
Takeaways from the historic transgender care arguments at the Supreme Court
CNN
The Supreme Court appeared likely to back a divisive Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors after more than two hours of oral arguments on Wednesday in which the court delved into a culture war battle that has become even more politically fraught since the election.
The Supreme Court appeared likely to back a divisive Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors after more than two hours of oral arguments on Wednesday in which the court delved into a culture war battle that has become even more politically fraught since the election. Several conservative justices – notably Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – signaled deep reservations with the idea of courts second-guessing lawmakers who have approved bans on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors in roughly half of the nation’s states. The court’s three liberal justices appeared to be aligned in favor of the trans youth and their parents who challenged the Tennessee law and the Biden administration in saying that transgender Americans should receive heightened protection under the law. And one key conservative – Justice Neil Gorsuch – was notably silent. The transgender care case is the most significant matter to come before the Supreme Court this term – and it has become even more extraordinary since former President Donald Trump was elected to a second term, in part on a campaign to end the “transgender craziness.” More than 110,000 teenagers live in states where restrictions on transgender care exist, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Here’s what to know from Wednesday’s historic arguments:

Texas judge orders Attorney General Ken Paxton’s divorce records unsealed amid heated Senate primary
Court documents detailing the divorce of Republican U.S. Senate candidate and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, were released Friday by order of a judge, months after she filed citing “biblical grounds.”












