1 00:00:05,040 --> 00:00:08,400 Speaker 1: On this episode of News World. The Supreme Court heard 2 00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:13,360 Speaker 1: oral arguments on Wednesday in United States versus Scometti. The 3 00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:17,840 Speaker 1: case involves three transgender teens along with their parents, who 4 00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:21,960 Speaker 1: are challenging Tennessee Senate Bill I, which prohibits all medical 5 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:26,480 Speaker 1: treatments intended to allow quote a miner to identify with 6 00:00:27,040 --> 00:00:31,840 Speaker 1: or live as a purported identity inconsistent with the minor sex, 7 00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:36,680 Speaker 1: or to treat quote purported discomfort or distress from a 8 00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:41,040 Speaker 1: discordance between the minor sex and asserted identity close quote. 9 00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:44,920 Speaker 1: They assert that the law violates the equal Protection clause 10 00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:49,560 Speaker 1: of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In more basic terms, 11 00:00:49,960 --> 00:00:53,160 Speaker 1: the transgender teams in their parents want gender affirming care 12 00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:56,560 Speaker 1: for transgender miners under the age of eighteen, and the 13 00:00:56,560 --> 00:00:59,800 Speaker 1: state of Tennessee does not. Here to talk about the 14 00:00:59,840 --> 00:01:03,680 Speaker 1: case and the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, I'm 15 00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:08,160 Speaker 1: really pleased to welcome my guest, Sarah Parshall Perry. She 16 00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:10,880 Speaker 1: is a Senior Legal Fellow for the Edwin Rush Third 17 00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:27,240 Speaker 1: Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Sarah, welcome, 18 00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:29,240 Speaker 1: and thank you for joining me on Newts World. 19 00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:31,240 Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me. 20 00:01:31,560 --> 00:01:34,280 Speaker 1: Well, I said, you're at a great place. And Edmese 21 00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:37,640 Speaker 1: is a remarkable giant who has done so many good things. 22 00:01:37,640 --> 00:01:39,360 Speaker 1: That must be a great honor to be able to 23 00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 1: work with him. 24 00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:41,400 Speaker 2: It's wonderful. 25 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:44,920 Speaker 1: Can you provide an overview of the United States versus 26 00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:47,360 Speaker 1: Scrameti and what's at stake in this case? 27 00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:50,520 Speaker 2: Sure? In fact, the parents had brought the challenge on 28 00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:55,720 Speaker 2: behalf of three minor children that's identified as transgender, and 29 00:01:55,720 --> 00:01:59,360 Speaker 2: that was the originating litigation against the State of Tennessee 30 00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:03,400 Speaker 2: over be one, which was this particular law that restricts 31 00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 2: these procedures for individuals under the age of eighteen. But 32 00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:10,080 Speaker 2: what happened was in the Sixth Circuit on appeal, the 33 00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:14,440 Speaker 2: United States intervened as it has the right constitutionally to 34 00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:18,840 Speaker 2: do when an equal protection caused claim is essentially raised 35 00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:22,240 Speaker 2: by the United States or one of the parties to 36 00:02:22,280 --> 00:02:26,480 Speaker 2: the litigation. So they exercised their right to intervene because 37 00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:29,960 Speaker 2: of a constitutional question, and that is the form of 38 00:02:30,040 --> 00:02:32,920 Speaker 2: litigation that the Supreme Court took up. They did not 39 00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:36,160 Speaker 2: take up the parents' rights claim itself. In fact, the 40 00:02:36,240 --> 00:02:41,000 Speaker 2: underlying litigation LW versus Cremetee is actually still idling right 41 00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:45,480 Speaker 2: now at the Supreme Court, a sensibly pending disposition of 42 00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:49,040 Speaker 2: what happens in this particular case with the United States 43 00:02:49,240 --> 00:02:53,560 Speaker 2: suing the State of Tennessee. Yesterday's oral arguments I think 44 00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:57,240 Speaker 2: indicated above all that there is very likely at least 45 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,720 Speaker 2: a faction of five, if not six, that are keen 46 00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:04,640 Speaker 2: to uphold the law. Because the singular claim here is 47 00:03:04,720 --> 00:03:09,160 Speaker 2: sex discrimination. The United States and the ACLU have argued 48 00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:13,040 Speaker 2: that SB one discriminates on the basis of sex. What 49 00:03:13,440 --> 00:03:17,400 Speaker 2: Tennessee answers is that the law itself only discriminates based 50 00:03:17,400 --> 00:03:22,200 Speaker 2: on age anyone under the age of eighteen, or medical purpose, 51 00:03:22,520 --> 00:03:25,919 Speaker 2: in other words, the specific use to which the drugs 52 00:03:26,040 --> 00:03:29,320 Speaker 2: that are being sought are put. We know, for example, 53 00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:32,840 Speaker 2: some of these drugs are used for other conditions like 54 00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:38,280 Speaker 2: endocrine disorders or precocious puberty, and those are not restricted. 55 00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:43,000 Speaker 2: Tennessee has simply said, we are restricting everyone boy and 56 00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:45,960 Speaker 2: girl under the age of eighteen from being able to 57 00:03:46,120 --> 00:03:50,840 Speaker 2: access these particular medications for the use of any gender 58 00:03:50,920 --> 00:03:54,840 Speaker 2: affirming care. To my mind, this is a relatively simple 59 00:03:55,000 --> 00:04:00,200 Speaker 2: constitutional question, and I think that Elizabeth Prelogger, who the 60 00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:03,880 Speaker 2: US Solicitor General took a great amount of heat yesterday 61 00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:09,720 Speaker 2: in spite of some very distinct grilling from the Chief Justice, 62 00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:14,000 Speaker 2: Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and especially Justice Alito. 