'Heightened Scrutiny' details the high-stakes Supreme Court case over trans health care
The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, concerns a law in Tennessee that prohibits certain care for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, and whether the restrictions are discriminatory on the basis of sex and transgender status.
A new documentary, 'Heightened Scrutiny,' follows Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, as he represents trans youth, their families and a doctor who filed suit against the law in April 2023. Strangio became the first openly trans person to argue in front of the Supreme Court during oral arguments in December. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year and will show at NewFest, a queer film festival in New York, on May 29, and then at other film festivals across the country.
The film's director, Sam Feder, said it is a follow-up to another documentary he directed called 'Disclosure,' which was released in 2020 and evaluated how trans people are depicted in film and television.
'The motivation to make that film was to explore how the rise in visibility could lead to backlash,' Feder said. 'I did not know it would be as terrifying as it is now.'
'Heightened Scrutiny' features interviews with trans activists including actress Laverne Cox, and with journalists including Jelani Cobb, dean of the Columbia Journalism School and a writer for The New Yorker; Lydia Polgreen, a New York Times opinion columnist; and Gina Chua, one of the most high-profile trans media executives.
Much of the documentary focuses on the effects of increasing media coverage, particularly from The New York Times, on minors' access to transition-related care.
Julie Hollar, a senior analyst at the media watchdog group FAIR, says in the documentary that she evaluated the Times' front page coverage for 12 months, and during that time, she said, the Times 'actually published more front page articles that framed trans people, the trans movement, as a threat to others than they did articles about trans people being threatened by this political movement.'
The New York Times did not respond to a request for comment.
Amy Scholder, who produced both 'Heightened Scrutiny' and 'Disclosure,' said that while researching media coverage of trans people over the last few years, she was astonished by how quickly much of the public appeared to go from celebrating trans visibility after 'Disclosure' to questioning it.
'It was disconcerting how many avowed feminists were questioning health care for trans adolescents and questioning the participation of trans people in sports, and especially adolescents in sports — things that just seemed so against my understanding and experience of what it means to be a feminist,' she said.
She compared the public response to laws targeting trans youth to what she experienced during the AIDS epidemic, when people distanced themselves from the crisis because they didn't think it affected them or didn't want it to.
'Then the irony is,' Feder said, 'people thought it didn't affect them, but you chip away at anyone's bodily autonomy and you're chipping away at everyone's bodily autonomy.'
The documentary shows that media coverage that is critical of transition care for minors has been referenced by state legislators trying to pass laws to restrict the care, and by states that are defending those laws in court, with Strangio saying at one point during the film that he had never previously seen news articles referenced so regularly as evidence in lawsuits.
Feder said the film was originally going to focus entirely on media coverage, but Strangio's story allowed them to show viewers the real-world consequences of that coverage. They followed Strangio from July, just after the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Skrmetti case, to Dec. 4, the day Strangio argued the case.
The film shows Strangio the day after the election, a month before his oral arguments at the high court, when he says he's 'had moments of 'I can't do this again,' but then I wake up this morning and I think, 'F--- it, we fight.''
'That's part of what is so extraordinary about him — he has that fight in him,' Scholder said. 'He knows how to be strategic, and he's such a brilliant legal mind and has always reminded us that we're going to take care of each other, and that these laws, for better or worse, will never actually take care of us.'
Feder said that going forward, he hopes the film provokes conversations about how laws restricting transition-related care could have widespread effects outside of the trans community. He also said he hopes people will 'examine and understand how they want to be able to make decisions about their own body.'
'We're seeing state after state ban abortion, and soon it's going to be all contraception, and then it's who are you going to be able to marry, do you have any privacy in your own home? It's going there. This is one example of how we are a moment of complete civil liberty freefall,' he said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court gives Trump administration emergency relief in NIH grants appeal
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in its effort to cut research grants for the National Institutes of Health, as the administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. On Thursday, the high court lifted a lower court judge's order that had vacated the government's termination of various research-related grants. Several justices wrote separate opinions in the divided case, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's three Democratic appointees, who said they wanted to fully deny the government's emergency application. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was in the middle of the court, only partially agreeing with the administration, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted to fully side with the administration. Barrett noted that a majority of the court believes the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to grant terminations, which she said belong in a different specialized court, the Court of Federal Claims. But she added that the administration isn't entitled to emergency relief when it comes to the district court's ruling against guidance documents on the government policy. 'Of course, it [the government] remains free to challenge the District Court's vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit,' the Trump appointee wrote, referring to the continuing lower court litigation in the case that could reach the justices again in the future. The administration went to the justices after a federal appeals court declined to halt the district judge's ruling against the grant terminations. U.S. District Judge William Young had observed that President Donald Trump's executive action didn't 'even attempt to define DEI, but instead set it up as some sort of boogeyman.' The Reagan appointee in Massachusetts wrote that without such a definition, the government had 'embarked on a fool's errand resulting in arbitrary and capricious action.' Applying to the high court for emergency relief, Trump Solicitor General John Sauer cast the lower court loss as the latest instance of out-of-control judges around the country who have required his office to seek relief from the justices in Washington, D.C. 