Connect with us

Politics

GOP AG predicts which side has advantage in historic SCOTUS transgender case with 'divided' justices

Published

on

GOP AG predicts which side has advantage in historic SCOTUS transgender case with 'divided' justices

In oral aruments, Supreme Court justices discussed the high-profile, first-of-its-kind case involving transgender medical treatment for children. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the lawmaker at the center of the suit against the Biden administration, told Fox News Digital that over the next few months, the justices will be “thinking a lot about the case.” 

When asked whether he ever foresaw himself in such a high-profile legal matter, he said, “not remotely.”

“I do think the fact that there’s so much disagreement weighs in favor of our side,” Skrmetti said in a phone interview. “This is an area where the court really shouldn’t come in and pick a winner. The data is still very underdeveloped.”

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL ‘TREATMENTS’ TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

Advertisement

Activists hold a rally outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., as the court hears oral arguments in the transgender treatments case Skrmetti vs. U.S. on Dec. 4, 2024. (Fox News Digital)

“All the research that both sides point to is unresolved,” Skrmetti said. “This is an unsettled area of science, and in situations like that, the best way to resolve it is through the democratic process. Our legislators appropriate people to deal with that uncertainty and make the call for each individual state.”

The justices appeared divided on Wednesday after oral arguments, and the three appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session.

For its part, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Protection Clause, which ensures equal treatment under the law for similarly situated individuals, bars states from prohibiting medical providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to help minors transition to a different gender. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti and is challenging Tennessee’s state law which bans medical procedures for minors.

Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators rallied both for and against gender transition treatments for children. One of those rally-goers, detransitioner and activist Chloe Cole, told Fox News Digital in an interview that if the justices oppose the ban on trans medical treatments, “it’s going to make things a lot more difficult on legislative fronts in terms of protecting our children and our youth.”

Advertisement

‘THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING’: EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

Detransitioner and activist Chloe Cole outside the Supreme Court building during oral arguments in the Skrmetti vs. U.S. case on Dec. 4, 2024.  (Fox News Digital)

“If we want to create a precedent for other states, for first this law, to be upheld in courts and for other states to be upheld as well, we have to do this now,” Cole said.

Cole, who detransitioned at the age of 16, told Fox News Digital that doctors had done an “incredible disservice” to her at a young age by helping her transition in the first place.

“I’m never going to even have a chance at nursing my children with what God gave me,” Cole said. “An incredible disservice has been done to me by these irresponsible doctors who knew better. They knew better than to do this to a child. They still chose to do it. But they messed with the wrong kid, and I am going to make sure there is never another child in America who is abused in the same way I was ever again.”

Advertisement

The court’s decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. A decision is expected by July 2025.

“So if the court puts a thumb on the scale and says that the courts could be second-guessing state governments on these issues, I think you’re going to see an inhibited debate, and we’ve seen this happen before in other contexts where democracy is subverted by judges who step a little too far into the policy arena, and that ultimately hurts the country,” Skrmetti said. 

“It de-legitimates the government,” he added. “It makes people feel alienated from the political process. The alternative is it stays open to our democratic system of resolving disagreements, and you’ll see a lot of debate, and different states will go in different directions, and over time, we’ll have better research, and people will have a chance to debate this extensively, and that’s just the better way to come to a resolution on such a hot button issue where the Constitution is silent.”

The Justices’ decision may also influence broader debates about whether sexual orientation and gender identity qualify as protected classes under civil rights laws, akin to protections for race and national origin.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Advertisement

A court sketch depicts the United States Supreme Court hearing oral arguments regarding abortion rights on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.  (William J Hennessy Jr.)

When asked whether Skrmetti believes the incoming Trump administration could persuade the justices one way in the case, he said, “It’s ultimately up to the court how they want to handle that.” Trump promised during his campaign he would outlaw transgender medical procedures for minors and open the doorway to allowing individuals to sue medical providers for conducting them.

“But there is a path there for them to continue this, and I think it’s important that we get clarity soon, because there are so many cases involving these issues, and the lower courts have not been consistent and are looking for guidance, and it would do everyone good to have a more clear answer to the state of the law,” he said.

Fox News Digital’s Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report. 

Advertisement

Politics

Sen. Lindsey Graham dead at 71 after ‘brief and sudden’ illness, office says

Published

on

Sen. Lindsey Graham dead at 71 after ‘brief and sudden’ illness, office says

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., died Saturday evening following a “brief and sudden” illness, according to a statement from his office.

