology. How we treat blind people is not.

People can be bigoted when they do not support a side's position. Thus, Catholics can oppose certain activities without being as cruel and bigoted about the people involved as some are.

etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trans people want health care arising from their biology."

Just like anorexics demanding bariatric surgery, really.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett - the activists will not recognize the irony

[JoeFromtheBronx]

John Elwood's relist watch is a useful way to learn the details of all of the grants (and a case Sotomayor & Jackson would have granted)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062424zor_e18f.pdf

[Mitch]

If the Court wanted to "dodge the issue," why grant cert at all?

[Sabedi1]

It would be a lot easier to put transgenders in concentration camps and not have to worry about their mental illnesses.