Author: TSA Press

The
Majority
Of
The
Supreme
Court
Gave
The
Okay
To
Discriminate
Against
Trans
Children:
That
said,
Alito’s
concurrence
really
goes
the
extra
mile.
Want
To
Know
The
Best
Law
School
Ranking?:
Ours!
Read
ATL’s
Top
50
Law
School
Ranking
fresh
off
the
presses.
Vault
Scored
Law
Firms
By
Prestige:
The
ranking
seems
unmarred
by
the
major
prestige
hit
the
Cowering
Nine
suffered.
Paul
Weiss
Is
A
Poacher’s
Paradise!:
Even
more
partners
are
leaving
the
firm
for
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee.
Bad
Luck
For
Willkie
Farr:
The
firm
just
lost
13
attorneys
to
Cooley
over
kneeling
to
Trump.
Enjoy
Your
“National
Security
Risk”!:
Trump
plans
to
extend
the
window
before
the
TikTok
ban
goes
into
effect.
Again.

Employers
are
already
struggling
with
rising
healthcare
costs
in
2025,
and
early
signs
suggest
these
challenges
will
persist
—
potentially
worsening
in
2026,
according
to
Tracy
Watts,
senior
partner
at
consulting
firm
Mercer.

And
it’s
getting
to
a
point
where
employers
may
have
to
start
shifting
costs
to
employees,
she
added.

“According
to
our
survey
data,
for
the
past
several
years,
[employers
have]
really
tried
to
hold
off
on
shifting
costs
to
employees,
because
I
think
everybody’s
super
sensitive
to
the
affordability
issue,”
she
said.
“But
I
think
that’s
going
to
be
hard
going
into
2026.
So
the
renewals,
your
initial
‘What
do
you
think
your
increase
is
going
to
be?’
is
going
to
be
higher
than
what
employers
probably
have
seen.
And
so
getting
that
down
to
something
that’s
more
within
their
budget
range
is
going
to
be
pretty
hard.”

Watts
made
these
comments
during
a
Monday
interview
at
the

AHIP
2025
conference
in
Las
Vegas.

Mercer
previously

reported
that
employers
were
projecting
a
5.8%
increase
in
healthcare
costs
in
2025
from
the
previous
year.
Employers
won’t
know
what
the
actual
increase
was
until
the
end
of
the
year,
but
their
projection
is
usually
within
a
“fraction
of
a
percentage
point,”
Watts
said.
She
anticipates
the
increase
to
be
even
greater
in
2026.

GLP-1s
are
a
major
factor
for
these
cost
increases,
she
added.
Last
year,
many
employers
added
coverage
for
GLP-1s,
but
she
expects
some
to
reconsider
that
decision
and
put
in
more
stringent
criteria
around
GLP-1
coverage.

To
address
cost
increases,
Watts
is
seeing
employers
take
several
strategies.
One
is
moving
towards
high
performance
networks,
which
is
a
curated
network
of
providers
who
have
proven
to
provide
quality
care.

Variable
copay
plans
are
also
gaining
some
traction,
in
which
the
copayment
varies
depending
on
certain
factors,
such
as
the
type
of
service
or
provider
network.
Watts
gave
the
example
of
the
company

Surest,
which
offers
a
tool
where
members
can
search
for
care
and
see
different
options
for
providers.
Then
their
copayment
is
based
on
the
choice
they
make.

“Our
survey
data
with
workers
say
that
30%
are
very
concerned
that
they
can’t
afford
the
care
that
they
need,”
Watts
said.
“And
so
having
a
tool
where
you
can
get
access
to
care
and
your
choice
determines
what
your
out
of
pocket
is
going
to
be
is
getting
some
traction.”

In
addition,
some
employers
are
implementing
Exclusive
Provider
Organization
(EPO)
plans,
in
which
members
only
have
in-network
coverage,
unless
for
emergencies.
This
compares
to
a
Preferred
Provider
Organization
(PPO)
plan,
in
which
members
can
get
out-of-network
coverage,
but
at
a
higher
cost. 

