The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Just days after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared in a "queer" Broadway spinoff of "Romeo and Juliet," critics are questioning whether her involvement could compromise her impartiality as the court considers a landmark case about banning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

"I think it's a huge mistake for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to engage in activities that clearly put the stamp of approval on an ideological position regarding issues that could come before the court, which is practically the definition of a threat to their impartiality, the appearance of impropriety," Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

"It's unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances. But I suppose if this was ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different. But this is obviously an advocacy production, so for a Supreme Court justice to participate in advocacy on an issue that is currently in the courts, and at least broadly speaking, before her, I think it's a huge mistake," he said.

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

The musical, called "& Juliet," features prominent LGBTQ+ themes and nonbinary characters. The musical begins where Shakespeare's original ends. Instead of dying by suicide for love, Juliet chooses to forge her own path, challenging traditional gender roles. On its website, "& Juliet" is described as a "hilarious new musical" that "flips the script on the greatest love story ever told."

Juliet's best friend, May, is a nonbinary character whose queer relationship is prominently featured and explored throughout the musical.

Jackson joined the Broadway cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

"& Juliet" was written by David West Read, best known for his work as a writer and producer on the TV show "Schitt’s Creek." The musical premiered in November 2019, at the Shaftesbury Theatre in London's West End. Its Broadway debut followed in November 2022, at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in New York City.

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Liberals have criticized several conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years over ethical concerns, fueling calls for stricter oversight. 

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced scrutiny over his wife’s political activism. Justice Samuel Alito has been criticized for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by wealthy donors with business before the court, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has drawn attention for her ties to religious groups and their potential influence on cases involving LGBTQ+ issues and abortion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also faced criticism over his confirmation process and past financial disclosures.

"For two, three years now, liberals have been complaining about actions by Supreme Court justices that they say undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," Jipping said. "Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this."

"Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality. I don't think there's any question about that," he said.

Jackson wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance posted by the production's social media account, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

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

"She should stay on her side of the bench, and judges should protect their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality more, not less. And this, this was really reckless, in my view," Jipping added.

This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court justice has stepped into the spotlight of the performing arts. In 1994, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared as supernumeraries – non-speaking, background roles – in a Washington National Opera production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." 

The two, known for their ideological differences but close personal friendship, shared a love of opera.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this month, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. The court will resume arguments in January and a decision is expected by July 2025.

The Supreme Court's press office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request by press deadline.

Fox News Digital's Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

As the Biden administration enters its final days, two new student debt relief programs face imminent release as they undergo final review before formal implementation.

The two programs include a second attempt at providing sweeping student loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers under the Higher Education Act, known colloquially as "Plan B," which comes after federal courts ruled that the Biden administration's initial attempt at providing broad-based student loan forgiveness via executive action was unconstitutional. The second program, focused on people facing financial hardships, seeks to provide student debt relief for millions more.

The two programs were submitted for review to the Office of Management and Budget as of Tuesday, one of the final steps before the policies are formally published in the Federal Register.

TOP DEMS, ACTIVISTS CALL ON BIDEN ADMIN TO DOLE OUT MORE STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS BEFORE TERM ENDS

After the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration's first attempt at providing broad-based student loan forgiveness, ruling it was an overreach of the executive branch's authority under the Constitution, the president and his team began working on a new plan. It's "Plan B" seeks to provide relief to roughly 23 million borrowers, in particular those whose outstanding loan balance has been impacted by unrestrained interest accumulation. 

Meanwhile, the second program seeks to provide additional student loan forgiveness for 8 million borrowers who face financial hardships. If finalized, the new rule would authorize student debt forgiveness on a one-time basis for people who the department considers to have at least an 80% chance of defaulting on loans based on a "predictive assessment using existing borrower data."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a letter to the Biden administration earlier this month slamming its efforts as a "Band-Aid that forces taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else’s debt."

"If this administration spent half as much time working to address the root causes of our broken student loan system as peddling this illegal free college agenda, college costs would be lower," she said.

DAD WHO SACRIFICED HIS SAVINGS TO PAY FOR SON'S COLLEGE CALLS STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS A ‘BITTER PILL’ 

Meanwhile, Madison Doan, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, told Fox News Digital that the Biden administration's student debt forgiveness efforts will likely be shot down in court for the same reasons its previous programs have been blocked. She also pointed to the recent ruling that overturned Chevron deference, which previously allowed courts to defer to executive agencies when statutory language, such as that associated with the Higher Education Act, is unclear.

"These precedents make it doubtful that the courts will endorse the administration’s attempt to use ambiguous language in old statutes to justify broad new authority for canceling billions in loans at the expense of taxpayers," Doan said. She also pointed out how two Democratic-appointed judges have indicated that opponents of the rules are "likely to succeed on the merits" of their legal challenges.

In addition to the two programs that are in the final approval stages, the Biden administration is also attempting to push through a new interim rule that, once implemented, will reopen enrollment in an income-driven student debt repayment plan that is currently stalled in the courts. The new rule contains certain changes from the original income driven repayment plan in order to provide protections from the same legal challenges that stalled the initial attempt.

SENATE DEM IN KEY BATTLEGROUND RACE FLIP-FLOPPED ON STUDENT DEBT UNDER BIDEN: NO ‘MAGIC WAND’

However, the rule is not slated to go into effect until several months into President-elect Trump's second term, and, as a result, will likely be rescinded. While Trump has not formally laid out plans on how he will approach the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness policies, he has indicated plans to reform the federal government's role in U.S. education during his term.

"The lesson President Biden should have taken from the Supreme Court's student loan ruling was that, if he wanted to forgive debt, he should hammer out a deal with Congress," Chad Squitieri, Catholic University of America law professor, told Fox News Digital. "President Biden's efforts to unilaterally plow forward without Congress, in the waning days of his administration, is just the latest effort to use administrative rulemaking as a substitute for the federal lawmaking process. Publishing a rule might be easier than enacting legislation, but it can come at the cost of undermining a more stable solution on debt relief."

