Georgia Howe

Briefly, if you would, can you summarize these two cases for us?

First, they're being argued together because they're effectively the same case.

And in both cases, the state's attorneys general are defending the state's laws and ADF is helping them do so.

What do listeners need to know for context here?

And in terms of the two states, what are the two laws that are being defended here?

Ryan, so let's get to the highlights from Tuesday.

A lot went on.

We said at the top of the show, a lot of oral arguments don't go viral, but that's not the case for what we heard on Tuesday.

A lot of moments really made the rounds online.

What were some of the moments that you felt really defined Tuesday's session?

Right.

I want to tee up that moment.

It actually is pretty remarkable.

You can feel it in the courtroom, a sense of shock with the follow-ups from the justices.

Related to that, one of the moments that stood out to me was when the ACLU attorney acknowledged that it's not actually bigoted to recognize the differences between men and women.

How do you see that in terms of legal arguments?

Now, there was some concern raised from the right side of this argument, the pro-women's sports side, about the language that the justices used, left-wing gender identity language to be specific.

Here's some of that impact.

What did you see there?

Were they trying to present the arguments in the language of the ACLU to sort of be fair?