'Heightened Scrutiny' details the high-stakes Supreme Court case over trans health care
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the next few weeks in a high-stakes case that could affect transgender people's access to transition-related care nationwide.
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
Vox
5 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
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. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. 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. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.
Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
AOC Scrambles New York City Mayoral Race With Endorsement
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made her endorsement in New York City's mayoral race as more progressive Democrats in the city work to consolidate support against front-running former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez remains popular with younger, more progressive voters in New York City, so her support could convince some of those voters to head to the polls for the June 24 primary. Whoever prevails in the primary would become the favorite to win in November, as the city remains a Democratic stronghold. What To Know The progressive congresswoman announced in The New York Times that she is ranking Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who has polled second behind Cuomo and emerged as a favorite among many left-leaning voters, first in the Democratic primary. New York City uses ranked choice voting in their local elections. She said she will be ranking New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams second, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander third, former Comptroller Scott Stringer fourth and state Senator Zellnor Myrie fifth in her endorsement, the Times reported. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. JASON CONNOLLY/AFP via Getty Images "Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack," Ocasio-Cortez told the newspaper. "In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that." Newsweek reached out to the Mamdani and Cuomo campaigns, as well as Ocasio-Cortez's office, for comment via email. Cuomo has established a polling lead over other candidates and is viewed as the leader with less than a month until the primary, as progressives seek to rally behind other candidates to prevent him from becoming the party's nominee because of his more moderate policy positions. A recent Emerson College poll found Cuomo and Mamdani as the top two Democratic candidates. On the first round of voting, 35 percent of respondents said they'd vote for Cuomo, while 23 percent would back Mamdani. By the final round, however, Cuomo had support from 54 percent of respondents, while Mamdani had 46 percent. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from May 23-26 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 after a report from Attorney General Letitia James' office alleged that he sexually harassed multiple female employees and created a toxic working environment, allegations Cuomo has denied. In May, he accused the Trump administration of "election interference" after The New York Times reported it launched a criminal investigation into whether Cuomo lied to Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mamdani has engaged more progressive voters with a more left-leaning platform, emphasizing issues like a rent freeze to deal with rising rent and housing in the city and the establishment of a network of city-owned grocery stores intended to combat rising grocery costs for New Yorkers. Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement comes just one day after the Democratic candidates faced off in their first debate, during which each sought to portray themselves as the strongest to lead the city of more than 8 million people. "I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in and the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo," Mamdani said during the debate. What People Are Saying New York City mayoral candidate and Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, in a post on X, formerly Twitter: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a once-in-a-generation leader who has led the fight for working people in Congress. In 2018, she shocked the world and transformed our politics. On June 24, with @AOC's support and this movement behind us, we will do the same." Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times: "Even if the entire left coalesced around any one candidate, an ideological coalition is still insufficient for us to win. We have to have a true working-class coalition." What Happens Next The New York City mayoral primary is set for Tuesday June 24. The winner will face off against a Republican, as well as Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking reelection as an independent, in November.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Experts Warn Of Decade-Long Setback After Trump Cuts HIV Vaccine Research
NEW YORK - DECEMBER 1: Marina Kemelman, Research Associate at the AIDS Vaccine Design and ... More Development Laboratory, collects bacteria transfected with DNA as part of research at the laboratory's campus in the former Brooklyn Army Terminal December 1, 2008 in New York City. The laboratory, seeking a vaccine to prevent the spread of AIDS, is part of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (or IAVI), a global not-for-profit, public-private partnership working to accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent HIV infection and AIDS. December 1 is the 20th annual World AIDS Day around the world. (Photo by) It was a rare moment of bipartisan unity. Standing before a joint session of Congress in January 2019, President Donald Trump boldly pledged to eradicate a disease that claims one life every single minute: HIV/AIDS. 'Scientific breakthroughs have brought a once-distant dream within reach,' Trump exclaimed. 'My budget will ask Democrats and Republicans to make the needed commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years. We have made incredible strides.' Then, he added, 'we will defeat AIDS in America and beyond.' That was then and this is now. Last week, a group of scientists working on promising HIV vaccine studies were reportedly informed that the administration plans to revoke their research grants in a move experts warn could set the movement back years. When the global AIDS crisis peaked in the early 2000s, roughly 5,000 people were dying every single day from the disease. Thanks to the leadership of governments, the private sector, and philanthropists, the world invested more resources into the AIDS fight than ever before. This spurred nearly two decades of progress—not just against AIDS, but across global health broadly. Since 2004, AIDS-related deaths have been reduced by roughly two-thirds. But recently, progress has slowed. Covid-19 proved a major health disruption that reversed years of hard-fought gains. Efforts to reduce mother-to-child transmission rates have slowed. Global health funding is now under siege not just in the United States, but across Europe, too. And the world is no longer on track to meet critical 2030 AIDS targets. The great paradox here is that never in human history has there been more tools available to fight AIDS. The cost of antiretroviral drugs has fallen from $27 a day in 2000 to as little as 10 cents a day. Now, experts say what's needed to get the fight back on track—and eventually end the threat for good—isn't just better diagnostics and therapeutics, but long acting preventatives. Fortunately, it's an area that's seen great progress. Dubbed the 'breakthrough of the year' in 2024 by the journal Science, Gilead Science's lenacapavir is a long-acting injectable vaccine that has proven incredibly effective at preventing HIV infections. It represents a major step forward from the prevalent pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) pill and mitigates some of the major privacy, stigma, and adherence issues that come with taking daily medication. The next step forward could be a vaccine with even longer immunity—one that gives patients lifetime protection. Researchers have been pursuing this laudable goal for years, but last week, the Trump administration announced plans to terminate research grants at two preeminent institutions, the Duke Human Vaccine Institute and the Scripps Research Institute, totaling $258 million. The researchers were told that the administration wanted 'to go with currently available approaches to eliminate HIV.' On the other hand, global health experts are warning that without new resources, President Trump's promise to end HIV within ten years is destined to fail—and when combined with the administration's other actions to cut and halt global health programs, HIV infections and deaths could actually rise for the first time in decades under his watch. 'I find it very disappointing that, at this critical juncture, the funding for highly successful H.I.V. vaccine research programs should be pulled,' Dennis Burton, an immunologist at Scripps, told The New York Times. Meanwhile AIDS groups, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition described the decision as inconceivable and shortsighted. The grant news marks the latest blow to the HIV/AIDS community, which has endured devastating domestic and global funding cuts in Trump's second term. San Francisco, which was one of the first epicenters of the domestic AIDS fight, has long relied on funding from the federal government to support community-based health programs that help reduce HIV transmission. These initiatives have helped the city make outstanding progress against the disease, but Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant delays have threatened testing, treatment, and care continuity. Even southern states which President Trump won decisively, and which account for 50% of all new U.S. HIV infections, have not been spared. According to the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR), cuts to domestic HIV prevention programs could spark over 14,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes and 143,000 new HIV infections. Earlier this year, HHS closed its Office of Infectious Diseases & HIV policy that quarterbacked the government's domestic AIDS response. Abroad, global health programs have fared even worse. In January, the Trump administration halted funding for The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a bipartisan program that has saved over 26 million lives. In a congressional hearing last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that, '85 percent of recipients are now receiving PEPFAR services.' He also said that no one has died as a result of the aid freeze, a notion journalists and health experts scoff at. According to Brooke Nichols, an infectious disease mathematical modeler and health economist at Boston University, over 57,000 adults and 6,000 children have died as a result of the PEPFAR funding freeze and the discontinuation of global health programs. Even if those numbers are inflated, as some have contended, the number of lives needlessly lost is still likely in the tens of thousands. While some experts remain hopeful that the recent cuts will eventually be restored, the prospect of an AIDS-free future that President Trump himself once espoused appears grim. "This is a decision with consequences that will linger. This is a setback of probably a decade for HIV vaccine research," Burton warned.