Executive rulemaking has been a staple for the Biden administration, which has used the policymaking avenue to implement a range of reforms. As of Dec. 3, the Biden administration set a new record for the most Federal Register pages filled in a single year – 96,088. The number puts the administration on pace to fill more than 100,000 pages by the end of its term.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is receiving mixed reviews after making a surprise cameo performance as "Queen Mab" in the Broadway musical "& Juliet." 

While some social media users called Jackson’s performance "humanizing," others called it "cringe," "embarrassing" and unbefitting for a sitting member of the nation’s highest court.

Written by contemporary playwright David West Read, "& Juliet" is a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s "Romeo and Juliet" that explores an alternate scenario when Juliet does not commit suicide and instead explores life as an independent young woman. The musical includes a character named May, who is Juliet’s best friend and identifies as nonbinary.

Jackson joined a cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, BIDEN'S SUPREME COURT PICK, REFUSES TO DEFINE THE WORD 'WOMAN'

She wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

However, her decision to take the stage was not well received by many members of the public. 

Conservative influencer Arynne Wexler reacted on X, saying, "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not only appeared in a Broadway show The show is a ‘queer musical knockoff’ of Romeo and Juliet. Of course Max cringe, max DEI." 

"This is a sitting SCOTUS Justice. A lifetime appointment," reacted conservative influencer account Gunther Eagleman. "I’m at a loss for words." 

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler said "Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson performs in the Broadway show ‘& Juliet’ which is a ‘queer’ rendition of Romeo & Juliet … So no, when Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define ‘what is a woman’ during her Senate confirmation hearing, she wasn’t being a brilliant legal mind. She was, and is, a radical leftist DEI hire propagating harmful, Neo-Marxist, anti-woman transgender ideology."

"I'd rather our country not be run by the weird theater kids," influencer Colin Rugg reacted. 

"This is so embarrassing," posted LibsofTikTok.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk jokingly suggested Jackson "should sing her verdicts." 

DEMOCRATS ATTACK CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BUT HAVE LONG IGNORED LIBERAL JUSTICES' ETHICAL ISSUES

Jackson’s performance was not universally mocked, however. Former New York Congressman George Santos reacted by saying, "I love this! Humanizing the one part of the government that’s never been humanized! Good on this partnership!"

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Former Kamala Harris campaign writer Victor Shi called the performance "the most epic video I've watched in so long." 

"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson performed on Broadway, while some of her Republican colleagues would’ve spent this time flying with billionaires," he went on. "So cool. So refreshing. Justice Jackson is the best."

Jackson has been a consistent liberal vote on the Supreme Court since she was appointed by President Biden in 2022. 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could reshape a key environmental law and determine the future of an oil railway project in the west.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decisions and then issue a "detailed statement" of the review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, to decide whether an agency is required to study environmental impacts beyond the "proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority." Justices appeared open to reconsidering the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how they would adjust the law. 

The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build an over 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to a national railway.

FEDERAL COURT UPENDS DECADES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

The STB released an Environmental Impact Statement on the railway, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency did not consider all of its environmental effects – therefore, violating NEPA.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED OVER STATE BANS ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATEMENTS’ FOR MINORS

The case was brought to a D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review be conducted before the project moves forward. In March 2024, SCIC petitioned SCOTUS in the case.

Paul Clement, the attorney backing the SCIC project, argued that it is a "straightforward case" and requested NEPA be limited to "proximate cause" principles. 

"NEPA is a self-described procedural statute. It is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it," Clement argued on Tuesday.

Clement called the D.C. court's request to conduct further environmental review "a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive roadblock." 

"All of that is not just remote in time and space but falls well outside the STB's limited remand – remit, and it falls within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can address those issues comprehensively and concretely if and when they arise," he said during the oral arguments.

Several justices appeared to agree that the D.C. court's issuing of an entirely new environmental review of the project may have been unnecessary.

"It's not a question of did it fail to look at something," Justice Sonia Sotomayer said. "So the question before us was, was it arbitrary and capricious for it not to consider something more?"

The judges questioned Clement on how his request would impact the scope of environmental reviews, such as on smaller or larger projects.

Clement replied, "If the environmental impact statement is focused on the project, it will inform – you can pick one route versus another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures. But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that's outside the ambit of the agency."

"This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway," Sam Sankar, Earthjustice vice president of programs, said in a statement. "The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price."

Justice Neil Gorsuch, on Dec. 4, dismissed himself from the case ahead of arguments.

Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.V., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., are proposing a constitutional amendment that would institute a term limit system for future Supreme Court justices.

Currently, high court justices do not face constraints on the length of their service. They " … shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …" the U.S. Constitution states.

The proposed amendment would create 18-year terms, with new terms beginning every two years. But the term limits would only impact justices appointed after ratification — all current justices would still be able to remain on the bench as long as they wish.

JOE MANCHIN ISN'T DONE WITH POLITICS, SAYS BOB CUSACK

"The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire," a Manchin press release explains. "During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench. Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court."

Manchin, a Democrat-turned-independent who has served in the Senate since late 2010, did not seek re-election this year. His current term will end in less than a month.

"I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land," Manchin said, according to the press release. 

MANCHIN DELIVERS EMOTIONAL FINAL FLOOR SPEECH AS WEST VIRGINIA SENATOR: ‘HONOR OF MY LIFE’

"Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system."

The proposed amendment stipulates that the high court should be comprised of nine justices, a figure which is not currently enshrined in the Constitution.

"The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred," according to the Supreme Court's website.

