UNBIASED - December 4, 2024: Supreme Court Weighs Transition Treatments for Minors, Healthcare CEO Fatally Shot in NYC, TikTok Video Leads to Controversy in TX Over Citizenship Reporting Requirements, and More.

Episode Date: December 4, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Supreme Court Hears Case Dealing Gender Transition Treatments for Minors (0:30) Trump's Pick for DEA Administrator Withdraws from Consideration (7:57) Doctor's Viral TikTok Video About Citizenship Reporting at Hospitals Leads to Controversy in Texas (10:01) Quick Hitters: United Healthcare CEO Fatally Shot, FBI Investigating Drones in New Jersey, US House Race Finally Ends, Cyber Monday Sales Break Records, Speaker Johnson Says Congress Will Vote on Stopgap Measure, Trump Agrees to FBI Vetting, First Democrat Lawmaker Joins DOGE Caucus, Kash Patel Victim of Alleged Iranian Hack (13:30) Critical Thinking Exercise (17:14) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Wednesday, December 4th, and this is your daily news rundown. In today's episode, we'll discuss one of the most controversial cases of the current Supreme Court term, which the justices heard today. We'll talk about Trump's DEA nominee withdrawing from consideration, a controversy in Texas over a doctor's viral TikTok post, and much much more. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. The Supreme Court heard arguments today and as I said, one of the most controversial cases of its current term. The case is called United States

versus Skirmety and the question for the justices is this. Does a state law which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow a minor to identify with or live as a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? In other words, is a state's prohibition on certain gender transition treatments for minors unconstitutional?

So this case stems from a Tennessee law known as Senate Bill 1 or SB 1, and that law prohibits doctors from a. performing surgery on minors for purposes of gender transitioning or b. prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors for the purpose of gender transitioning. Notably, the law allows the use of these kinds of treatments for other purposes, like treating minors that are dealing with early puberty, delayed puberty, etc. But these treatments cannot be used for the purpose of gender transitioning.

Now, importantly, and please note this, the Supreme Court is not deciding the constitutionality of the law's surgery component. The Supreme Court is only deciding the constitutionality of the puberty blockers and hormone therapy component of the law. In other words, in Tennessee, doctors will still be prohibited from performing surgeries on minors wanting to transition. What is that issue is whether doctors can also be prohibited from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors wanting to transition.

Because as we'll talk about more in a second, the petitioners argue that it is unconstitutional to allow one group of people access to these types of treatments, i.e. people experiencing early or delayed puberty, but then deny another group of people access to these same types of treatments. So, Tennessee enacted this law in 2023, deny another group of people access to these same types of treatments.

So Tennessee enacted this law in 2023, and three transgender teenagers and their parents, who were later joined by the United States, sued the state of Tennessee, arguing that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. What the Equal Protection Clause says is that no state can make or enforce laws that deny equal protection of the laws to any person within that state. The law has to treat people who are similarly situated in the same way. For instance, a law prohibiting interracial marriages violates the equal protection clause because interracial couples cannot be denied the same rights that a couple sharing the

same race enjoy. So that's the petitioner's argument here. You cannot treat one group of minors differently than another by allowing these treatments for some minors and not for others. Tennessee, on the other hand, argues that this law is not treating similarly situated people differently. It just simply regulates the practice of medicine. So the lower court ruled in favor of the transgender teens and their parents and blocked the law. Tennessee then brought the case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of Tennessee.

So from there, the families and the United States government took this case to the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Supreme Court granted the government's petition, but not the family's petition. And here's the difference between the two. So the families were asking the court, in addition to settling this equal protection claim, also decide whether the law violates the rights of parents to make decisions about their children's medical care. The government's petition only asked the court to decide the issue related to equal protection. So because the court granted only the government's petition,

the only question before the justices here is in regard to that equal protection claim. Now, what the Supreme Court will be focused on is what standard of review the lower courts should have used when determining whether SB1 is constitutional, and specifically whether SB1 draws distinctions based on sex. Here's why.