63 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:18,640 Speaker 1: This kind of provision that's age based, if I understand 64 00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:22,160 Speaker 1: it correctly, is now becoming fairly common in Europe. They've 65 00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:25,040 Speaker 1: experimented with this and reached the conclusion that, in fact, 66 00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,080 Speaker 1: it's very bad public policy to allow people who are 67 00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:32,160 Speaker 1: young to redefine themselves based on how they feel that year. 68 00:04:32,760 --> 00:04:33,039 Speaker 2: Yes. 69 00:04:33,400 --> 00:04:33,599 Speaker 1: Yeah. 70 00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:37,600 Speaker 2: In fact, the greater number of Western European nations who 71 00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:42,760 Speaker 2: were originally very gung ho, very aggressive toward medically transitioning 72 00:04:42,839 --> 00:04:49,719 Speaker 2: these minor children, have since backed off. Not only have Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, 73 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:53,640 Speaker 2: France to a certain extent, and England all decided that 74 00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:56,600 Speaker 2: they were going to as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out yesterday, 75 00:04:56,839 --> 00:05:00,000 Speaker 2: pump the brakes on this, which I thought was significant. 76 00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:04,360 Speaker 2: He used that actual terminology. But those particular studies that 77 00:05:04,520 --> 00:05:09,160 Speaker 2: came out of those Western European nations, a Swedish study specifically, 78 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:13,760 Speaker 2: and the bombshell Cast report study that came out this 79 00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:17,400 Speaker 2: year itself coming from England, and that was a study 80 00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:21,360 Speaker 2: of ten thousand minor children who were allowed this gender 81 00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:26,679 Speaker 2: transition medicine. That played significantly into the justice as lines 82 00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:31,560 Speaker 2: of questioning yesterday, especially with Kavanaugh who said, based on 83 00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:34,960 Speaker 2: what Europe's doing, we obviously know that there is not 84 00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:38,760 Speaker 2: settled science in this area that gives us what he 85 00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:42,320 Speaker 2: called a yellow light, if not a strong red light, 86 00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,479 Speaker 2: to actually prevent ourselves from intervening. 87 00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:47,680 Speaker 1: I noticed that the US Court of Appeals with the 88 00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:51,680 Speaker 1: six sercent actually upheld the band and an apply to 89 00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:55,880 Speaker 1: standard known as rational basis. Yes, now what does that mean? 90 00:05:56,720 --> 00:05:59,520 Speaker 2: So that's a great question. So for your listeners, there 91 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,760 Speaker 2: are always these tiers of scrutiny. When the Supreme Court 92 00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:08,400 Speaker 2: is tasked with consideration of a constitutional question, and when 93 00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:14,000 Speaker 2: it is tasked with determining whether or not particular characteristics 94 00:06:14,080 --> 00:06:18,040 Speaker 2: are protected under the Equal Protection Clause, it employs what's 95 00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:23,000 Speaker 2: called intermediate or heightened scrutiny. Rational basis is the lowest 96 00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:27,440 Speaker 2: that means a state law is presumptively constitutional because the 97 00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:31,480 Speaker 2: state has been able to simply advance a rational interest 98 00:06:31,880 --> 00:06:35,599 Speaker 2: that's legitimate to its ends. Heightened scrutiny is a little 99 00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:37,960 Speaker 2: bit higher of a bar. That was the one that 100 00:06:38,040 --> 00:06:42,880 Speaker 2: played into the justices rationale and lines of questioning today 101 00:06:43,400 --> 00:06:48,920 Speaker 2: for classifications based on sex, that heightened scrutiny requires a 102 00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:53,640 Speaker 2: legitimate purpose, not just a rational purpose, but a legitimate 103 00:06:53,680 --> 00:06:58,039 Speaker 2: purpose that is more narrowly tailored through the government regulation. 104 00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:02,320 Speaker 2: So the government has to work harder to overcome that 105 00:07:02,839 --> 00:07:06,520 Speaker 2: boundary of judicial review. That is what the United States 106 00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:09,440 Speaker 2: and the acl you are arguing for. They don't want 107 00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:14,400 Speaker 2: presumptive constitutionality. They say that as a restriction on sex. 108 00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:18,760 Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has held intermediate heightened scrutiny to be 109 00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:23,640 Speaker 2: the appropriate standard. But unfortunately, here again, this is a 110 00:07:23,720 --> 00:07:27,680 Speaker 2: law that regulates based on age and use of medications 111 00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:32,440 Speaker 2: for a particular purpose. No matter how many times you 112 00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:35,200 Speaker 2: slice the apple, I don't think there's any way of 113 00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:40,120 Speaker 2: getting around the very legitimate aims of the legislators in 114 00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,680 Speaker 2: the state of Tennessee to protect the miners in the 115 00:07:43,680 --> 00:07:49,840 Speaker 2: state boundaries that are actually subjecting themselves to these lifelong alterations. 116 00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:53,520 Speaker 1: Tell me if I've got this right or wrong. The 117 00:07:53,640 --> 00:07:56,880 Speaker 1: parallel argument would be if you had a law that 118 00:07:56,960 --> 00:07:59,640 Speaker 1: said you had to be a certain age to drink 119 00:08:00,600 --> 00:08:03,920 Speaker 1: that by definition, if it applied to both males and females, 120 00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:06,560 Speaker 1: would not have a sexual content. 