“It’s
on
a
smaller
network.
You
pay
less
for
the
plan
and
less
out
of
pocket
when
you
need
care.
And
even
with
those
incentives,
we’ve
seen
…
lower
costs
than
in
their
PPO
plans,”
Watts
said.

Photo:
lerbank,
Getty
Images

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
the
most
recent
Vault
100
prestige
rankings,
which
Biglaw
firm
entered
the
Vault
Top
10
this
year
for
the
first
time
ever?

Hint:
Notably,
the
Vault
survey
results
closed
before
this
firm
(and
a
bunch
of
others)
inked
deals
with
the
Trump
administration

selling
out
the
rule
of
law
and
promising
millions
in

pro
bono
payola
that
the
president
has
earmarked
for

conservative
clients
and
causes,
so
perhaps
the
firm’s
brush
with
the
top
10
is
short
lived.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Cases
of
online
scams
have
been
rising
in
recent
years.
While
existing
laws
and
IRS
guidance
suggest
that
victims
can
take
a
theft
loss
deduction
on
their
income
tax
returns,
it
can
get
murky
when
investments
and
cryptocurrencies
are
involved.
In
the
case
of
the
latter,
the
IRS
generally
stuck
with
their
position
on
Notice
2014-12
which
states
that
any
cryptocurrency
related
losses
can
only
be
eligible
for
a
capital
loss.
Since
capital
losses
can
only
offset
up
to
$3,000
of
ordinary
income,
it
is
of
limited
use
to
taxpayers,
especially
if
they
withdrew
money
from
their
tax-deferred
retirement
accounts.

Fortunately,
a
few
months
ago,
the
IRS
issued

Chief
Counsel
Memorandum
202511015
which
stated
that
certain
online
scam
victims
can
claim
a
theft
loss
as
an
itemized
deduction.
The
memo
gave
examples
of
three
scammed
taxpayers
who
are
eligible
to
claim
a
theft
loss
connected
to
the
production
of
income.

The
first
taxpayer
was
the
victim
of
a
compromised
account
scam
where
an
impersonator
contacted
the
taxpayer
and
told
him
that
his
investment
account
has
been
compromised
and
attempts
were
made
to
withdraw
funds
from
the
account.
The
impersonator
told
the
taxpayer
to
set
up
a
new
account
controlled
by
the
impersonator
and
transfer
the
money
there.
The
taxpayer
authorized
distribution
from
IRA
accounts
and
to
transfer
the
distributed
funds
to
the
new
account
created
by
the
scammer.
After
the
taxpayer
makes
the
transfer,
the
impersonator
transfers
the
money
to
an
overseas
account.

The
second
taxpayer
was
a
victim
of
a
phishing
scam.
This
taxpayer
received
an
email
that
stated
that
his
retirement
accounts
have
been
compromised.
The
email
contained
a
link
which
would
supposedly
restore
his
account
and
provided
a
phone
number
to
a
so-called
fraud
specialist.
The
taxpayer
contacted
the
fraud
specialist
who
then
instructed
the
taxpayer
to
click
on
the
link.
By
doing
so,
the
scammer
was
able
to
obtain
the
taxpayer’s
login
information
to
his
retirement
accounts
and
used
it
to
transfer
the
funds
to
an
overseas
account.
While
the
facts
are
similar
to
the
first
taxpayer,
the
second
taxpayer
did
not
authorize
the
scammer
to
transfer
the
taxpayer’s
funds
to
the
overseas
account.

The
third
taxpayer
is
a
victim
of
the
pig-butchering
scam.
The
taxpayer
was
contacted
by
someone
online.
After
some
conversation,
the
scammer
told
the
taxpayer
about
a
secret
investment
opportunity
that
has
better-than-market-rate
returns
using
a
proprietary
investment
platform.
The
taxpayer
relying
on
the
scammer’s
rate
of
return
installed
the
investment
platform
to
his
phone
and
then
transferred
money
into
this
platform.
Soon
after
transferring
the
money,
his
account
balance
grew
immensely
and
the
taxpayer
added
even
more
money.
At
some
point,
the
taxpayer
attempted
to
withdraw
the
money
but
was
unable
to
do
so
unless
he
paid
additional
fees
or
taxes
to
the
platform.
The
taxpayer
became
suspicious
and
through
an
online
search
learned
that
the
investment
platform
was
fake.