When it comes to questions of constitutionality, there are three different standards of review that a court will use to determine whether that law is in fact constitutional or not. So I want you to think of the standard of review as the amount of deference that the court will give to the legislature that enacted the law. So rational basis review gives the most deference to the legislature, intermediate scrutiny gives the legislature a little less deference, and strict scrutiny gives the legislature the least amount of deference. So naturally, the petitioners in this case

are seeking the strictest standard of review, whereas Tennessee wants the least strict standard of review, which would give the Tennessee legislature the most deference and make it more likely that it wins the case. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit used rational basis review, which is the least strict standard of review, and therefore Tennessee wants the Supreme Court to find that the appellate court got it right. However, the families and the federal government want the Supreme Court to find that the appellate court should have used a heightened standard of review, and that is where the sex distinction

comes into play. So, if a law infringes on a fundamental right or if the law targets what's called a suspect classification, such as race, then the court will apply strict scrutiny and give the legislature the least amount of deference possible. If the law doesn't infringe on a fundamental right or target a suspect class, but instead targets what's called a quasi- suspect class, such as gender, the courts will apply intermediate scrutiny and give the legislature a little more deference. But if the law does not target a suspect or quasi-suspect class or infringe on a fundamental right,

that is when rational basis is applied and the legislature gets the most deference. For these reasons, the government and the families are going to argue that this Tennessee law explicitly classifies based on sex and at the very least targets a quasi-suspect class, that being transgender people. Tennessee, on the other hand, is going to argue that SB1 does not classify based on sex and instead simply regulates the practice of medicine. First, the state says the law simply draws a line between adults and minors, and second, the law draws a line based on the purpose for which medical procedures are being used, but the law does not classify based on sex. So the federal government and the families are asking the Supreme Court to send the case

back down to the appellate court and instruct the appellate court to apply a heightened level of scrutiny instead of the rational basis standard that it applied the first time around. And Tennessee is asking the Supreme Court to uphold the appellate court's application of rational basis and allow the appellate court's ruling to stand. So again, the question for the justices will come down to, does this law target a suspect or quasi-suspect class and therefore require a heightened level of scrutiny. That is what you need to know about United States vs. Skirmety, and in tomorrow's episode,

I'll give you a little update on how the justices were feeling during those arguments and which way they seemed to be leaning. Moving on to the next story, Trump's pick to lead the DEA, Chad Chronister, withdrew from consideration and wrote on social media, quote, To have been nominated by president-elect to serve as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime. Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I have concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration. There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and I am committed to fulfilling a lot of initiatives. I sincerely

appreciate the nomination, outpouring of support by the American people, and look forward to continuing my service as Sheriff of Hillsborough County." Trump had originally announced Chronister as his pick on Saturday, which did come as a surprise to conservatives due to the conservative backlash that Kronister had previously faced over his COVID-19 policy enforcement. Particularly, he had a pastor arrested for violating COVID rules in March of 2020. People also critiqued his lack of experience due to him not having any experience in the geopolitical aspects of the drug war despite having a 30-year background in local law enforcement. So this morning Trump addressed Chronister's withdrawal

sort of indirectly. He was actually posting to Truth Social remarking on a Wall Street Journal headline and his post read, quote, the Wall Street Journal is becoming more and more obnoxious and unreadable. Today's main headline is, quote, the Wall Street Journal is becoming more and more obnoxious and unreadable. Today's main headline is quote, Trump's DEA pick pulls out in latest setback, end quote. With all that is happening in the world, this is their number one story of the day. Besides, he didn't pull out, I pulled him out because I did not like what he said to my pastors and other supporters, end quote. So Trump will now need to fill that position

with a new nominee who will be tasked with overseeing the DEA. Let's take our break here. And when we come back, we'll talk about the controversy in Texas after a TikTok video. We'll do some quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome back.

Let's chat about this controversy in Texas over a TikTok video. A viral TikTok that was posted by a Texas doctor in response to a recent state executive order has caused some controversy within the state, specifically with Governor Abbott. Here's the backstory. On November 1st, a Texas executive order went into effect, and it requires Texas hospitals to collect information on the citizenship status of patients when those patients are using public health care services. So under this newly created reporting system, hospitals will keep track of the number of visits from citizens, lawful residents, and those not lawfully present in the United States. Notably, this executive order does not require the

recording of names or personal identifiers, and people are not required to answer when asked about their citizenship status. So they don't have to answer the question. The purpose of this executive order and new reporting system, according to Abbott, is to use the data to argue for reimbursement from the federal government. So Abbott's press release reads, quote, due to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris's open border policies, Texas has to foot the bill for medical costs for individuals illegally in the state. Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants.