FIRST DEM SENATOR CALLS FOR BIDEN TO DROP OUT ‘FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY’

Three of the current nine members of the Supreme Court were appointed by President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office, while only one of the current members was appointed by President Joe Biden.

"Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans," Welch noted, according to the press release. "I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system."

As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile transgender case this past week, a prominent detransitioner and public speaker emphasized the importance of the case and said it could change everything about the gender ideology they fight in the United States.  

U.S. v. Skrmetti revolves around a Tennessee law that bans sex-change treatments and surgeries for children. Experts believe the Supreme Court’s decision in the case could set a precedent that will shape laws about transgender treatments for children across the country.

"It's incredibly important that this law goes through so that other states, not just Tennessee, who have these protective laws, can uphold them in courts and maybe states that are more on the fence, like blue states or purple states, can have pressure put on them to put in these laws to protect children in their area as well," Chloe Cole told Fox News Digital in the frigid cold outside the Supreme Court building

"This is an identity crisis that is plaguing my generation right now," she continued. "Children are losing their health, they’re losing their ability to grow up into adults, are losing their ability to have children when they become adults. It’s unconscionable."  

GOP TENNESSEE AG REACTS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS IN SUPREME COURT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS CASE: 'FEEL REALLY GOOD'

Cole, who is 20 years old and began transitioning from a female into a male at the age of 12 and stopped at 17, said that she continues to suffer daily pain and faces serious health issues from the long-term effects of the sex-change treatments and surgery she received as a child.

"I've been on the puberty blockers, the testosterone injections, and I've had a double mastectomy, and all three of these treatments have irreversibly and permanently affected my health," she said.

"I basically went through an artificial menopause while I was young," Cole explained. "So, I was experiencing hot flashes and these other uncomfortable, painful symptoms that are not too dissimilar to what women naturally experience when they're in their 40s, 50s, 60s, not before they're even teenagers."

Some activists, including attorneys arguing against Tennessee’s law, posit that sex-change treatments help children suffering from gender confusion, improving their mental health and preventing suicide. However, many former transgender individuals – often called "detransitioners" – dispute the claim that sex-change treatments solve mental health issues. Instead, they say that in addition to causing physical problems, treatments can also lead to serious psychological damage.

Besides having to live with the reality of having both her breasts cut off at the age of 15, Cole said that testosterone has also "made it so that I have permanent changes to my bone structure."

"I have a left-over Adam's apple and facial hair growth, but I also have issues with my urinary tract, with pelvic pain [and] with things like sexual function, which, now, as an adult woman, that is something that has been both physically and psychologically incredibly painful," she explained.

"I’m a woman," she went on. "I aspire to become a mother one day, I want to get married, and this is something that is going to undoubtedly affect my marriage, my romantic life, and potentially my ability to have children."

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

Although gender transition treatment is promoted by doctors and hospital systems across the country, Cole said that there are still many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of these treatments.

"I don't know what the lasting effects are on my fertility. There are so many unknowns about my health, I have no idea what the future of my health is going to look like," she said. "It's been years after the fact, and I'm still experiencing reeling effects from all of this when I could have just grown up into a healthy young woman with a body intact."

Although she continues to suffer the aftereffects of the treatments, Cole said she is resolved to stop more children from suffering what she underwent.  

"This is not what children deserve," she concluded. "Children deserve to be allowed to grow up with their bodies fully intact, they deserve a chance to learn how to love themselves the way that they are, the way they were born, the way that God beautifully crafted them in their mother's womb."

Former transgenders, parents and activists braved frigid temperatures on Wednesday morning to rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court to demand an end to the "butchery" and "trauma" of child sex-change surgeries and treatments.

The rally took place as the court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a high-stakes case over the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and transgender surgeries for minors. 

One of the rally speakers, Matt Walsh, who is a podcast host for the Daily Wire and creator of the "What Is a Woman" documentary, told Fox News Digital that the case is about "basic truth."

"The trans agenda represents a unique, distinct threat to children. We have to stand up and protect them, that's what this is all about," he said. "If the Supreme Court gets this case right, then we could be looking at ultimately the death of the gender ideology industry. That’s what we want, and that’s what's at stake."

'OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE' OF NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FROM GENDER 'TREATMENTS' FOCUS OF LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE

The rally was organized by a diverse set of groups, including medical watchdog Do No Harm, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Vote and the LGB Alliance.

One member of the LGB Alliance, Glenna Goldis, from Brooklyn, told Fox News Digital that many lesbian, gay and bisexual people see sex-change treatments as a form of conversion therapy.

"A lot of gay people feel strongly about this issue," she said. "But we're not able to get our voices out, because the LGBTQ lobby has so much money, and they drown us out, and they pretend that they're speaking for gay people, but they do not."

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

There was also a significant presence of former transgender people – "detransitioners" – many of whom said they did not want more children to undergo the negative health effects they had endured due to sex-altering treatments. 

One detransitioner, a woman named Laura Becker, told Fox News Digital that she had stopped the treatments after realizing that they were causing her incredible harm and trauma.

"My advocacy is around healing the trauma instead of permanently medically mutilating the bodies of children and vulnerable young adults like I was," she said. "I took testosterone when I was 19, and I had my breasts sliced off when I was 20 years old, despite being suicidal. I ended up being diagnosed with PTSD two years later, just from the transition."

"I had trauma already, which made me have an identity crisis, [and] then I had even more trauma from the medicalization," Becker added. "That's a permanent effect I live with for the rest of my life."  

TENNESSEE GOVERNOR WEIGHS IN AS SCOTUS DEBATES STATE'S BAN ON TRANS SURGERIES FOR MINORS

Another detransitioner, named Claire A., from Maryland, told Fox News Digital that the vast majority of people who undergo sex-change surgeries and treatments suffer from severe traumatic experiences that are only compounded by transitioning.

"I started going to therapy for trauma that I experienced in my childhood that contributed to my trans identity, and through healing from that, I healed from the pain that made me feel I needed to change my body," she said.