'This application presents a particularly clear case for this Court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this Court's rulings,' Sauer wrote in his application, citing recent administration wins on executive power. He also cited the Supreme Court's 5-4 shadow docket ruling in April, in Department of Education v. California, in which the court sided with the administration in a case over DEI-related education grants. Sauer said the same result was warranted here. Opposing his application, a group of plaintiff states accused the government of 'spin[ning] a tale' of lower court defiance that 'bears little resemblance to reality.' They called the judge's ruling 'run of the mill' and said '[t]he only unlawful decisions here are the federal government's,' adding that 'the only urgency is that manufactured by NIH in its haste to implement its unprecedented and unreasoned policies.' A separate opposition filing from the American Public Health Association and other groups told the justices that even temporary relief for the government would invalidate important health projects that were already paid for by Congress, 'inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of Plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements.' An amicus brief from nonprofit biological and biomedical societies highlighted what they called 'the irreparable injuries already rippling across the scientific community due to the mass termination of NIH grants — particularly those at issue here.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Vox
35 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Cox worries about what will be lost in national redistricting battle
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on Thursday the redistricting battle taking place in states across the country ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could backfire in the long term. Referencing the principle of 'Chesterton's Fence,' Cox said it is unwise to eliminate a system without fully understanding why it was established in the first place. 'Sometimes, I think we make changes to long-standing norms and policies, not realizing the consequences of those changes to those norms and policies,' Cox said. 'I fear that this may be one of those.' Speaking at his monthly PBS news conference, Cox returned to a regular theme of his, emphasizing the deep divides in U.S. politics, and worrying that a redistricting race to the bottom will only make it worse. On Wednesday, the Texas House approved new district maps at the behest of President Donald Trump that will increase the number of congressional seats Republicans are likely to win in the state. The California Legislature is poised to approve its own map changes this week that could secure them an extra five seats next year — the same number Republicans are expected to flip in the Lone Star State — as long as voters approve the maps in November. 'We just see the escalation that continues to happen,' Cox said. 'It just continues to ratchet up the toxicity — and the stakes, quite frankly — and so I would be very cautious about doing that.' A gerrymandering arms race Since Trump called on Texas Republicans last month to break with redistricting tradition, Democrats have accused the GOP of gerrymandering tactics that border on election interference, and have threatened to retaliate in kind. Meanwhile, Republicans have cited Democrats' history of gerrymandering in blue states, and recent Supreme Court rulings that allow for politically motivated redistricting in what is fundamentally a political process. The finger-pointing by both sides could accelerate a worrying trend toward norm breaking and partisan tribalism, according to Cox, who gained recognition for his Disagree Better campaign as National Governors Association chair. 'We are so polarized as a country with the trust in institutions falling,' Cox said. 'I can't see a scenario where every two or four years we're redistricting, I can't see a scenario where that makes life better for anybody.' Utah's congressional boundaries are currently being litigated in federal court over allegations that state lawmakers violated the Utah Constitution by ignoring recommendations from an independent redistricting commission created by voter initiative. The maps approved in 2021 redrew the Beehive State's congressional districts in a way that split up Democratic voters between the state's four House districts and made it more difficult for a Democrat to represent the state in Congress. Shifting the census consensus Republicans have partially justified their redistricting revolution by alleging the 2020 census may have undercounted in Republican-led states and overcounted Democratic-held states by including noncitizens. The U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every decade to count all residents. Earlier this month, Trump announced his administration will work on a new census that excludes 'People who are in our Country illegally.' On Thursday, Cox said there are questions about whether noncitizens should be factored into the distribution of Electoral College votes. But he said the census should still count every resident to provide the best data. In an interview with the Deseret News earlier this month, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, of the state's 3rd Congressional District, said he agrees with the president that 'citizens should be counted, not undocumented individuals.' 'Citizens are what the Founders intended,' Kennedy said. 'I don't believe the founders ever foresaw the possibility that our country would have tens of millions of people in this country that are living illegally in this country.' Modern technology has made it possible to conduct a census at least every five years, according to Kennedy, which he said would help elected officials govern better amid a rapidly changing population. Not all mail-in voting created equal On Monday, Trump also took on the form of voting used by a majority of Utahns, announcing he would lead an effort to 'get rid of mail-in ballots' by signing an executive order to 'help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.' Utah Sen. Mike Lee responded in favor of Trump's initiative while Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson reiterated that the 'constitutional right' of states to decide how to 'conduct secure elections is a fundamental strength of our system.' 'The Constitution is very clear that it's in the purview of the states and not the federal government,' Cox agreed, during Thursday's press conference. 'And I think states should defend that.' However, Cox said Trump is right to be 'extremely cautious when it comes to mail-in voting' because, unlike Utah, most states implemented a vote-by-mail system 'virtually overnight' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Utah started rolling out vote by mail in 2012 before implementing it statewide in 2019. The Legislature continues to enhance safeguards for the process, voting in 2025 to implement ballot deadlines and a new identification measure. For this reason, many of the criticisms levied toward mail-in ballots do not apply to Utah, according to Cox. When skeptics get a chance to view the process, Cox said they come away with increased confidence in election security. 'We can do both things,' Cox said. 'We can defend the role of the states and be very serious about voter integrity. And I think more states need to be more serious about voting integrity.'