121 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:10,360 Speaker 2: Right, right, That's exactly it. In fact, there was a 122 00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:15,800 Speaker 2: very interesting line of questioning coming specifically from Justice Soda Mayor, 123 00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:19,400 Speaker 2: who said, say, for example, a young girl's growing up 124 00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:21,960 Speaker 2: and she has unwanted hair, and you prevent her from 125 00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,120 Speaker 2: getting a haircut. But a young boy is growing up 126 00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,640 Speaker 2: and he has unwanted hair, or his hair is growing 127 00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:31,840 Speaker 2: unnaturally in some way, and you give him access to 128 00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,840 Speaker 2: a haircut, then that would be sex discrimination. And my 129 00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:37,520 Speaker 2: answer to that would be, we are dealing with the 130 00:08:37,559 --> 00:08:41,679 Speaker 2: procedure itself. What the United States was trying to argue 131 00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:45,480 Speaker 2: was that the treatment for these particular drugs, the use 132 00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:50,000 Speaker 2: of these drugs, and some of them are chemical castration agents. 133 00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:53,640 Speaker 2: In fact, lupron we know, is given to prisoners who 134 00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:56,800 Speaker 2: are sex offenders in order to chemically castrate them. So 135 00:08:56,920 --> 00:09:02,000 Speaker 2: these are very very heavy duty medication with lifelong impact. 136 00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:06,760 Speaker 2: But again her point was we want to treat all 137 00:09:06,840 --> 00:09:09,600 Speaker 2: of the uses of these medications as the same, and 138 00:09:09,640 --> 00:09:13,600 Speaker 2: I think the attorney for the State of Tennessee, Matthew Rice, 139 00:09:14,360 --> 00:09:18,480 Speaker 2: very ably argued that no, there are different uses of 140 00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:22,400 Speaker 2: these drugs and they have different impacts based on whether 141 00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:26,480 Speaker 2: or not these individuals are boys or girls. That was 142 00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:30,560 Speaker 2: the fulcrum I think of the legislation itself and why 143 00:09:30,679 --> 00:09:33,840 Speaker 2: in the end it should be entirely constitutional. 144 00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:36,679 Speaker 1: This gets to be a big deal because there are 145 00:09:36,679 --> 00:09:40,560 Speaker 1: twenty six other states that have passed laws like Tennessee. 146 00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:44,440 Speaker 1: So you either have the federal government and the Supreme 147 00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:50,000 Speaker 1: Court intervening not just against Tennessee, but basically overturning twenty 148 00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:51,199 Speaker 1: seven states altogether. 149 00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:53,800 Speaker 2: That's exactly it. And I do think that there are 150 00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:57,480 Speaker 2: states right now who are very keen to protect their 151 00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:01,240 Speaker 2: children within the state, many of whom have taken a 152 00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:06,120 Speaker 2: broad brush approach like Tennessee. Some have only restricted surgeries, 153 00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:10,600 Speaker 2: some have only restricted chemical agents. Tennessee has restricted all 154 00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:13,040 Speaker 2: of them, and I think it's done so based on 155 00:10:13,080 --> 00:10:16,720 Speaker 2: the evolving science, based on the bombshell cast report. This 156 00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:20,120 Speaker 2: was a bipartisan bill. I think that's something that is 157 00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:23,440 Speaker 2: impactful and something important for your listeners to note. On 158 00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:27,200 Speaker 2: both sides of the isle, Republicans and Democrats came forward 159 00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:32,520 Speaker 2: to advance this legislation. Seventy two percent of Americans, so 160 00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:36,640 Speaker 2: the broad brush of all voters in the United States 161 00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:40,880 Speaker 2: wants restrictions on these types of procedures for minors under 162 00:10:40,880 --> 00:10:45,200 Speaker 2: the age of eighteen, recognizing that there is now increasing 163 00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,680 Speaker 2: evidence that not only do these not actually solve a 164 00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:54,120 Speaker 2: gender dysphoria problem, but they can for many individuals exacerbate 165 00:10:54,360 --> 00:11:00,560 Speaker 2: undiagnosed underlying mental health conditions. Tennessee had the end of 166 00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:05,319 Speaker 2: public sentiment at its back. I believe the legislators and 167 00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:09,000 Speaker 2: twenty six other states have as well. And again, the 168 00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:12,960 Speaker 2: people and their elected representatives are the ones who've advanced 169 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:17,400 Speaker 2: these types of bills in the interest of protecting vulnerable children. 170 00:11:35,679 --> 00:11:37,640 Speaker 1: Now, I'm not quite sure what they thought they were 171 00:11:37,640 --> 00:11:40,760 Speaker 1: going to get away with, but apparently the federal government 172 00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:44,960 Speaker 1: pointed also to the Supreme Court's twenty twenty decision in 173 00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:48,960 Speaker 1: boss Stock versus Clayton County. But there the Court held 174 00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:52,920 Speaker 1: by sixty three that federal employment laws that bar discrimination 175 00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:58,280 Speaker 1: because of sex protect gay, lesbian, and transgender employees. I mean, 176 00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:01,760 Speaker 1: it seems to me that's so so explicitly focused on 177 00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:05,800 Speaker 1: sex that it's profoundly different than the Tennessee law. 178 00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:09,239 Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting. Bostock did make a pretty significant 179 00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:12,959 Speaker 2: appearance yesterday. And remember that Justice Gorsich was the author 180 00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:16,839 Speaker 2: of the majority opinion in Bostock in twenty twenty expanding 181 00:12:16,920 --> 00:12:22,199 Speaker 2: sex discrimination in employment to include gender identity discrimination and employment. 