Despite ending her treatments, Claire said she continues to suffer daily pain.

"I'm three years off of testosterone, and I still experience pelvic floor dysfunction," she said. "My voice hurts, I can't raise my voice very loud, it hurts to talk. It hurts. My joints hurt. It's not a fun life to live. I would like to keep other children from being forced to live this life."

There were also several parents of transgender children who have been denied custody and access to their children because they would not affirm their transgender identities.  

"I haven’t held my son in four years, my son is six years old now," Adam Vena, a father from California, told Fox News Digital.

Vena said that with the prompting of his son’s mother, his child, Aidan, began transitioning into a girl at two years old. Two years later, Vena said, he lost custody of his son, "because I was not a gender-affirming parent."

ACLU LAWYER DEFENDS TRANS PROCEDURES FOR MINORS DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING 'IT'S NOT THE KIDS WHO ARE CONSENTING'

"A California court ordered my son to go to a gender clinic at a Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles when I requested to sit in on the gender assessment, they denied me access to ask my own questions as his father," he explained. "They also denied me a phone call. So, me being a father has been completely cut out of my son's life." 

Harrison Tinsley, another California father who recently regained custody of his son, told Fox News Digital, "I think this is one of the greatest evils of our time, like our lobotomy or slavery, transgender mutilation of children."

"The time to stop this is right now," said Tinsley. "The Supreme Court's going to rule the right way, and I'm hoping that Trump and Congress can ban this federally, stop the mutilation of children and stop this irreversible damage." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

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

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

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

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) began hearing oral arguments for the high-profile case involving Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors on Wednesday, and one expert is saying the historic case shows "the pendulum is swinging." 

The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, will decide whether Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures is constitutional and could impact whether states will enact more bans and allow individuals to sue medical providers. 

"I think you're finding more of these people willing and certainly wanting to sue the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the doctors who prescribe medication or did the surgery," Mat Staver, chairman of nonprofit legal group Liberty Counsel, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH STATE BAN ON TRANSGENDER 'MEDICAL TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS

"So I think that the pendulum is swinging," said Staver, whose legal group filed an amicus brief in support of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "So even no matter what the Supreme Court does, I think the lawsuits will ultimately be the death mill of this kind of intervention."

As oral arguments commenced Wednesday morning, supporters and opponents of gender transition treatments gathered outside the SCOTUS building holding transgender Pride flags and "Kids' Health Matters." Over the course of more than two hours, the justices listened to each side present their arguments and asked questions.

The court's ruling could affect other current legal fights over transgender rights, including bathroom access and participation in scholastic sports. It could also serve as a legal template for future disputes involving the LGBTQ community and whether sexual orientation is a "protected class" that deserves the same rights that involve a person's race and national origin.

Staver said appellate courts have consistently upheld state bans on gender-affirming care for minors, though some lower court rulings have been overturned on appeal. He predicts the Supreme Court will likely follow this trend, framing the issue as one of regulating medical procedures rather than a question of constitutional protection. 

"I think it's really a question of whether or not this rises to a level of constitutional protection, which I don't think it does," Staver said.

'OF COURSE I SUPPORT THE PARDON OF MY SON,' JILL BIDEN TELLS REPORTER

The Biden administration joined the lawsuit by filing a petition to the Supreme Court in November 2023. The Department of Justice argued that the Tennessee law, which limits access to puberty blockers and hormone therapies for transgender minors, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause requires equal treatment of individuals in similar circumstances under the law.

"It is no surprise to my mind that this is something I believe the Biden administration would love to hang its hat on as a victory for so-called transgender rights," Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Sarah Perry told Fox News Digital. 

The administration's petition emphasized the "urgent need" for Supreme Court review, citing the impact on families who risk losing essential medical care. The DOJ also highlighted the broader implications of similar laws in other states, arguing that the bans disproportionately target transgender youth while permitting similar treatment for non-transgender minors.

TRUMP TEAM DISMISSES REPORTS HE WILL DISCHARGE TRANS IN MILITARY: 'NO DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN MADE'

"But I will say this is going to present a very interesting potential, about FACE [The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act] with the incoming Trump administration, they have made very clear during the campaign that they want to restrict these procedures for minors," Perry said.

"So the Department of Justice under President Trump has an opportunity to reverse course, to file a motion to dismiss, voluntarily dismiss the case, and then it presents an interesting question: what do the justices do?" she added.

The case comes as transgender issues have become a hotly debated topic in the country's culture wars. Several large medical groups, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, all endorse transgender medical procedures for children. 

Meanwhile, more than 26 states have either restricted or passed laws banning them.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters after the arguments, "The Constitution allows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science."

A ruling is expected by July 2025.

Fox News' Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender transition medical "treatments" for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law.

At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue rallied in front of the court. Some demonstrators held signs saying, "Kids' Health Matters," while others promoted "Freedom To Be: A Celebration of Transgender Youth & Families."

The court's ruling could affect other current legal fights over transgender rights, including bathroom access and participation in scholastic sports. It could also serve as a legal template to future disputes involving the LGBTQ+ community, and whether sexual orientation is a "protected class" that deserves the same rights that involve a person's race and national origin.

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

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Justice Samuel Alito cited "hotly disputed" medical studies on the supposed benefits of such medical treatments. Instead he referred to other research from Great Britain and Sweden that reported on the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender transition treatments.

Those studies "found a complete lack of high-quality evidence showing that the benefits of the treatments in question here outweigh the risks," he told the federal government's attorney. "Do you dispute that?"

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment.

"Some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don't they? I think some attempt suicide?" she said. "The state has come in here and, in a sharp departure from how it normally addresses this issue, it has completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions and trying to make those trade-offs."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the competing interests facing the high court.