The
IRS
stated
that
the
three
taxpayers
mentioned
above
can
take
a
theft
loss
deduction
for
the
amount
of
money
they
lost.
Also,
since
their
theft
was
connected
to
a
transaction
entered
into
for
profit,
it
is
not
considered
a
personal
theft
and
thus
not
subject
to
the
limitations
imposed
due
to
the
Tax
Cuts
and
Jobs
Act.

While
this
is
good
news,
those
who
are
being
audited
will
not
win
on
this
issue
simply
by
sending
a
copy
of
this
memo
to
the
auditor.
This
is
because
the
memorandum
does
not
address
two
issues
that
might
be
scrutinized
by
tax
auditors.

The
first
issue
is
whether
there
is
a
reasonable
chance
of
recovery
of
the
stolen
funds.
If
there
is
a
chance
of
recovery,
the
theft
loss
cannot
be
claimed
until
something
happens
to
show
that
there
is
no
longer
a
chance
of
recovery.
In
most
cases,
scam
victims
have
a
low
chance
of
getting
their
money
back,
usually
because
the
scammers
are
located
overseas.
Even
filing
a
police
report
will
not
help,
especially
if
the
local
agency
does
not
have
the
adequate
expertise
or
resources.

But
if
a
victim
files
a
civil
lawsuit
against
the
scammer
and
other
parties,
such
as
a
bank
or
 cryptocurrency
exchange
platform,
it
is
arguable
that
there
is
reasonable
chance
of
recovery.
Most
scam
victims
having
learned
their
lesson
don’t
want
to
pay
for
a
lawsuit
unless
they
are
guaranteed
to
recover.
And
most
attorneys
will
not
take
a
case
on
contingency
unless
they
are
reasonably
certain
to
recover.
As
these
lawsuits
tend
to
take
months
or
years
to
settle,
if
the
taxpayer
has
income
from
cashing
out
investments
or
retirement
accounts,
they
may
not
be
able
to
claim
the
theft
loss
on
the
same
year
to
offset
that
income.

The
IRS
will
look
at
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
each
case
to
see
whether
there
is
a
reasonable
chance
to
recover
the
stolen
funds.
However,
certain
events
could
show
possible
recovery,
such
as
obtaining
a
prejudgment
attachment
against
the
defendant’s
assets
before
a
lawsuit
is
concluded.

The
second
issue
is
whether
the
scammer
violated
the
theft
laws
in
the
state
where
the
victim
lived.
In
most
states,
scammers
have
committed
theft
by
false
pretenses.
The
elements
usually
are
1)
a
false
statement
made
by
the
scammer;
2)
transfer
of
money
or
property
in
reliance
of
the
scammer’s
false
statements;
and
3)
the
scammer
had
the
specific
intent
to
steal
from
the
victim.

Proving
specific
intent
will
be
the
most
difficult
because
in
most
cases,
the
scammer
will
not
admit
to
stealing
from
the
victim.
Instead,
circumstantial
evidence
will
be
needed
to
prove
intent.
This
includes
chat
records,
and
in
the
case
of
pig
butchering
scam
victims,
screenshots
of
the
scammer’s
so-called
investment
platform
showing
fake
gains.

Considering
the
tax
auditor’s
perspective
might
help.
He
or
she
might
analyze
whether
the
facts
show
a
theft
or
simply
a
bad
investment.
A
taxpayer
who
lost
a
large
chunk
of
their
investment
will
be
inclined
to
argue
there
was
a
theft
in
order
to
get
better
tax
benefits.
 