182 00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:25,840 Speaker 2: He did not raise a single point or ask a 183 00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:30,640 Speaker 2: single question yesterday. I thought that was very compelling that 184 00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:34,679 Speaker 2: I think for many of us who've watched the taking 185 00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:38,559 Speaker 2: off of the transgender contagion, that was, in many respects, 186 00:12:38,600 --> 00:12:43,040 Speaker 2: the cracking open of the pandora's box. Once sex could 187 00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:49,440 Speaker 2: be included interpreted alongside expanded to mean gender identity under 188 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,080 Speaker 2: federal statutory law, that was I think the green light 189 00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:56,959 Speaker 2: that the Biden administration needed to advance all of its 190 00:12:57,040 --> 00:13:01,640 Speaker 2: gender identitarianism initiatives. We saw the first executive order coming 191 00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:04,280 Speaker 2: from the White House one three nine eight eight on 192 00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:09,040 Speaker 2: January twenty first of twenty twenty one, expanding directing all 193 00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:13,880 Speaker 2: of his federal agency heads to say explicitly sex included 194 00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:19,760 Speaker 2: gender identity was to be interpreted to include gender identity 195 00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:22,680 Speaker 2: in all federal laws and regulations. And there are more 196 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:28,120 Speaker 2: than one hundred federal laws and regulations that impact sex discrimination. 197 00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:33,720 Speaker 2: So we saw implications in everything from school lunches, to healthcare, 198 00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:39,080 Speaker 2: to housing, to religious facilities, and the biggest of course 199 00:13:39,160 --> 00:13:43,080 Speaker 2: being in education. With the changing of Title line of 200 00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:47,120 Speaker 2: the Education Amendments, which is the statute that guarantee sex 201 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:51,280 Speaker 2: equality in federally funded schools. That was, I believe, in 202 00:13:51,400 --> 00:13:55,440 Speaker 2: many respects for the Biden administration their brass ring. It 203 00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:58,360 Speaker 2: is the only of the federal statutes that has related 204 00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:03,440 Speaker 2: solely to sex discrimination and no other category of sex discrimination. 205 00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:09,600 Speaker 2: But the analysis here is different because Bosstok applied solely 206 00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:13,840 Speaker 2: to an employment context in a statutory vein. So this 207 00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:18,800 Speaker 2: was a textualist approach. The justices were bound by what 208 00:14:19,120 --> 00:14:22,560 Speaker 2: the term meant at the time of its enactment in 209 00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:28,440 Speaker 2: nineteen sixty four. Unfortunately, I believe Justice Gorsic forgot that missive. 210 00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:32,240 Speaker 2: I think he botched the finding. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote there, 211 00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:36,200 Speaker 2: he got so caught up in the literal meaning, which 212 00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:42,080 Speaker 2: for him could include gender identity or gender expression, because 213 00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:46,120 Speaker 2: he said they were inextricably bound up with sex. He 214 00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:49,440 Speaker 2: lost the forest for the trees. And what Justice Kavanaugh 215 00:14:49,480 --> 00:14:54,600 Speaker 2: wrote in his opinion Bostok was, you are not identifying 216 00:14:54,680 --> 00:14:58,200 Speaker 2: what people would have understood sex to mean when they 217 00:14:58,280 --> 00:15:01,760 Speaker 2: drafted the statute in the six So while that came 218 00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:05,600 Speaker 2: up in pre Lagger's argument, the calculus here is different 219 00:15:06,280 --> 00:15:11,200 Speaker 2: because the heightened scrutiny. Analysis under the Constitution's equal protection 220 00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:16,920 Speaker 2: clause is different than that under the statutory civil rights concept. 221 00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:19,840 Speaker 2: But Prelogger tried to bring it in. She tried to 222 00:15:19,960 --> 00:15:24,280 Speaker 2: crack open the door to the justice's reference to Bostock. 223 00:15:24,480 --> 00:15:27,840 Speaker 2: She wanted to sort of harken back to that. I 224 00:15:27,880 --> 00:15:30,960 Speaker 2: do believe in many respects a speaker that it was 225 00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:34,760 Speaker 2: the rent coming doom moment for Justice Gorsic yesterday, who 226 00:15:34,760 --> 00:15:38,400 Speaker 2: wrote the boss Stock opinion and was deadly silent during 227 00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:41,760 Speaker 2: the entirety of oral arguments yesterday. But I think they 228 00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:45,320 Speaker 2: can safely keep a boss Stock where it is not 229 00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:48,360 Speaker 2: touch Bostock. Again, it's a very young precedent, it's only 230 00:15:48,400 --> 00:15:52,440 Speaker 2: four years old, and still find that a state has 231 00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:57,320 Speaker 2: constitutional authority to be able to legislate for the welfare 232 00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:00,600 Speaker 2: of the minor children within its boundaries. Don't think that's 233 00:16:00,640 --> 00:16:02,080 Speaker 2: a controversial proposition. 234 00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:05,200 Speaker 1: Do you think the Grostitch will be inclined to vote 235 00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:09,760 Speaker 1: with the Biden administration on this issue because of his earlier. 