“On the evening of Saturday, July 11, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham passed away from a brief and sudden illness,” his office said.

“Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period,” it continued.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks with reporters about aid to Ukraine, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, March 10, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

This is a breaking story; check back for updates.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump slashes wildlife protections, putting endangered California animals at risk

Published

on

Trump slashes wildlife protections, putting endangered California animals at risk

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

Advertisement

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

Advertisement

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

Advertisement

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

Published

on

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A sweeping veterans package supporters describe as the largest expansion of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade is expected to return to the House floor when lawmakers come back from the July recess, but backers warn the legislation could once again become collateral damage in the Republican standoff over the SAVE America Act.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act rolls roughly 60 veterans bills into a package that would dramatically expand veterans’ health care and benefits. At its core, the legislation would cement veterans’ access to community care outside the VA while increasing benefits for combat-wounded veterans, caregivers and Gold Star families, expanding mental health services and enacting dozens of additional reforms.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., told Fox News Digital he intends to bring the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act back for a vote as soon as the House reconvenes next week.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – MARCH 17: Eugene Simpson, 29, from Dale City, Virginia goes through physical therapy at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C. with Michael Minor, a kinesiotherapist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on March 17, 2006 in Washington, D.C., USA. (Photo by Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images) (Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images)

Advertisement

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

The legislation was held up last month after a group of House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a procedural vote, stopping the House from taking up the bill.

“I’m feeling good as long as my members stay with us on the rule,” Bost said. “Right now, there’s some politics being played, not about this bill, but just in general.”

The bill became entangled in a broader House Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, legislation championed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

On June 30, the House voted on H. Res. 1398, the procedural rule governing floor consideration of several bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. The rule failed after 14 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, preventing the House from taking up the veterans package and bringing floor business to a standstill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., claimed to have voted against the rules vote in protest against House leadership’s handling of the SAVE America Act. As a result, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent the members home early.

Advertisement

Bost accused the holdouts of effectively putting veterans legislation on hold.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs building is seen in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019. (Photo by Alastair Pike / AFP) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Images) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Image)

‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA

“They’re holding all bills hostage,” Bost said. “They’re not voting for any rule. Any bill that has to pass a rule before it comes to the floor—which this bill does because of its size—can’t move.”

Although Bost said he supports the SAVE America Act and has voted for it three times, he argued the Senate’s failure to act should not stop the House from advancing unrelated legislation.

Advertisement

“I agree with that bill,” Bost said. “But the Senate still has to do their work. We don’t stop our work because the Senate isn’t doing it.”

With 23 legislative days left in the Congressional session, Concerned Veterans for America Strategic Director John Byrnes, a supporter of the bill, said time is of the essence.

“There are lots and lots of things that have to get done,” Byrnes told Fox News Digital. “There’s also the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must pass every year, so these things eat up time. There’s requirements to have debate on these, which eat up session time.”

Byrnes argued that every procedural delay pushes other legislation further down the calendar.

“This bill will save lives in 2027,” Byrnes said. “If we lose veterans because they could have had faster, better access to health care, we’re never going to get those veterans back.”

Advertisement

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. ( )

TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT

But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also voted no on the procedural vote, told Fox News Digital that he has concerns about how the bill is financed.

“I appreciate what the chairman’s trying to do in some respects, but there’s a few issues,” Roy said.

Among them, Roy pointed to provisions offsetting new spending through changes affecting other veterans.

Advertisement

“You’re taxing certain veterans to provide some sort of benefits and changes to other veterans,” Roy said. “There are concerns about some of the pay-fors.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars has also taken issue with Section 108 of the bill, warning that it would codify changes to future disability ratings for tinnitus and sleep apnea to help finance other veterans priorities.

But Bost said this is inaccurate.

“No veteran is going to have their benefits reduced,” Bost said. “If you’re receiving a benefit right now, that’s not going to be reduced at all.”

Roy, who previously served two years on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he supported a lot of what the bill was seeking to accomplish; but said other pieces of legislation are priorities, too.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“There is a block of us for whom border security, the SAVE Act and demonstrating our leadership on major issues is critical,” Roy said. “Some of these other bills may or may not get hung up based on a desire of many in the conference to see movement on other things.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Luna’s office and the White House for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending