Jim Campbell

without the president's order would no longer be citizens.

And so they try to turn that issue around on the administration.

But in the end, no matter what the court decides, this is going to be a critical decision that determines something that should be of importance to all of us, which is what does it take to be a citizen in this country?

There is.

So the challengers to the president's order say that it violates not only the Constitution, but it also violates a 1940 law enacted by Congress.

And they say that because it violates that law, these are two independent ways that you can rule against the order.

Now, if the Supreme Court agrees with that, then it would leave to the side these important constitutional issues.

But notably, that would allow Congress to go back and to legislate on this issue directly.

And so if the court were to take that route and to rule only on that statutory 1940s law ground, then it would leave the door open for Congress to address this issue directly.

another day versus if the Supreme Court were to decide these constitutional issues, then it might settle the issue once and for all and take the issue away from Congress.

In the end, no matter what the court decides, this is going to be a critical decision that determines something that should be of importance to all of us, which is, what does it take to be a citizen in this country?

Thanks for having me, John.

Yeah, our client in the case is Kaylee Childs.

She's a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado, and she wants to help kids that are struggling with gender confusion and gender dysphoria.

But unfortunately, Colorado passed a law that says that if you are helping a client like that,

that you can only encourage them to gender transition.

You can't help them grow comfortable with their body and realign their identity with their sex.

And so as a result of that, because that's blatant viewpoint discrimination, we filed a lawsuit against that California or that Colorado law.

So the Supreme Court recognized that these laws, and there's roughly 23 of them around the country, that they discriminate based on viewpoint.

And if there's one thing we know about the First Amendment, it's that the government can't pick and choose views that it likes while silencing views that it doesn't like.