236 00:16:09,520 --> 00:16:11,880 Speaker 2: Role, You know, this is a great question. It's very 237 00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:14,920 Speaker 2: clear to me the three female Liberal justices will vote 238 00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:18,000 Speaker 2: together as a block, as they have almost exclusively in 239 00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:21,160 Speaker 2: the past two terms. Gorsich, to my mind, is the 240 00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:25,560 Speaker 2: wild card. We heard very clearly from Barrett, from Kavanaugh, 241 00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:29,120 Speaker 2: from Alito Thomas, and even the Chief Justice, who has 242 00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:31,160 Speaker 2: a tendency to be sort of a middle of the 243 00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:35,400 Speaker 2: road trying to find a center route type justice. Even 244 00:16:35,520 --> 00:16:39,560 Speaker 2: he put Elizabeth Prelagger, the Solicitor General, to some very 245 00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,400 Speaker 2: very difficult questions. The only one obviously we didn't hear 246 00:16:43,440 --> 00:16:46,320 Speaker 2: from was Gorsich. That to my mind means he is 247 00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:49,840 Speaker 2: convincible by either side of the party. But at this 248 00:16:50,000 --> 00:16:53,640 Speaker 2: point it's very clear that we are, based on oral 249 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:57,880 Speaker 2: arguments yesterday, most likely to see a states rights victory 250 00:16:58,080 --> 00:17:01,000 Speaker 2: that is simultaneously going to protect minor kids. 251 00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:03,920 Speaker 1: In a memo you wrote just the other day on 252 00:17:04,080 --> 00:17:09,639 Speaker 1: protecting primary parental authority from institutional challenges, you wrote that quote, 253 00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:13,399 Speaker 1: legal analysis and parnal rights have been flawed. That's a 254 00:17:13,440 --> 00:17:16,800 Speaker 1: pretty strong statement. Can you sort of outline and explain 255 00:17:16,840 --> 00:17:18,840 Speaker 1: what you're getting at sure? 256 00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:22,920 Speaker 2: In fact, the Supreme Court right now has seven pending 257 00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:27,320 Speaker 2: cert petitions specifically related to iterations of the parental right. 258 00:17:27,640 --> 00:17:30,919 Speaker 2: That's notable. The Supreme Court's not weighed in on the 259 00:17:30,920 --> 00:17:34,640 Speaker 2: parental rights issue and this stems from the substantive due 260 00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:39,000 Speaker 2: process analysis from the Fourteenth Amendment to the other clause, 261 00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:42,240 Speaker 2: the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which back 262 00:17:42,320 --> 00:17:45,720 Speaker 2: in nineteen twenty three and Meyer versus Nebraska, the Supreme 263 00:17:45,720 --> 00:17:51,240 Speaker 2: Court said it is a primary authority or primary notion 264 00:17:51,400 --> 00:17:54,159 Speaker 2: that a parent can direct the care of bringing an 265 00:17:54,359 --> 00:17:58,280 Speaker 2: education of one's minor children. They reiterated that two years 266 00:17:58,359 --> 00:18:02,640 Speaker 2: later in Pierce versus Society of Sisters. But they are 267 00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:06,840 Speaker 2: now facing a point where we've seen twenty four years 268 00:18:06,880 --> 00:18:11,320 Speaker 2: of silence from the Supreme Court. So some courts are 269 00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:17,040 Speaker 2: now determining that that Fourteenth Amendment parental right includes the 270 00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:22,240 Speaker 2: right to get experimental gender affirming care for one's minor children. 271 00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:24,840 Speaker 2: And while the Supreme Court has said, yes, there is 272 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:29,199 Speaker 2: a general right to direct your child's medical care, it 273 00:18:29,280 --> 00:18:32,920 Speaker 2: is actually held that there is no constitutional right even 274 00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:37,880 Speaker 2: for adults to get experimental or unproven care. In fact, 275 00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:42,040 Speaker 2: in a case called Abigail Alliance for Better Medicine, the 276 00:18:42,080 --> 00:18:46,480 Speaker 2: Supreme Court said explicitly that a patient going into hospice 277 00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:50,840 Speaker 2: who wanted a very experimental, last ditch option for his 278 00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:54,800 Speaker 2: treatment was not constitutionally entitled to it. So there is 279 00:18:54,840 --> 00:18:57,080 Speaker 2: a little doubt in my mind to believe that if 280 00:18:57,160 --> 00:19:00,399 Speaker 2: they won't grant a constitutional right for experimental here to 281 00:19:00,400 --> 00:19:03,320 Speaker 2: an adult, they certainly won't grant it to a parent 282 00:19:03,400 --> 00:19:04,680 Speaker 2: of a minor child. 283 00:19:04,880 --> 00:19:08,520 Speaker 1: So you see, in a sense, the court tightening up 284 00:19:08,720 --> 00:19:11,040 Speaker 1: yes on these kind of government interventions. 285 00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:13,919 Speaker 2: That is my hope, and my hope is that we 286 00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,679 Speaker 2: can get some further clarification on the parameter of the 287 00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:23,280 Speaker 2: parental right because we are also seeing twelve million public 288 00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:27,480 Speaker 2: school students right now who are in schools with explicit 289 00:19:27,640 --> 00:19:33,679 Speaker 2: policies that hide gender identity information from a minor child's parent, 290 00:19:34,040 --> 00:19:39,160 Speaker 2: the school confidentiality policies, while those parents are also claiming 291 00:19:39,480 --> 00:19:43,120 Speaker 2: the fourteenth Amendment parental right saying it is our right 292 00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:46,480 Speaker 2: and duty to know how our child identifies how he 293 00:19:46,600 --> 00:19:50,159 Speaker 2: is being treated at school. That I think is very 294 00:19:50,200 --> 00:19:55,840 Speaker 2: clearly an iteration of the appropriate fourteenth Amendment parental right. 295 00:19:56,280 --> 00:20:00,960 Speaker 2: But in many of these cases, school policies will site FURPA, 296 00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:05,680 Speaker 2: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act as why they 297 00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:11,200 Speaker 2: can't disclose a minor's preferred pronouns or gender identity because 298 00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:15,479 Speaker 2: it would ostensibly violate national privacy law. Well, what I 299 00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:17,560 Speaker 2: think many of the courts and a lot of the 300 00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:21,400 Speaker 2: school administrators have forgotten is that FURPA is a right 301 00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:27,240 Speaker 2: held by the parents until the child turns eighteen. Once again, 302 00:20:27,359 --> 00:20:30,879 Speaker 2: at some point statutory drafters had their heads on straight 303 00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:35,840 Speaker 2: and they decided that, yes, minor children were best served 304 00:20:36,200 --> 00:20:40,360 Speaker 2: by their parents being involved. So, no matter how you 305 00:20:40,480 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 2: slice this, really these schools who were obfuscating openly hiding 306 00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:50,320 