Anthony Zerka

The challenges were brought at the lowest level, federal district court with mixed results. Appellate courts in both cases upheld the challenges and struck down the state laws. That's when they were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear this case. A chance for the justices to once again weigh in on a heated issue surrounding transgender rights. In the same way we saw last year with a Tennessee state ban on gender care, gender transition care for minors.

You can't interpret it entirely from what the justices are saying, but it definitely seems like the sixth justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court is inclined to uphold those two state laws. And part of the reason is, for instance, Chief Justice John Roberts said,

who was part of a majority that upheld unemployment laws application to transgender employees, saying they had rights against being discriminated against. He drew a distinction between that case back in 2020 and the case in question here. You saw several of the Supreme Court justices talk about the need to protect girls' and women's rights in sports. And you also could see it, by the way,

The liberal justices and the lawyers representing the clients challenging these laws fashioned their arguments. In one case, one of the lawyers was saying that the college student no longer competed in college athletics anymore, and so she wanted this case dropped. In another instance, you saw one of the lawyers arguing that

Jos opiskelijoilla oli opiskelijoita, joilla olisi tullut testosteronin vähentämisellä taitoja tai joilla ei ollut puolustusta, heidän ei pitäisi olla vahvistettu. Heidän pitäisi olla erilaisia eri ryhmien välillä ja he eivät halunneet, että lainsäädäntöjärjestelmät pysyvät lainsäädäntöön. Luulen, että se on ymmärrys liberalien puolustuksesta, että lainsäädäntöön ei ole koko ajan lainsäädäntöjä.