"How do we as a Court choose which set of risks is more serious in deciding whether to constitutionalize this whole area?"

Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday's arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures.

TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT'

"The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. 

Prelogar said the state laws have the effect of "sex discrimination," since the minor's gender is key when determining specific medical treatments for those seeking to transition.

She cited the benefits of such "medically necessary care" that can have the effect of preventing "escalating distress, anxiety, and suicidality." The Justice Department mentioned the experience of Ryan, one of the plaintiffs, who told the courts such treatment "saved his life."

The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed such medical treatments for youths.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters after the arguments, "The Constitution allows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science."

The state's lawyer told the justices its law — known as SB1 — "draws a line between minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes," like a congenital defect or precocious or early onset puberty.

In arguments, much of the discussion was whether the laws were applied equally to boys and girls, and whether states had a greater interest in regulating treatment, since it involved underage individuals.

"It's really for minors," said Justice Clarence Thomas. "So why isn't this simply a case of age classification when it comes to these treatments as opposed to a [outright] ban?" for everyone.

But the three more liberal justices were skeptical of the state's positions.

"It's a dodge to say that this is not based on sex, it's based on medical purpose, when the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex," said Justice Elena Kagan.

She added the state law seems to me sending a message that "there's something fundamentally wrong, fundamentally bad, about youth who are trying to transition."

"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. It "sounds to me like: we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls."

Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors.

A ruling is expected by late June 2025.

The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477). 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened the side effects of transgender medical procedures on minors to that of taking an over-the-counter painkiller during Wednesday's oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case.

"Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin," Sotomayor said. "There's always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that's going to suffer a harm. So, the question in my mind is not, 'do policymakers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment?'"

SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH STATE BAN ON TRANSGENDER 'MEDICAL TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS

Sotomayor's comments came after Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice defended his state’s ban on transgender medical procedures for minors, which is the first time a case involving transgender procedures has been brought before the high court. Rice argued that countries like Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom have limited such interventions due to reported irreversible consequences.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Rice about alternative approaches – like in the case of West Virginia – with Rice dismissing them as speculative policymaking that fails to eliminate risks associated with gender transition entirely.

TRUMP TEAM DISMISSES REPORTS HE WILL DISCHARGE TRANS IN MILITARY: 'NO DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN MADE'

"They cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners," Rice said. "So, it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefit versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to the legislature."

The high-profile case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

The three justices appointed by former President Trump could play a key role in the outcome. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett pressed both sides with tough questions, while Justice Neil Gorsuch remained silent throughout the lengthy hearing. A ruling is expected by July 2025.

'OF COURSE I SUPPORT THE PARDON OF MY SON,' JILL BIDEN TELLS REPORTER

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of "general public importance." 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transitions for transgender minors, while more than 15 have enacted "shield" laws that protect such procedures. 

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law.

At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor's transition to another sex.

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

Justice Samuel Alito cited "overwhelming evidence" from some medical studies that cited the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender-affirming care. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment to address gender dysphoria.

SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE

Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday's arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures.

TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT'

"The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors.

A ruling is expected by late June 2025.

The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477). 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-profile case regarding whether states can ban minors from receiving gender transition medical care under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a closely-watched case that could impact the care and treatment for young people in at least half of U.S. states.

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared reluctant during Wednesday's oral arguments to overturn Senate Bill 1, the Tennessee law in question, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures. The Constitution leaves such questions "to the people's representatives," Roberts noted Wednesday, rather than to nine justices on the Supreme Court, "none of whom is a doctor." 

Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, cited "overwhelming evidence" from certain medical studies listing the negative consequences from adolescents that underwent gender transition treatments. Should the justices rule along party lines to uphold the lower court's decision, it will have sweeping implications for more than 20 U.S. states that have moved to implement similar laws.

The case in question, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for minors in the state. The law, passed in March 2023, also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS' SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING

At issue in the case is whether Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, 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' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,'" violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wednesday's oral arguments marked the first time the Supreme Court considered restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors. However, it also comes as many other states have moved to ban or restrict medical treatments and procedures for transgender adolescents, placing outsize focus on the case and on oral arguments Wednesday, as observers closely watched the back-and-forth for clues as to how the court might rule. 

Petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor.

At issue during Wednesday's oral arguments was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a "quasi-suspect class," thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 

Both sides continued to battle over the level of scrutiny that the court should apply in reviewing laws involving transgender care for minors, including SB1. 

Petitioners argued that the court should use the test of heightened scrutiny, which requires states to identify an important objective that the law helps accomplish, while the state of Tennessee reiterated its claim that the rational basis test, or the most deferential test that was applied by the 6th Circuit Court in reviewing SB1, is sufficient. 

Petitioners, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, argued that SB1 discriminates against individuals on the basis of sex, which itself warrants a heightened level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that SB1 "categorically bans treatment when, and only when, it’s consistent with the patient’s birth sex." 

In Tennessee, petitioners argued, the way that the sex-based classification works is that, "from the standpoint of any individual who wants to take these medications, their sex determines whether SB1 applies."

Prelogar cited one of the unnamed petitioners in the case, whom she referred to only as John Doe. Doe "wants to take puberty blockers to undergo a typical male puberty. But SB1 says that because John sex at birth was female, he can't have access to those medications," Prelogar argued. "And if you change his sex, then the restriction under SB1 lifts, and it changes the result."

Petitioners also sought to assuage concerns raised by justices about the ability of states to pass legislation protecting minors, so long as the test meets a higher standard of scrutiny. 

Pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the impact the ruling could have on other states, Prelogar responded by noting that the court could write a very narrow opinion that states only that when a law prohibits conduct that is "inconsistent with sex, that is a sex baseline, so you do have to apply heightened scrutiny."

"But the court has made clear that that's an intermediate standard," Prelogar said. "And if the state can come forward with an important interest and substantiate that it needed to draw those sex baselines to substantially serve the interest," it would still be permitted.

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Respondents for the state of Tennessee argued Wednesday that SB1 was designed to protect minors from what they described as "risky and unproven medical interventions." 

The state, represented by Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, argued that SB1 draws a "purpose-based line, not a sex-based line," thus failing to meet the necessary requirement to trigger heightened scrutiny. 

The law, Rice said, turns "entirely on medical purposes, not a patient’s sex." The only way petitioners can point to a sex-based line, he argued, "is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments." 

"Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body," Rice said.

Still, respondents faced tough questioning from justices on the classification and application of SB1. 

On issues of classification, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson cited parallels to the race-based case of Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia's law forbidding marriage between persons of different racial categories; in that case, a White man and a Black woman.

She noted that under SB1, an individual can be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone treatments if doing so is consistent with their sex, but not if it is inconsistent, asking Rice, "So how are they different?"

Justice Elena Kagan asked Rice about the application of SB1, noting the text of SB1 and one of its articulated purposes, which is to "encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.’"

"You’re spending a lot of time talking about what the classification is here," Kagan told Rice. "And I think we've talked a good deal about that. But what produced this classification might be relevant to understanding what the classification is about."

Tennessee has argued that its law can still withstand even the test of heightened scrutiny, contending in its court brief that it does have "compelling interests" to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession."

The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans are set to take control of the White House, hold the House and regain the Senate, giving them a greater influence on the composition of the federal courts.

The court is expected to rule on U.S. v. Skrmetti before July 2025.

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with other Republican congressional members, filed an amicus brief in support of U.S. gun manufacturers, urging the Supreme Court "to uphold American sovereignty and the Second Amendment."

The case, Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, stems from a lawsuit filed in 2021 by the Mexican government, in which the government alleged U.S. gun manufacturers, like Smith & Wesson, Ruger and others, should be liable for gun violence carried out by cartels south of the border, because the companies were allegedly aware their firearms were being trafficked into the country.

"I am leading this amicus brief to uphold American sovereignty and our Second Amendment. The lawsuit filed by Mexico seeks to trample on our Constitution," Cruz told Fox News Digital. "I look forward to the Supreme Court ending this madness, putting an end to Mexico’s assault on our Second Amendment, and sending a clear message that American sovereignty will not be eroded by any country."

POPULAR GUN MANUFACTURER THANKS ELON MUSK AFTER BEING SUSPENDED BY FACEBOOK

Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Mike Braun, R-Ind.; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Rick Scott, R-Fla., are just several Senate members joining Cruz in filing the brief. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; Clay Higgins, R-La.; Pete Sessions, R-Texas; and Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., have also joined Cruz's brief. 

"I joined Senator Cruz and my House GOP colleagues in this case because it was the right thing to do and the only choice to make," Issa said in a statement. "This lawsuit has unified our friends and allies almost as never before, including from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and now the Supreme Court will listen to our petitions to hear this case."

BIDEN-HARRIS POLICIES MAY BE BEHIND SURGE IN REPUBLICAN WOMEN OWNING GUNS, CONCEALED CARRY ADVOCATE SAYS

"This is a landmark legal question and weighs whether to allow foreign governments to violate American sovereignty, bankrupt our firearms industry with lawfare, and undermine our Second Amendment rights. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to our constitutional freedoms. Our cause will prevail," Issa continued.

The filing slams the lawsuit as a whole, calling it "an attempt to co-opt the power of the federal judiciary to both circumvent the role of Congress and usurp the role of the Executive." The filing continues on to say that the suit disregards the "respective roles" assigned by the Constitution to the federal branches and thus proves to be "an affront" to American sovereignty. 

JUDGE REJECTS 2ND AMENDMENT ARGUMENT FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LIVING IN OHIO CHARGED OVER POSSESSION OF 170 GUNS

The brief also says that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty," quoting a separate Supreme Court case. Via the present lawsuit, the brief says Mexico is attempting to impose "massive costs and injunctive relief" against American gun manufacturers, something "no public body in the United States could do via legislation or regulation."

More than two dozen top Republican prosecutors had previously urged the Court to take up the case in May of this year. That amicus brief, filed by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen along with other GOP colleagues, urged the high court to hear the case in order to stop "a foreign sovereign’s use of American courts to effectively limit the rights of American citizens."

Mexico's lawsuit was initially dismissed by a Massachusetts federal judge, but Mexico successfully appealed its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with the support of California and other Democrat-led states.

The high court set oral arguments for the case for February. 

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on sex reassignment surgery for minors on Wednesday. It is a decision that could play a part in shaping the future of girls' sports and prevention of biological males from competing against female athletes for generations to come. 

The case, known as US v. Skrmetti, will focus on a law that was signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee in 2023. The law, SB 1, bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors in the state and imposes civil penalties for doctors who violate the prohibitions.

The law is aimed to prevent such access to "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex," or treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

These medications and procedures, when administered to minors, have created a pathway for biological males to compete in girls' youth sports teams across the country. 

Tennessee lawmakers have advised minors to "appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty."

Meanwhile, attorneys for the Biden administration and transgender youth in Tennessee will press the justices to declare the 2023 law unconstitutional. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is arguing on behalf of the families, will be the first openly transgender lawyer to present a case before the Supreme Court.

Tennessee is one of 23 states that has such a law in place to prevent these treatments from being available to minors. Tennessee is also one of 23 states that has a law in place to restrict or prevent trans athletes in girls' sports, but that issue is not being contested on Wednesday. 

Lee signed the state's trans athletes ban in April 2022, and it went into effect in July of that year. However, even states that have put those laws in place have seen federal judges enable trans athletes in those states to compete against and share locker rooms with girls anyway.

SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH STATE BAN ON TRANSGENDER 'MEDICAL TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS  

Judges Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire and M. Hannah Lauck of Virginia, both of whom were appointed during the Obama administration, each issued rulings this year that enabled biological males to play on high school girls' soccer and tennis teams. McCafferty issued an order that allowed two transgender athletes to compete in New Hampshire, while Lauck ruled that an 11-year-old transgender tennis player was allowed to compete against girls the same age in Virginia. 

In California, a state with laws in place to protect trans athletes in girls' sports, multiple high schools have been embroiled in scandals involving trans athletes in girls' teams and the female athletes not accepting them. 

SJSU TRANSGENDER VOLLEYBALL SCANDAL: TIMELINE OF ALLEGATIONS, POLITICAL IMPACT AND A RAGING CULTURE MOVEMENT

A recent lawsuit by female athletes at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, has alleged that their "Save Girls Sports" T-shirts were likened to a swastika by school officials. The plaintiffs had worn the shirts after a transgender athlete, who had not consistently attended practices or met key varsity eligibility requirements, was placed on the varsity team, displacing one of the girls from her spot, the complaint alleged.

A girls' cross country runner at the school, Rylee Morrow, gave an impassioned plea at a school board meeting on Nov. 21, when she lambasted her school and said the way things have been handled makes her feel "unsafe." 

"The whole LGBTQ is shoved down our throats!" Morrow cried.

"It is not OK that I have to be in position, and I have to see a male in booty shorts, and having to see that around me. As a 16-year-old girl, I don't see that as a safe environment," Morrow said. "Going into a locker room and seeing males in there, I don't find that safe, I don't find going to the bathroom safe when there's guys in there. It's not okay. I'm a 16-year-old girl!" 

In Washington, another state with laws to protect trans inclusion, the Central Valley School Board voted to send a letter to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, asking it to change its policies that have allowed trans athletes to compete against girls. 

One of the women who advocated for it, an unidentified current cross country runner, shared her experience of having to compete against one of those athletes during the hearing.

"When I ran cross country for Greenacres Middle School, a boy who was biologically male but identified as female competed on the girls' team," she said. "While I respect everyone's right to participate in sports, the situation made me question the fairness of competing of someone who had the physical advantage associated with male biology."

Most policies that allow trans athletes to compete have clauses in place that require those athletes to have undergone the types of treatments and medications that Tennessee seeks to ban for minors. If those are unavailable to minors, the instances of trans athletes competing on those teams would likely drop significantly, at least at the youth level.

The Supreme Court's decision will set a historical precedent while determining the course of many lives and athletic careers.

In August, the court ruled 5-4 in denying the Biden administration an emergency request to enforce portions of a new rule that includes protection from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX. 

The request would have permitted biological men in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms in 10 states where there are state-level and local-level rules in place to prevent it. 

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch was the only conservative justice to dissent in that decision. 

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a high-profile case involving the right of transgender minors to receive gender transition care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, in one of the most closely watched, potentially impactful cases slated to come before the high court this year.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of "general public importance." 

The petitioners argue the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has responded by insisting the law does not discriminate based on gender, arguing it sets parameters on age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and is therefore not a violation of the Constitution.

BIDEN'S SWEEPING HUNTER PARDON AT ODDS WITH LONGTIME RHETORIC ON EXECUTIVE POWER: 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW'

According to the U.S. Supreme Court website, the key question posed in the case is "whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), 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' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,' Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Wednesday's oral arguments mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, giving the case importance in Tennessee and in other states across the country. 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transition care for transgender adolescents, making the case — and Wednesday's oral arguments — one of the most high-profile cases to be heard this session.  

The oral arguments have been anticipated for months. The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans will regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress next month, giving them heavy influence and, some fear, more control over the federal judiciary. 

Here's what you need to know ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments.

Who's arguing the case?

The petitioners will be represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who represented the original parties in the lawsuit.

Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, will be the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court.

The respondents in the case, namely the state of Tennessee, will be represented in court by Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice and the state attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti. 

In a court filing submitted ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, Prelogar's office argued the Tennessee law has a deliberate focus on "sex and gender conformity," asserting Senate Bill 1 "declares that its very purpose is to ‘encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex' and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.'"

"That," the federal government wrote, "is sex discrimination."

Counsel for the petitioners will argue that the Tennessee law imposes "differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth," triggering a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

HUNTER BIDEN GUN CASE TERMINATED AFTER PARDON, BUT FEDERAL JUDGE STOPS SHORT OF FULL DISMISSAL

They will also argue that upholding the ban will represent a "dangerous and discriminatory affront" to transgender minors not just in Tennessee, but across the country, a point that has been emphasized by Strangio.

The state argued in a court filing that the law "contains no sex classification" warranting the heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it said, it "creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes."

The question of scrutiny 

The Supreme Court has determined three different levels of scrutiny that help determine whether a law is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: Strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and rational basis. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires a law be passed to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to minimize harm. 

The second level of scrutiny, or "heightened scrutiny," requires the governmental body to prove its actions further an "important government interest" by using means "substantially related to that interest." 

The lowest bar, rational basis, is the most deferential of the tests and requires the law only serve a legitimate interest with a "rational connection" to the means and goals of the statute.

Overview of the arguments

Wednesday's oral arguments will center on whether banning gender transition care for minors violates protections under the Equal Protection Clause, either via gender discrimination or discrimination against their transgender status.

The petitioners in the case will argue that the Tennessee law discriminates against individuals and their right to receive the same medical treatments based on their sex. Under the law, the petitioners argued in their court filing, "an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can."

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Separately, they will argue that discriminating against individuals based on their transgender status is also sufficient to trigger higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that transgender individuals "satisfy all of the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class," including being subject to discrimination, representing a "discrete and identifiable minority" and other components outlined by the Supreme Court, thereby necessitating that heightened scrutiny be applied.