Speaker 2: gender identity information on minor kids from their parents are 307 00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 2: I believe, ultimately going to have quite a bit of 308 00:20:53,600 --> 00:20:56,480 Speaker 2: a reckoning. There is currently a case pending out of 309 00:20:56,520 --> 00:21:00,520 Speaker 2: the Seventh Circuit on exactly that notion right now, and 310 00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:03,240 Speaker 2: there are two more coming up from the Eleventh Circuit 311 00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:05,800 Speaker 2: and the Sixth Circuit. My hope is that if the 312 00:21:05,800 --> 00:21:09,399 Speaker 2: Supreme Court doesn't take a parental rights claim this term, 313 00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:33,600 Speaker 2: maybe will get lucky and they'll take it next term. 314 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:36,879 Speaker 1: So when you think about all this, I mean, we're 315 00:21:36,920 --> 00:21:41,320 Speaker 1: both in a struggle about whether or not children, while 316 00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:46,000 Speaker 1: they're still children, should have the ability exercise what could 317 00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:50,040 Speaker 1: be lifetime decisions. Yes, and we're in a struggle about 318 00:21:50,680 --> 00:21:53,680 Speaker 1: where do parents fit between the child and the state. 319 00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:57,800 Speaker 2: That's exactly it. And boy, isn't that an ancient question. 320 00:21:58,080 --> 00:22:02,120 Speaker 2: You know, parental rights are pre political, they are natural, 321 00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:07,119 Speaker 2: They stem from that biological relationship between child and parent. 322 00:22:07,520 --> 00:22:10,080 Speaker 2: They are as old as time, and there would have 323 00:22:10,119 --> 00:22:12,919 Speaker 2: been a point in modern society where we never felt 324 00:22:12,920 --> 00:22:16,520 Speaker 2: as though we had to iterate these as constitutional rights. 325 00:22:16,760 --> 00:22:19,879 Speaker 2: But under the first challenge in nineteen twenty three, the 326 00:22:19,920 --> 00:22:24,600 Speaker 2: Supreme Court has used that very tricky Fourteenth Amendment substantive 327 00:22:24,680 --> 00:22:27,280 Speaker 2: due process analysis, the same one that gave us I 328 00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:31,000 Speaker 2: might add Roe versus weighed And now they're having to 329 00:22:31,040 --> 00:22:35,640 Speaker 2: grapple with the manifestations of what this looks like in practice. 330 00:22:35,760 --> 00:22:38,719 Speaker 2: If they'd never weighed in, there might have been something 331 00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:42,000 Speaker 2: to say for this was an easy slam dunk. Maybe 332 00:22:42,080 --> 00:22:45,600 Speaker 2: they find this right somewhere else in the Constitution. But 333 00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:49,120 Speaker 2: now we have more than one hundred years of Supreme 334 00:22:49,119 --> 00:22:52,560 Speaker 2: Court history on parental rights, but we've got a twenty 335 00:22:52,640 --> 00:22:55,800 Speaker 2: four year gap. The last time they weighed in was 336 00:22:55,840 --> 00:23:00,520 Speaker 2: in a visitation case about grandparents' visitation rights in Roxylvy 337 00:23:00,560 --> 00:23:03,720 Speaker 2: Granville in the year two thousand. It's been quite a while. 338 00:23:03,760 --> 00:23:05,760 Speaker 2: I think a lot of us, especially those of us 339 00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:08,880 Speaker 2: who are parents, are eager for a little clarification from 340 00:23:08,880 --> 00:23:09,560 Speaker 2: the court. 341 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:12,760 Speaker 1: Because there are times when I mean to use a 342 00:23:12,800 --> 00:23:16,119 Speaker 1: slightly far out example the trial we've been watching in 343 00:23:16,160 --> 00:23:18,880 Speaker 1: New York where the man who stepped in to save 344 00:23:19,000 --> 00:23:21,639 Speaker 1: everybody else on the train from a person who is 345 00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:24,399 Speaker 1: clearly deranged, and now turns out the guy who is 346 00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:26,920 Speaker 1: saving people has to go to court and may well 347 00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:29,760 Speaker 1: end up having to go to jail. A similar thing 348 00:23:29,800 --> 00:23:33,280 Speaker 1: here where the state intervenes to say, we're going to 349 00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:36,320 Speaker 1: do things to your child, whether you want us to 350 00:23:36,440 --> 00:23:36,639 Speaker 1: or not. 351 00:23:37,320 --> 00:23:40,800 Speaker 2: That's exactly it. Part of this, I think, is what 352 00:23:40,920 --> 00:23:45,119 Speaker 2: we've seen over the past decades, with this sort of rebirth, 353 00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:49,760 Speaker 2: this resurgence of sort of neo Marxism, right we were 354 00:23:50,160 --> 00:23:53,439 Speaker 2: reminded with Antonio Gramscy and Carl Marx, this is the 355 00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:57,720 Speaker 2: long march through the institutions. You take the institutions, you 356 00:23:57,800 --> 00:24:01,080 Speaker 2: ultimately take the family, and then you take person. I 357 00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:05,359 Speaker 2: think that's why we have, in a philosophical sense, seen 358 00:24:05,440 --> 00:24:12,360 Speaker 2: such an explosion in transgender identity and gender identitarianism, why 359 00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:17,760 Speaker 2: we've platformed to a greater extent what are essentially grand 360 00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,960 Speaker 2: displays of sexual fetishism. But taking the family, taking the 361 00:24:22,080 --> 00:24:28,800 Speaker 2: child ultimately guarantees cultural security for a progressive worldview, because 362 00:24:28,800 --> 00:24:32,120 Speaker 2: when you can capture young fertile minds in the K 363 00:24:32,280 --> 00:24:35,280 Speaker 2: through six or the K through eight space, and now 364 00:24:35,320 --> 00:24:39,440 Speaker 2: we know that these children are being indoctrinated with gender 365 00:24:39,600 --> 00:24:46,200 Speaker 2: identity lessons, drag queen performances, illustrated porn in their school libraries, 366 00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:50,040 Speaker 2: this is no small incursion. This is, to my mind, 367 00:24:50,080 --> 00:24:53,520 Speaker 2: as the mother of three children, a veritable onslaught. So 368 00:24:53,800 --> 00:24:57,200 Speaker 2: I think it's incumbent upon parents to really be aware 369 00:24:57,320 --> 00:25:00,760 Speaker 2: of what rights they have under constitutional law, what rights 370 00:25:00,800 --> 00:25:04,240 Speaker 2: they have under statutory law, and what rights they may 371 00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:07,680 Speaker 2: have under their own state laws, whether that's state constitution, 372 00:25:08,160 --> 00:25:11,359 Speaker 2: state code, or otherwise. That for me, was a motivating 373 00:25:11,400 --> 00:25:15,119 Speaker 2: factor behind writing this legal memo, and ultimately my hope 374 00:25:15,160 --> 00:25:18,679 Speaker 2: that parents would be a little better prepared to go 375 00:25:18,760 --> 00:25:22,560 Speaker 2: in boldly and say I want to examine my son's curriculum, 376 00:25:22,720 --> 00:25:24,960 Speaker 2: I want to talk to my daughter's teacher. I want 377 00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:29,840 Speaker 2: to ask about the considerations of my child's special ed teacher. 