Dan Epps

And if you're the Trump administration, it also looks like you're going to win. Right. I mean, it does, based on the argument, it did seem like there were going to be, you know, at least five votes to uphold the state law, limiting, banning this kind of gender affirming care. Justice Gorsuch, strangely silent at the argument.

I don't know. It was interesting because at the argument, one thing that came up multiple times was Bostock, his famous opinion interpreting Title VII to extend protections to gay and transgender individuals. It's not directly on point because that was a statutory case and this is a constitutional case about the Equal Protection Clause, but relevant because it's the

I don't know. It was interesting because at the argument, one thing that came up multiple times was Bostock, his famous opinion interpreting Title VII to extend protections to gay and transgender individuals. It's not directly on point because that was a statutory case and this is a constitutional case about the Equal Protection Clause, but relevant because it's the

United States here is trying to make kind of similar arguments to try to say, well, like this is not just a ban on transgender care. This is a sex-based rule because you're saying this kind of care for a male patient is not okay for a female patient or assigned female at birth patient. And so it's a very similar kind of move logically, rhetorically that was made in Bostock, right? Yeah.

United States here is trying to make kind of similar arguments to try to say, well, like this is not just a ban on transgender care. This is a sex-based rule because you're saying this kind of care for a male patient is not okay for a female patient or assigned female at birth patient. And so it's a very similar kind of move logically, rhetorically that was made in Bostock, right? Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, if you take for granted that the Equal Protection Clause does require scrutiny of gender-based classifications, then – and if you buy the Bostock reasoning that – you know, ban, like rules against.

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, if you take for granted that the Equal Protection Clause does require scrutiny of gender-based classifications, then – and if you buy the Bostock reasoning that – you know, ban, like rules against.

Transgender, you know, affecting transgender people are just discrimination on the basis of sex. Then put those two together. Then maybe, maybe it works.

Transgender, you know, affecting transgender people are just discrimination on the basis of sex. Then put those two together. Then maybe, maybe it works.

Yeah. I mean, but why do you, I mean, sometimes he talks a lot. Sometimes he doesn't talk at all. Why do you think he's not, is he not interested in this case?

Yeah. I mean, but why do you, I mean, sometimes he talks a lot. Sometimes he doesn't talk at all. Why do you think he's not, is he not interested in this case?

I am looking at the, um, postdoc postdoc transcript and I regret to inform you that you were, the thing you heard was incorrect. Okay. He talked to me, you know, more than a dozen questions.

I am looking at the, um, postdoc postdoc transcript and I regret to inform you that you were, the thing you heard was incorrect. Okay. He talked to me, you know, more than a dozen questions.

I mean, I regret for you that you have one of these rare moments where all Supreme Court knowledge is not perfectly encapsulated in your brain. I have to look all this stuff up. I don't hold this stuff in my head.

I mean, I regret for you that you have one of these rare moments where all Supreme Court knowledge is not perfectly encapsulated in your brain. I have to look all this stuff up. I don't hold this stuff in my head.

Speaking of, can I just say a quick side note? I have been trying to keep up with things by listening to most of the oral arguments, which I have successfully. And that's kind of fun to just kind of listen to them all. Especially because you can't listen to our podcast. I never listen to our podcast. I don't like hearing myself talk.

Speaking of, can I just say a quick side note? I have been trying to keep up with things by listening to most of the oral arguments, which I have successfully. And that's kind of fun to just kind of listen to them all. Especially because you can't listen to our podcast. I never listen to our podcast. I don't like hearing myself talk.

But one thing I noticed, Justice Gorsuch has this move he does a bunch. He's probably done this four or five or six times this term alone, and I haven't gone back. I would love someone to go back and look and see how often he's done this, where he likes to say to the advocate – Let me see if I've got it. And then he gives some theory. And then he likes to say something. He says, have I got it?

But one thing I noticed, Justice Gorsuch has this move he does a bunch. He's probably done this four or five or six times this term alone, and I haven't gone back. I would love someone to go back and look and see how often he's done this, where he likes to say to the advocate – Let me see if I've got it. And then he gives some theory. And then he likes to say something. He says, have I got it?

So he says that over and over. This is something that maybe I'd heard him do before, but I never picked up because I didn't listen to them all in kind of close succession. I didn't pick up quite how frequent it is.