One
final
note
about
the
IRS
memo
is
that
it
does
not
address
those
who
lost
money
due
to
cryptocurrency
failures
(such
as
the
Luna
Stablecoin)
and
exchanges
that
have
gone
bankrupt
such
as
FTX,
Celsius,
Three
Arrows
Capital,
and
Mt.
Gox,
to
name
a
few.
Some
of
the
masterminds
of
these
organizations
have
arguably
committed
theft
by
using
customer
deposit
funds
for
lavish
personal
expenses
or
to
pay
early
investors.

This
recent
IRS
guidance
should
make
taxpayers
feel
more
comfortable
about
taking
the
theft
loss
deduction
so
long
as
the
requirements
are
met.
However,
claiming
a
large
loss
can
increase
their
chance
of
an
audit
and
taxpayers
will
need
to
show
more
than
a
copy
of
this
memo
to
prove
their
case.

On
June
26,
2025,
in
coordination
with

Operation
Shamrock,
I
will
be
giving
a
presentation
explaining
how
to
claim
the
theft
loss
and
how
to
mitigate
the
tax
consequences
of
withdrawing
from
investment
and
tax-deferred
accounts
due
to
scams.
Operation
Shamrock’s
goal
is
to
educate
the
public,
mobilize
collective
action,
and
disrupt
the
operations
networks
of
transnational
organized
criminals
to
prevent
further
harm.
Please
email
me
for
more
details.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

Though
Iran
and
Israel
have
never
exactly
been
on
friendly
terms,
the
conflict
between
the
two
nations
had
quieted
significantly
until
last
Friday,
when

Israel
launched
major
attacks
against
nuclear
and
military
infrastructure
in
Tehran.
Iran
retaliated.
As
of
Tuesday
afternoon,
at
least
224
people
in
Iran
and
24
people
in
Israel
had
been
killed.

Donald
Trump,
in
turn,
launched
a
series
of
media
statements
and
social
media
posts.
“I’m
not
looking
at
a
ceasefire,”

the
president
told
reporters
aboard
Air
Force
One.
“We’re
looking
at
better
than
a
ceasefire.”
When
asked
to
elaborate,
Trump
indicated
that
his
proposed
solution
might
involve
Iran
“giving
up
entirely”
and
added,
“I’m
not
too
much
in
the
mood
to
negotiate.”

Later,
in
a
social
media
post
directed
at
Iran’s
leader,
the
president
demanded
Iran’s
“UNCONDITIONAL
SURRENDER.”

Israel
is
justifying
its
attacks
on
the
basis
of
Iran
moving
increasingly
closer
to
developing
a
nuclear
weapon.

Trump
himself
stated
(once
again
on
his
own
cash-grab
social
media
platform),
“Somebody
please
explain
to
kooky
Tucker
Carlson
that,
‘IRAN
CAN
NOT
HAVE
A
NUCLEAR
WEAPON!’”
You
might
recall
that
an
extensive,
years-long
negotiation
conducted
by
the
Obama
administration
resulted
in
a
multinational
deal
with
Iran
that
was
indeed
aimed
at
preventing
Iran
from
acquiring
a
nuclear
weapon.
Trump
unilaterally
backed
out
of
this
deal
in
2018
during
his
first
term,

calling
it
“a
horrible
one-sided
deal
that
should
have
never,
ever
been
made”
without
any
real
substantive
criticisms
of
its
terms
beyond
the
fact
that
it
came
about
during
the
tenure
of
his
predecessor.

Meanwhile,
the
stock
market
melted
down
after
the
outbreak
of
hostilities
on
Friday.
Monday,
though,

saw
a
huge
market
rally
amid
signals
that
Iran
wanted
to
negotiate
-–
Wall
Street
got
in
early
this
time
on

the
TACO
trade,
assuming
that
all
it
would
take
to
get
the
United
States
on
board
with
a
peace
plan
was
a
marginally
cooperative
adversary
and
the
hinted
appearance
of
a
quick
win
for
Trump.

The
euphoria
did
not
last,
however,
as
traders
grimly
absorbed
news
of

a
second
American
aircraft
carrier
headed
toward
the
Middle
East
as
well
as

dozens
of
additional
military
jets
being
positioned
within
striking
distance
of
Iran.
The
stock
market
tanked
anew
on
Tuesday.

Again
and
again,
Trump
has
made
big
threats
and
big
promises,
then
chickened
out
when
he
saw
the
kind
of
punishment
the
markets
would
inflict
on
him
for
following
through.
This
approach,
pathology,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
has
not
worked
out
so
badly
in
certain
instances.
For
example,
when

Trump
replaced
the
North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement
between
the
U.S.,
Canada,
and
Mexico
with
the
USMCA
during
his
first
term,
making
mostly
cosmetic
changes
but
claiming
a
big
win
after
chickening
out
on
his
original
threat
to
scrap
NAFTA
entirely,
everything
was
more
or
less
fine
afterward.

Big
threats
absent
real
leverage
then
almost
immediately
backing
down
has
not
worked
so
well
for
Trump
in
other
instances.
When
Trump
started
a
global
trade
war
earlier
this
year,
he
quickly
declared
a
truce
on
the
most
ridiculous
of
his
tariffs
to
salvage
the
markets,
but
even
after
months
of
negotiations
and
repeated
declarations
by
Trump
himself
of
historic
“deals,”

we
are
worse
off
than
when
we
started.
China
has
more
leverage
than
the
United
States
when
it
comes
to
trade,
it
has
a
leader
who
is
willing
to
follow
through,
and,
to
quote
from
the
third
installment
of
the
“Back
to
the
Future”
series,
it
knows
that
Trump’s
tough
talk
is
no
more
than
“hot
air
from
a
buffoon.”
Trump
will
not
be
able
to
negotiate
us
into
a
better
trade
position
with
China.

Now,
consider
that
in
dealing
with
the
Israel-Iran
conflict,
we
are
not
talking
merely
about
shipping
products
around
the
world:
we
are
talking
about
people’s
very
lives.
Every
bomb
dropped
in
war
creates
more
new
enemies
than
it
kills,
making
it
very
difficult
to
simply
pull
the
plug
and
walk
away
once
one
nation
attacks
another.
Trump
is
going
to
chicken
out
on
Iran
at
some
point.
The
market
dip
on
Tuesday
was
the
dawning
realization
that
by
the
time
he
is
ready
to
chicken
out,
this
time,
he
might
no
longer
be
able
to.
If
that
happens,
we
will
all
have
far
bigger
things
to
worry
about
than
the
stock
market.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

This
morning,
the
Supreme
Court
issued
its

ruling
in


United
States
v.
Skrmetti,
upholding
a
Tennessee
law
banning
medical
care
for
transgender
kids.
While
a
law
stepping
between
parents-doctors-and-kids
on
the
basis
of
sex
would
seem
a
slam
dunk
violation
of
the
Equal
Protection
Clause,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
wrote
for
an
expected-but-still-depressing
6-3
majority
that
it
was
simply
a
“medical‑purpose”
carve‑out.
While
gender-affirming
care
for
kids
is
legal
in
Tennessee
if
it
comports
with
sex
assigned
at
birth
—
think
breast
implants
for
a
teen
girl
whose
life
goal
is
Miss
Teen
Tennessee
Swimsuit
—
the
state

can
ban
the
treatment
for
gender
dysphoria
and
it’s
not
a
decision
based
on
sex
for…
reasons.

Nor
is
it
discrimination
against
transgender
children,
the
majority
reasons.

To
be
honest,
I
didn’t
start
with
the
majority,
I
hit
control-F
and
leapt
directly
to
Sam
Alito.
The
result
was
expected,
but
the
ranting
of
the
Court’s
direct
pipeline
to
Newsmax-brain
was
obviously
where
the
fun
—
in
a
manner
of
speaking
—
was
bound
to
begin.
And
I
was
not
disappointed!

Alito
took
time
out
of
his
luxury
vacation
schedule
to
declare
in
a
loud
concurrence
that
while
he’s
obviously
pleased
that
the
Court
has
decided
to
substitute
its
judgment
for
medical
professionals
—

a
passion
of
his
—
he’s
unwilling
to
join
the
latter
part
of
the
decision
because,
in
his
estimation,
the
opinion
is

very
clearly
discriminating
against
transgender
people…
and
he
thinks
that’s
good!