378 00:25:30,240 --> 00:25:33,560 Speaker 2: These are things that parents can exercise and have the 379 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:36,080 Speaker 2: right to exercise under federal law. 380 00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:39,000 Speaker 1: Just this week, you wrote an article it's time for 381 00:25:39,280 --> 00:25:42,119 Speaker 1: Washington to protect our daughters, and it's kind of an 382 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:46,159 Speaker 1: agenda center for the Trump administration and the House and 383 00:25:46,200 --> 00:25:48,840 Speaker 1: Center Republicans. Could you kind of walk us through your 384 00:25:48,920 --> 00:25:52,960 Speaker 1: thinking about how you hope President Trump and his team, 385 00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:55,919 Speaker 1: both on the legislative and executive branches, will move forward. 386 00:25:56,480 --> 00:25:59,240 Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, well. I think the first thing that the 387 00:25:59,280 --> 00:26:02,840 Speaker 2: President has to do is rescind the executive order that 388 00:26:02,920 --> 00:26:05,400 Speaker 2: I mentioned earlier, that one three to nine eight eight, 389 00:26:05,560 --> 00:26:10,040 Speaker 2: which was the Executive Order on Combating Sexual Orientation and 390 00:26:10,119 --> 00:26:13,639 Speaker 2: Gender Identity Discrimination, Because that was a shot across the 391 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:16,600 Speaker 2: bow and it directed all of the federal agencies to 392 00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:20,600 Speaker 2: get involved, essentially in the business of gender ideology. If 393 00:26:20,600 --> 00:26:24,919 Speaker 2: they had ever been sort of plane face, intellectually honest 394 00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:29,000 Speaker 2: about interpreting federal law in the past, this gave them 395 00:26:29,119 --> 00:26:32,399 Speaker 2: no excuse to do anything but buy in to the 396 00:26:32,480 --> 00:26:36,639 Speaker 2: president's agenda. And he has said, and I'm quite certain 397 00:26:36,680 --> 00:26:40,200 Speaker 2: you've heard it before, that transgender rights are the quote 398 00:26:40,280 --> 00:26:43,879 Speaker 2: civil rights issue of our time. I would disagree. I 399 00:26:43,880 --> 00:26:47,840 Speaker 2: think that denigrates the movement, the major players and the 400 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:51,119 Speaker 2: civil rights movement in the sixties who worked so hard 401 00:26:51,359 --> 00:26:54,560 Speaker 2: to actually get a quality under the law. But that 402 00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:58,639 Speaker 2: would be my first recommendation to rescind that executive order 403 00:26:59,119 --> 00:27:02,720 Speaker 2: and to issue a new one doing exactly the opposite, 404 00:27:02,760 --> 00:27:06,840 Speaker 2: telling all of the agency chiefs that sex is to 405 00:27:06,920 --> 00:27:11,160 Speaker 2: be determined solely as it is described under federal law 406 00:27:11,240 --> 00:27:14,840 Speaker 2: by the plaintext, which is to say, male and female. 407 00:27:15,240 --> 00:27:19,080 Speaker 2: That puts the entire administration and the entire nation on notice. 408 00:27:19,119 --> 00:27:21,880 Speaker 2: I think that's a good place to start. I think 409 00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:26,280 Speaker 2: the next option is immediately going to the rule making process. Now, 410 00:27:26,600 --> 00:27:29,520 Speaker 2: having served as senior counsel at the Department of Education 411 00:27:29,720 --> 00:27:33,000 Speaker 2: Civil Rights Office, rule making is arduous. I did not 412 00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,600 Speaker 2: think I would become expert an administrative law or the 413 00:27:36,640 --> 00:27:41,880 Speaker 2: Administrative Procedure Act. You have to consider every comment, all 414 00:27:42,000 --> 00:27:45,840 Speaker 2: the research, make sure it's legally sound. We did it 415 00:27:46,000 --> 00:27:49,760 Speaker 2: for our previous Title nine rule that cemented due process 416 00:27:49,880 --> 00:27:54,960 Speaker 2: protections for children on college campuses, that guaranteed free speech, 417 00:27:55,080 --> 00:27:59,240 Speaker 2: that enhanced religious liberty rights, that was rescinded. I think 418 00:27:59,240 --> 00:28:02,440 Speaker 2: the Department of Education needs to be the first office 419 00:28:02,800 --> 00:28:07,480 Speaker 2: to which we send new attorneys, new investigators to roll 420 00:28:07,600 --> 00:28:11,040 Speaker 2: back all of the laws that were issued, the rules 421 00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:14,120 Speaker 2: that were made, that were expanded throughout every public school 422 00:28:14,440 --> 00:28:18,600 Speaker 2: in the country. And I think executive guidance and rulemaking 423 00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:21,640 Speaker 2: need to follow with the other agencies as well. Remember, 424 00:28:21,720 --> 00:28:25,399 Speaker 2: we've seen quite a bit of damage enacted through the 425 00:28:25,480 --> 00:28:30,240 Speaker 2: Department of Health and Human Services. Again, the gender ideology 426 00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:36,359 Speaker 2: notion has given birth to this entire panoply, this business 427 00:28:36,840 --> 00:28:42,120 Speaker 2: of gender related care that prevents individuals who might have 428 00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:46,280 Speaker 2: moral or religious exemptions, who might not want to be 429 00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:50,280 Speaker 2: involved in transing minor kids from not being able to 430 00:28:50,360 --> 00:28:54,200 Speaker 2: exercise those particular rights. A Catholic hospital who may, for example, 431 00:28:54,520 --> 00:28:59,959 Speaker 2: accept patients who are federally funded or accept funding through 432 00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:03,720 Speaker 2: through the Affordable Care Act or through Medicaid or Medicare. 433 00:29:03,760 --> 00:29:07,560 Speaker 2: These are all federal funding programs. Are they allowed now 434 00:29:07,600 --> 00:29:10,840 Speaker 2: to opt out once again? That is I think incumbent 435 00:29:11,560 --> 00:29:16,040 Speaker 2: upon the new agency leadership at HHS to reinvent the 436 00:29:16,080 --> 00:29:18,160 Speaker 2: wheel as it were, and have to go back to 437 00:29:18,200 --> 00:29:20,680 Speaker 2: the drawing board. And then I think we need to 438 00:29:20,800 --> 00:29:25,240 Speaker 2: use the government's attorneys and start investigating under civil rights 439 00:29:25,320 --> 00:29:30,960 Speaker 2: law exactly where we suspect sex discrimination is taking place. 