Latest news with #Skrmetti
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
The biggest Supreme Court decisions to watch for in June
It's crunch time for the Supreme Court. By early July, the justices are expected to wrap up their current term, which means that dozens of rulings will be released over the next five weeks. Among the cases yet to be resolved are high-profile battles over medical treatment for transgender children, age-verification rules for porn sites and the rights of religious parents who send their kids to public schools. The court will next release opinions on Thursday at 8 a.m. MDT. Several more decision days will be added to the calendar before June comes to a close. Although a ruling for any unresolved case can come on any upcoming decision day, the most anticipated opinions may not be released until the last week of June or first week of July, since the Supreme Court often saves its highest-profile rulings for last. Here are five of the biggest issues the court will weigh in on before entering its summer recess. Case name: U.S. v. Skrmetti Key question(s): The justices are weighing whether Tennessee's restrictions on certain gender-related treatments, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender children and teens violate the Constitution's equal protection clause by making access to the treatments contingent on a young person's sex at birth. The court is also considering whether the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals used the right legal standard when evaluating the case. Lower court ruling: The doctor, parents and transgender children who challenged Tennessee's law secured a partial victory at the district court level when the court ruled that transgender young people should have access to treatments that remained available to their non-transgender peers. But then the 6th Circuit overturned that decision on appeal, ruling that the policy does not promote sex discrimination. Oral argument date: Dec. 4, 2024 Oral argument observations: In addition to debating Tennessee's law and the equal protection clause during oral arguments, the justices discussed research related to gender transitioning. More conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether treatments like hormone therapy are safe for transgender minors, arguing that the science seems to be unsettled, as the Deseret News reported at the time. What's at stake?: The Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti could affect around two dozen other states, which similarly regulate gender-related treatments. Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Key question(s): The overarching question in the case is whether or not a Texas law aimed at keeping young people from accessing porn sites violates the First Amendment rights of the sites' adult users. However, the Supreme Court ruling may focus on a narrower question about what legal standard should be used to evaluate challenged age-verification laws. Lower court ruling: Those challenging Texas' law won at the district court level, but then the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned part of that decision and allowed the age-verification rules to take effect. Judges who have ruled against the law say it violates free speech protections. Oral argument date: Jan. 15, 2025 Oral argument takeaways: A majority of justices seemed interested in sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under a different legal standard. Many also noted that Supreme Court precedent on pornography regulation is difficult to apply to the modern context. What's at stake?: As in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the court's ruling could force changes to — or at least reconsideration of — similar laws in around 20 other states. Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Key question(s): Should members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, have to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging employment discrimination? Lower court ruling: Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, accused her employer of discrimination in a 2020 lawsuit. She lost at a preliminary stage in front of multiple courts, which said that she wouldn't be able to meet the higher burden of proof required for her case to move forward. Oral argument date: Feb. 26, 2025 Oral argument takeaways: Most of the justices seemed to sympathize with Ames and want to make it clear that job discrimination claims from members of majority groups should be assessed the same way as claims from members of minority groups. What's at stake?: A ruling for Ames could further complicate the debate over Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or DEI, programs that have ramped up since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor Key question(s): Does the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland need to allow religious parents to opt their kids out of reading storybooks that explore LGBTQ issues like gender identity? Lower court ruling: At the district and circuit levels, the school board successfully defended its decision to stop offering opt-outs from its inclusive storybook program. The courts said students aren't being coerced into changing their beliefs, so the program doesn't violate the First Amendment's religious exercise protections. Oral argument date: April 22, 2025 Oral argument takeaways: The justices got into the weeds during oral arguments and actually debated the moral message conveyed by one of the books being used in Montgomery County schools, as the Deseret News previously reported. Some also raised concerns that a ruling for the parents would create curriculum chaos nationwide. What's at stake?: That depends on who you ask. The parents' supporters believe restoring the opt-out option would bring Montgomery County schools in line with schools across the country. Their opponents say it would lead to a surge in parental interference with public school teachers. Case name: Trump v. CASA Key question(s): Although the case stems from Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, the question in front of the Supreme Court is not about that order's content, but, instead, about when lower courts can hand down universal injunctions that block implementation of a policy nationwide. Lower court ruling: Multiple lower courts have issued universal injunctions that have prevented the birthright citizenship order from taking effect. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of those injunctions by making them apply only to the states, cities and people involved in the legal battle. Oral arguments date: May 15, 2025 Oral argument observations: Several justices took issue with the U.S. solicitor general's claims during oral arguments, including some who have expressed frustration with nationwide injunctions in the past. It seemed like the court might release a ruling that generally discouraged nationwide injunctions, but allowed the ones blocking the birthright citizenship order to remain in place, as the Deseret News previously reported. What's at stake?: All future administrations have a stake in the case, since leaders from both parties have come to see universal injunctions as roadblocks standing in the way of their policy agendas. But those same leaders are often grateful for injunctions when their party is not in power.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