Hey,
sometimes
you’ve
got
to
appreciate
the
honesty.
The
disgusting,
bigoted
honesty.
It’s
like
the
“emperor
wears
no
clothes”
but
the
emperor
is
ripping
the
clothes
off
everyone
around
him
too.

Both
male-assigned
and
female-assigned
patients
are
blocked
under
the
Tennessee
law,
the
majority
reasons,
so
it’s
not
sex
discrimination.
That
the
law
applies
explicitly
to
patients
with
a
condition

related
to
sex
doesn’t
matter
because
puberty
blockers
can
be
used
for

all
sorts
of
non-sex
things
so
the
state
is
free
to
constitutionally
ban
its
use
for
sex
treatments
because
medical
treatments
enjoy
the
sort
of
special
exception
to
the
Fourteenth
Amendment

usually
reserved
for
presidents.
Republican
presidents,
anyway.

Different
drugs
can
be
used
to
treat
the
same
thing
(would
you
like
Advil
or
Tylenol
for
your
headache?),
and
the
same
drug
can
treat
different
things
(take
DayQuil
to
ease
your
cough,
fever,
sore
throat,
and/or
minor
aches
and
pains)

Yes.
Just
like
Advil.
If
Advil
required
six
months
of
psychiatric
evaluation
and
got
you
run
out
of
town
by
your
school
board.
What
in
the
skibidi
is
this

Skrmetti
opinion?

As
for
discrimination
against
transgender
people,
Roberts
cites
the

Geduldig
opinion
—
where
the
court
ruled
that
it’s
not
sex
discrimination
for
an
insurer
to
deny
coverage
to
conditions
that
only
come
up
during
pregnancy
—
to
declare
that
“SB1
does
not
exclude
any
individual
from
medical
treatments
on
the
basis
of
transgender
status
but
rather
removes
one
set
of
diagnoses—gender
dysphoria,
gender
identity
disorder,
and
gender
incongruence—from
the
range
of
treatable
conditions.”
The
logic
is
that
we
allowed
private
insurers
to
make
cost-based
decisions
about
treatments
exclusively
applicable
to
one
identity
specific
condition
(which
was
probably
also
wrong,
but
put
that
aside),
so
therefore
the
state
can
make
decisions
about
treatments
exclusively
applicable
to
another
identity
specific
condition?
Not
sure
that
tracks,
bud.

The
majority
also
brushes
away
the
holding
in

Bostock
—
that
it’s
discriminatory
on
the
basis
of
sex
if
actions
are
tolerated
for
one
sex
and
rejected
if
the
person
is
the
other
sex
—
yadda
yadda-ing
that
employment
discrimination
law
just
grants
a
higher
flavor
of
“equality”
than
the
Equal
Protection
Clause.
How
could
it
do
that
without
itself
violating
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
in
a
reverse
way?
DON’T
ASK
QUESTIONS!

But
Alito
doesn’t
have
time
for
these
mental
gymnastics.
Justice
Thomas
writes
separately
to
suggest

who’s
to
say
that
J.K.
Rowling
doesn’t
know
more
about
these
medical
conditions
than
doctors,
continuing
the
conservative
legal
movement
theme
that
Yale’s
Federalist
Society
club
produces
better
virologists
and
gynecologists
than
any
medical
school.
Justice
Barrett
chimes
in
with
an
academic
spin
on
why
discrimination
can
be
legal
sorta,
it’s
Alito
who
cuts
through
it
all:

The
Court
holds
that
the
law
does
not
classify
on
this
ground,
and
the
Court
therefore
applies
rational
basis
review.
Ante,
at
16–18.
I
am
uneasy
with
that
analysis
and
would
reject
the
plaintiffs’
argument
for
a
different
reason:
because
neither
transgender
status
nor
gender
identity
should
be
treated
as
a
suspect
or
“quasi-suspect”
class.