440 00:29:31,320 --> 00:29:34,440 Speaker 2: And that's where I think it is. Women who are 441 00:29:34,480 --> 00:29:37,920 Speaker 2: being forced to share bathrooms with biological boys, women who 442 00:29:37,960 --> 00:29:42,480 Speaker 2: are being forced to welcome biological boys onto sports teams, 443 00:29:42,800 --> 00:29:48,360 Speaker 2: women who are having housing spaces and overnight accommodations, private rooms, 444 00:29:48,600 --> 00:29:52,360 Speaker 2: private spaces opened up to individuals of the opposite sex. 445 00:29:52,440 --> 00:29:56,120 Speaker 2: So use the law enforcement power of the Civil Rights 446 00:29:56,160 --> 00:30:00,000 Speaker 2: Offices and the executive agencies and be able to actually 447 00:30:00,320 --> 00:30:03,760 Speaker 2: put a little heat on the hangers on that are 448 00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:08,760 Speaker 2: lifetime bureaucrats who have not essentially done anything but buy 449 00:30:08,800 --> 00:30:12,800 Speaker 2: in on this hard left progressive gender related agenda. 450 00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,959 Speaker 1: Two sort of tough questions. One, as you know, the 451 00:30:17,000 --> 00:30:21,520 Speaker 1: President and Elon Musk and the ve A Gramaswami are 452 00:30:21,560 --> 00:30:24,560 Speaker 1: all very much against the bureaucracy. 453 00:30:25,360 --> 00:30:26,440 Speaker 2: Yes, blessedly. 454 00:30:26,560 --> 00:30:30,120 Speaker 1: So to what extent do we need a new bill 455 00:30:30,720 --> 00:30:35,440 Speaker 1: that radically shrinks the burden of rulemaking so that it 456 00:30:35,480 --> 00:30:38,240 Speaker 1: doesn't take forever? I mean, it just strikes me that 457 00:30:38,280 --> 00:30:42,600 Speaker 1: we've become muscle bound with procedures that drag things out 458 00:30:42,640 --> 00:30:44,440 Speaker 1: for six months or a year or two years. 459 00:30:45,200 --> 00:30:47,480 Speaker 2: Well, I'll mention the good news that came to us 460 00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:50,440 Speaker 2: through last term at the Supreme Court in the Loper 461 00:30:50,440 --> 00:30:54,560 Speaker 2: Bright case Loper Bright versus Ramondo Enterprises, And this was 462 00:30:54,600 --> 00:30:56,840 Speaker 2: the case that sounded the death Now on what's called 463 00:30:56,960 --> 00:31:00,360 Speaker 2: Chevron deference, which is all of the leeway we give 464 00:31:00,400 --> 00:31:03,880 Speaker 2: executive agencies to make rules and to be able to 465 00:31:03,920 --> 00:31:06,560 Speaker 2: interpret things the way that we want. It was a 466 00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:10,760 Speaker 2: horrible judicially created doctrine. It had no place in the law, 467 00:31:11,280 --> 00:31:15,320 Speaker 2: as many other horrible judicial doctrines are. It was plucked 468 00:31:15,320 --> 00:31:18,160 Speaker 2: from the ether. Well, you're enforcing the rules, so you 469 00:31:18,240 --> 00:31:20,360 Speaker 2: can interpret it the way that you want, and if 470 00:31:20,360 --> 00:31:22,760 Speaker 2: that means redefining it, fine, we're going to look the 471 00:31:22,760 --> 00:31:27,000 Speaker 2: other way. Thankfully. I think that is going to vote 472 00:31:27,360 --> 00:31:31,840 Speaker 2: very very well for the incoming administration. No longer now 473 00:31:31,920 --> 00:31:34,840 Speaker 2: are we giving executive agencies the benefit of the doubt 474 00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:39,280 Speaker 2: and creative leeway and creating rules essentially out of thin air, 475 00:31:39,400 --> 00:31:44,320 Speaker 2: redefining terms that they never had congressional authority to redefine. 476 00:31:44,360 --> 00:31:47,000 Speaker 2: And that to me stuck out in the Lower Bright decision, 477 00:31:47,320 --> 00:31:50,320 Speaker 2: where the court wrote, if you were making a rule 478 00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:55,320 Speaker 2: with vast what they called political and economic significance, you 479 00:31:55,400 --> 00:31:59,880 Speaker 2: better point to very clear congressional authority. My clearing call 480 00:32:00,080 --> 00:32:03,160 Speaker 2: as a lawyer is, look at the words textualism and 481 00:32:03,240 --> 00:32:07,080 Speaker 2: originalism have to rule the day. I think coming in 482 00:32:07,120 --> 00:32:11,080 Speaker 2: with this administration, first of all, you've got two individuals 483 00:32:11,280 --> 00:32:13,239 Speaker 2: who I think are going to do a bang up 484 00:32:13,320 --> 00:32:17,280 Speaker 2: job with gutting the bureaucracy, shrinking the size of government. 485 00:32:17,520 --> 00:32:19,240 Speaker 2: And then you've got a Supreme Court who said, and 486 00:32:19,280 --> 00:32:21,920 Speaker 2: by the way, we're not going to give these federal 487 00:32:21,960 --> 00:32:26,080 Speaker 2: agencies benefit of the doubt anymore. So to rewind the clock, 488 00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:31,160 Speaker 2: to get back to a textualist male female, sex based 489 00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:36,440 Speaker 2: distinction in everything from healthcare law, to education law, to housing, 490 00:32:36,880 --> 00:32:40,360 Speaker 2: to civil rights law and beyond, I think is going 491 00:32:40,400 --> 00:32:42,960 Speaker 2: to be a welcome relief for individuals in the country. 492 00:32:43,240 --> 00:32:46,960 Speaker 1: I want to thank you. I'm really impressed and your 493 00:32:47,080 --> 00:32:51,080 Speaker 1: combination of academic knowledge and practical experience. 494 00:32:51,720 --> 00:32:52,239 Speaker 2: Thank you. 495 00:32:52,480 --> 00:32:55,960 Speaker 1: We need more people like you on the conservative side, 496 00:32:55,960 --> 00:32:59,400 Speaker 1: and it's really been a delight to me. I want 497 00:32:59,400 --> 00:33:02,000 Speaker 1: to thank you for joining me. Our listeners can learn 498 00:33:02,040 --> 00:33:06,080 Speaker 1: more about United States versus Cometti by visiting your website 499 00:33:06,200 --> 00:33:08,600 Speaker 1: at Heritage dot org. And we'll also have a link 500 00:33:08,640 --> 00:33:11,000 Speaker 1: to the Spring Courts oral arguments on our show page 501 00:33:11,200 --> 00:33:13,760 Speaker 1: as well as a link to your website. But Sarah, 502 00:33:13,840 --> 00:33:14,800 Speaker 1: this has been terrific. 503 00:33:15,320 --> 00:33:21,160 Speaker 2: Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. Mister speaker, Thank. 504 00:33:21,080 --> 00:33:24,400 Speaker 1: You to my guest, Sarah Parshall Perry. You can learn 505 00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:27,760 Speaker 1: more about United States thrusts commetee on our show page 506 00:33:28,080 --> 00:33:31,520 Speaker 1: at newtsworld dot com. News World is produced by Gamers 507 00:33:31,560 --> 00:33:36,080 Speaker 1: three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. 508 00:33:36,600 --> 00:33:40,640 Speaker 1: Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show 509 00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:44,120 Speaker 1: was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team 510 00:33:44,160 --> 00:33:46,920 Speaker 1: of gagis three sixty. If you've been enjoying news World, 511 00:33:47,320 --> 00:33:50,120 Speaker 1: I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate 512 00:33:50,160 --> 00:33:53,240 Speaker 1: us with five stars and give us a review so 513 00:33:53,360 --> 00:33:56,600 Speaker 1: others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners 514 00:33:56,600 --> 00:33:59,920 Speaker 1: a neutrald consign up for my three free weekly columns 515 00:34:00,240 --> 00:34:04,440 Speaker 1: at Gingrich three sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newtingwich. 516 00:34:04,880 --> 00:34:05,920 Speaker 1: This is Newtsworld.