'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
NBC News
26-05-2025
- Entertainment
- NBC News
'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.' 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.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
TN Attorney General co-leads letter opposing amendment that would limit state AI regulation
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is looking to keep Artificial Intelligence regulations up to the states. On Friday, Skrmetti joined a coalition of 36 other state attorneys general in leading a letter to oppose a federal ban on state regulation of AI products. The letter warns that an amendment added in the Budget Reconciliation Bill by the U.S. House and Energy and Commerce Committee would impose a 10-year ban on states from enforcing 'any state law or regulation addressing AI and automated decision-making systems.' FBI issues warning about AI voice impersonations of US officials According to the attorneys general, the bill will affect hundreds of existing and pending state laws that were passed and considered by both Republican and Democrat state legislatures. Skrmetti's office said states have been at the forefront of keeping consumers protected from the dangers of AI. 'The combined efforts of the states and the federal government have been, at best, barely enough to protect consumers from Big Tech,' said Skrmetti. 'AI has incredible potential but amplifies every risk we've seen from Big Tech and creates new risks we don't fully understand. Eliminating state oversight through this reconciliation amendment guarantees Americans will suffer repeated violations of their privacy, consumer protection, and antitrust laws.' ⏩ The bipartisan letter urges Congress to reject the amendment, stating that it would 'leave Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI' and would wipe any state-level frameworks that are already in place. To read the entire letter, . Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Here are the major cases the Supreme Court will rule on in the coming weeks
Here are some of the key cases the Supreme Court will rule on in the coming weeks: Advertisement Treatment for transgender minors: United States v. Skrmetti The Supreme Court will rule on whether a Tennessee law that bars health care providers from administering gender affirming medical treatments to minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up After more than two hours of arguments in December, the conservative majority Supreme Court The liberal justices appeared likely to side with the challengers, as 26 states with similar bans on gender-affirming care for minors face ongoing lawsuits. Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship: On May 15, the Supreme Court will Advertisement The Trump administration has Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States and was ratified in 1868. Opting out of lessons featuring LGBTQ books: Mahmoud v. Taylor The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether public schools must accommodate parents' religious beliefs by allowing them to withdraw their children from lessons featuring books with LGBTQ themes. In Montgomery County, Maryland, a group of parents is challenging the school district's refusal to let them withdraw their children from elementary classes when LGBTQ books are presented in class. They argue the policy violates their right to freely practice their religion, but lower courts have upheld the school district's stance. During oral arguments on April 22, the Supreme Court Public funding for religious public charter school: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond The Supreme Court will decide whether Oklahoma can allow the nation's first religious public charter school, a case that could blur the line between church and state. The After more than two hours of arguments April 30, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the only justice whose vote was uncertain. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not take part in the case. Advertisement Age verification for porn sites: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether states can mandate age verification for access to online pornography. Texas defends the law as a way to protect minors, while the adult entertainment industry claims it infringes on free speech rights under the First Amendment. During arguments on Jan. 15, the Louisiana's voting map: Landry v. Callais The Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold Louisiana's congressional map used in the 2024 election, which features two majority-Black districts. The map is being challenged by Black voters and civil rights organizations who argue that state lawmakers improperly considered race when redrawing district lines after the 2020 Census. The outcome could shape how legislatures across the country factor race into the redistricting process. The Planned Parenthood funding: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic The Supreme Court will determine whether states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. While Medicaid, a program for low-income people, Patients who go to Planned Parenthood for treatments like contraception, cancer screenings, and physical exams could see their care upended if the court sides with South Carolina leaders who say no public money should go to the organization. The justices appear divided after hearing oral arguments on April 2. Advertisement Free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management The Supreme Court is set to decide whether insurers must continue providing preventive health services at no cost under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The law currently mandates coverage of a wide range of preventive care, including cancer screenings, mammograms, and HIV prevention drugs. The case originated from a Christian business owner who challenged the requirement to cover an HIV prevention drug, arguing it conflicted with his religious beliefs. During Accountability on FBI raid that targeted the wrong house: Martin v. United States The Supreme Court will determine the circumstances under which federal law enforcement can be held accountable for actions that harm innocent people. The case stems from a 2017 incident in which FBI agents mistakenly raided the Atlanta home of Trina Martin, breaking down her door and pointing guns at her and her family before realizing they had targeted the wrong address. After Material from the Associated Press were used in this report. Alyssa Vega can be reached at