That is why today I issued an executive order requiring the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to collect and report health care costs for illegal immigrants in our state. Texas will hold the Biden-Harris administration accountable for the consequences of their open border policies and we will fight to ensure that they pay back Texas for their costly and dangerous policies." Following that executive order, Dr. Tony Pastor, a cardiologist at Texas Children's Hospital, as he's also an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine,

he posted a video to TikTok sharing his thoughts. And this TikTok was viewed by over a million people. It has since been removed, but it said in part, quote, "'My proposal to everyone is just no, you don't have to answer this question. My second proposal, wouldn't it be amazing if everyone who comes in doesn't answer it and it really messes with whatever data they're looking for. Continuing on, he says, quote, it has made all of us physicians and providers super uncomfortable. No one has told us what people are going to do with this information. The way the country is moving, I worry that this is information

that people are going to use to deport people. Maybe it's just a deterrent to try to get people that are not documented to not come to hospitals, but even if that's the motive, it's really messed up." End quote. That video was posted on November 11th and then last Monday on November 25th Governor Abbott wrote on X, quote, Hey, Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine. This doctor is putting your Medicaid and Medicare funding at risk. You better think twice and have crystal clear records. There will be consequences for failing to follow the law in the order. End quote. Later that day, Texas Children's Hospital chimed in. It released its own statement, and that statement reads in part, quote,

Texas Children's fully supports Governor Abbott's new executive order and is in full compliance. While we recognize that individuals working at Texas Children's hold their own personal views on many topics, those opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of Texas Children's Hospital." Now let's move on to some quick hitters. Starting with the CEO of UnitedHealth's insurance division, Brian Thompson, was fatally shot

this morning outside of the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Thompson had arrived at the hotel around 6 46 a.m. for the company's investor day conference and that is when a masked man who was apparently waiting for Thompson to arrive began to repeatedly shoot at him before getting away on an e-bike. According to NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenney. The man approached Thompson from behind and shot him in the back, before then walking towards Thompson and continuing to shoot and then getting away. Thompson was rushed to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition where he was later pronounced dead, and as of 2 o'clock today, the suspect was currently still on the run.

The FBI is investigating after large drones were seen flying over central New Jersey over the last couple of weeks. The FBI said it was, quote, a cluster of what looks to be drones and a possible fixed wing aircraft, end quote. These drones had raised some eyebrows, given their proximity to an army base, as well as Trump's Bedminster golf course.

One resident said that the drones were flying around her house from at least 2 a.m. until 5 30 a.m. and another local said he's been seeing them every night except for Thanksgiving. The House of Representatives race is now officially over after Democrat Adam Gray won California's 13th congressional district by just 187 votes. He beat incumbent Republican Representative John Duarte. And the final tally in the House is now 220 to 115, with Democrats gaining that one seat, but Republicans maintaining the majority. U.S. consumers broke a record this Cyber Monday, spending a total of $13.3 billion, which is up 7.3% from last year. This is according to Adobe Analytics. And get this, at one point on Monday night, consumers spent $15.8 million every 60 seconds. Adobe Analytics is also predicting

that holiday spending from November 1 to December 31 will pass $240 billion, which would be 8.4% higher than last year. And Speaker Johnson said yesterday that he expects the House to vote on a stopgap measure that will fund the government until March, which would avoid a partial government shutdown on December 20th when the current funding expires. Trump's transition team has reached an agreement with the DOJ to allow the vetting of incoming administration cabinet nominees. Historically, the FBI vets each nominee, but that process can't begin until an agreement is reached with the incoming president, which has now happened, but did take longer than expected. The first Democrat has officially joined the Congressional Doge Caucus, which now includes

Republican Representatives Aaron Bean and Pete Sessions, Republican Senator Joni Ernst, and now Democrat Representative Jared Moskowitz. Basically, the purpose of the Congressional Doge Caucus is to serve as the congressional counterpart to the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. Since the whole purpose of this new department is to cut government spending and waste, and you can't do those things without Congress, you need this this congressional counterpart to assist in those objectives. And finally, Trump's pick to run the FBI, Cash Patel, was allegedly the target of a potential

Iran-backed cyberattack. This information comes from two unknown sources who say that the hackers are believed to have accessed at least some of Patel's communications. Whether they succeeded and how much they had access to is still being evaluated, but this marks the latest of quite a few alleged Iranian hack attacks on political figures in the United States. For today's critical thinking segment, let's go back to the first story,

the case about gender transition treatments for minors. So this is actually a little law school exercise. This is what we used to do in law school. I want you to play the role of both lawyers, meaning play the role of the government's lawyer and play the role of Tennessee's lawyer. You want to win this case for the side you're representing. Acting as Tennessee's lawyer,

you need the courts to uphold the appellate courts use of rational basis and therefore allow the current ruling to stand so that the state can enforce its law. That means you have to prove to the court that this law does not classify based on sex and simply just regulates the practice of medicine. Acting as the government's lawyer, you need the Supreme Court to send this case back to the appellate court and instruct them to use a heightened standard of review, either intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny, which means you need to prove to the justices that this law does classify

based on sex or at the very least on gender. What are your arguments on each side and how are you rebutting the opposing side? That's what I want you to think about. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic night and I will talk to you tomorrow.