The
Chief
wrote
a
lengthy
opinion
begging
the
public
not
to
pay
attention
to
the
man
behind
the
curtain.
Alito
just
let
his
freak
flag
fly
(upside
down).

Discrimination
on
the
basis
of
transgender
status
is
fine,
Alito
explains,
because
the
same
man
who
swears
all
rights
are
contingent
on
being
“deeply
rooted
in
the
Nation’s
history
and
tradition”
doesn’t
think
discrimination
against
transgender
people
rises
to
the
same
level
afforded
other
minority
groups.

Transgender
status
is
not
“immutable,”
and
as
a
result,
persons
can
and
do
move
into
and
out
of
the
class.
Members
of
the
class
differ
widely
among
themselves,
and
it
is
often
difficult
for
others
to
determine
whether
a
person
is
a
member
of
the
class.
And
transgender
individuals
have
not
been
subjected
to
a
history
of
discrimination
that
is
comparable
to
past
discrimination
against
the
groups
we
have
classified
as
suspect
or
“quasi-suspect.”

He’s
actually
using
the
fact
that
transgender
individuals
can
get
gender-affirming
care
as
an
argument
why
they
cannot
be
protected
under
the
Equal
Protection
Clause,
which
is
objectively
galling.
Like,
he
clearly
never
had
his
gall
bladder
removed
because
this
took
a
titanic
reservoir
of
gall
most
of
humanity
is
simply
incapable
of
producing.
This
argument
rests
on
the
assumption
that
someone
isn’t
transgender
when
they
haven’t
actively
gotten
care,
which
isn’t
true
but
it’s
also
a
conclusion
he
bases
on…
nothing.

This
conclusory
reasoning
on
one
page
is
all
the
more
impressive
given
his
argument
on
another:

Although
transgender
persons
have
undoubtedly
experienced
discrimination,
the
plaintiffs
and
their
many
amici
have
not
been
able
to
show
a
history
of
widespread
and
conspicuous
discrimination
that
is
similar
to
that
experienced
by
racial
minorities
or
women.
Instead,
they
provide
little
more
than
conclusory
statements.

This
is,
itself,
a
conclusory
statement.
Alito’s
recognition
of
racial
discrimination
is
limited
to
string
citing

Plessy
and

Brown
without
signaling
in
which
era
he
thinks
transgender
people
enjoyed
America
as
a
land
of
warm
acceptance.
Actually,
it’s
probably
for
the
best
that
he
doesn’t
elaborate
because
he’d
just
say
something
like
“Bugs
Bunny
wore
a
dress
to
trick
Elmer
Fudd
in
the
1940s
so
QED
America
had
no
problem.”

But
he
DOES
take
a
timeout
to
hint
that
he
thinks
laws
against
religiously
justified
bigotry
that
he
strikes
down
on
First
Amendment
grounds
probably
deserve
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
protection
he
denies
transgender
people
because…
the
nation’s
deeply
rooted
history
and
tradition
of
anti-Christian
bias?
I
guess?

The
Court
has
also
suggested
that
religion
is
a
suspect
class.
See
Carolene
Products,
304
U.
S.,
at
152,
n.
4.
That
determination
follows
from
the
First
Amendment,
which
prohibits
any
impairment
of
the
“free
exercise”
of
“religion.”
But
because
this
right
is
expressly
protected
by
that
provision,
questions
of
religious
discrimination
have
generally
been
decided
on
First
Amendment
grounds.

Of
note,
he
throws
this
into
his
strict
scrutiny
section
and
not
his
intermediate
scrutiny
reasoning
in
case
he
threw
anyone
with
this
masterclass
of
non-subtlety.

After
decades
refining
the
practice
of
disingenuous
semantic
games
designed
to
get
their
results
without
saying
the
quiet
part
out
loud,
Alito
seems
over
the
pretense.
And
in
the
process,
he’s
willing
to
tear
down
the
edifice
of
bullshit
his
fellow
travelers
erected.
If
only
the
public
cared
enough
about
the
courts
to
notice.

(Full
opinion
on
the
next
page…)

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.