The respondents will argue that Senate Bill 1, places age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and, therefore, is not an example of unconstitutional discrimination. 

Further, they will argue that the law easily passes even the test of heightened scrutiny. The state contends it has "compelling interests" to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession."

Case history

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary inunction for part of the Tennessee ban in June, siding with the petitioners' assertion that "parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parent[s] to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children[.]"

He said the ban on most types of gender care for transgender minors would likely not survive the heightened scrutiny test under the Equal Protection Clause, since the same treatments were not banned for their non-transgender peers. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit later overturned the district court's decision and reinstated the full ban, using the lowest test of rational basis. The petitioners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to review the case.

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to remand the case to the 6th Circuit Court to hear it again, this time using the test of heightened scrutiny.

Strangio has repeatedly stressed the wide-ranging impact the Supreme Court decision could have on "countless transgender youth" of current and future generations and has described the bans as a "dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country."

Next steps

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on United States v. Skrmetti by July 2025. The Supreme Court typically issues summer decisions on cases argued during the October term.

A yearslong case surrounding a transgender female powerlifter reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday where opening arguments were heard.

JayCee Cooper, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 after being rejected from the women's team three years earlier. In the complaint, Cooper alleged the organization violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against people "having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness."

A district court ruled last year that the organization discriminated against Cooper, which spurred a mandate that the federation "cease and desist from all unfair discriminatory practices" because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

The federation appealed the decision; Cooper then cross-appealed, and on Monday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided the athletic league did not discriminate against the individual.

On Tuesday, the court asked Ansis Viksnins, USA Powerlifting's attorney, why banning Cooper from women's competition was not "discriminatory." 

Viksnins responded it was not "based on gender identity."

The court asked if the policy would be equal had it been based on race or religion, comparing Cooper's case to a hypothetical in which Catholics were to be better bowlers — but the comparison was shut down.

"There is no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason why there could be separation based on religion or national origin or race, whereas there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for separating and treating transgender or women differently," Viksnins said.

WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL PLAYER, ACCUSED OF CONSPIRING WITH SJSU TRANSGENDER ATHLETE, KNEELS DURING NATIONAL ANTHEM

"The motive here was to separate biological males into a category where they are competing against other people who were born biologically male, that if I could point out my client separate competitors three ways by age, weight and sex. They do not care about gender identity. They don't care about sexual orientation."

The federation opened an "open" category in 2021 "to serve all gender identities," according to FOX 9 in Minnesota.

"Our goal at USAPL is to create rules and a framework that uphold the principles of fair play, not to exclude anyone," said Larry Maile, President of USAPL in a statement to the outlet. "Since science shows those who were born biologically male have a profound physical advantage over female-born athletes, our responsibility is to define legitimate categories to fairly place athletes within them."

A state court cited "increased risk of depression and suicide, lack of access to coaching and practice facilities, or other performance suppression common to transgender persons" as competitive disadvantages for transgender competitors, helping Cooper initially win the discrimination case.

According to Open Powerlifting, Cooper last competed at the 2022 AMP Classic Open Nationals in Texas and finished in third place out of three competitors in the division.

Cooper twice competed against a lone competitor — Rebecca Richnofsky — in the women's raw 198+ open category in 2019, winning both times. 

In the 2019 USPA National Championships, Cooper finished in fourth out of four competitors in that category.

Fox News' Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

President Joe Biden faced mounting criticism Monday for his decision to issue a sweeping pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, with detractors not only citing the breadth of the pardon itself but also the degree to which it breaks with the president's history of extolling the virtues of the judiciary as a bulwark against executive abuses of power.

In fact, Biden took aim at these very abuses during a speech in July, in which he warned of a "dangerous precedent" created by the Supreme Court's decision that expanded the view of presidential immunity. 

"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said in July. "No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."

Biden's remarks were a response to the Supreme Court's July 1 ruling that expanded the view of presidential immunity, and which he criticized as fundamentally changing the separation of powers.

"With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed," Biden said in July.

"For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," he added.

PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR: HOUSE REPUBLICANS' SMALL MAJORITY COULD MAKE ATTENDANCE A PRIORITY 

In their decision, justices writing for the 4-3 Supreme Court majority said that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from any actions taken within the scope of "core constitutional powers" of the office. 

A presumption of immunity also applies to other actions taken while holding office, they said.

Biden strenuously objected to that ruling, citing deep concerns over the risks of unchecked power in the executive branch — and the erosion of what he described as necessary parameters for a sitting president. 

The presidency, Biden said then, "is the most powerful office in the world. It’s an office that not only tests your judgment. But perhaps even more importantly, it’s an office that can test your character."

"You not only face moments where you need the courage to exercise the full power of the presidency," Biden said in his speech. "You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency."

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Six months later, Biden is facing sharp criticism from some lawmakers and legal analysts for his decision to pardon Hunter, an about-face from his earlier promises, and a sweeping protection that covers any federal crimes Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. 

In announcing the pardon, Biden criticized the unfair investigation and prosecution of his son, a process he said was "infected" by politics and led to a "miscarriage of justice."

"No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong," the president said in a statement Sunday.

But some critics also cited fears that Biden's pardon could further erode the public's view of the Justice Department — giving credence to Trump's frequent complaints that the Department of Justice is a political apparatus capable of being "weaponized," rather than a department that strives to act independently and largely without political influence. 

Biden is "essentially endorsing Trump's long-held opinion that the Department of Justice is politicized and isn't acting impartially," longtime Republican strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News Digital of the pardon.

 Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

The number of abortions in the U.S. only slightly dropped in 2022, the year the Supreme Court overturned Roe. v. Wade, returning the power to make laws on abortion access back to the states.

Abortions declined by just 2% in 2022 compared to 2021, according to new surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The abortion rate also dipped by 3% and the abortion ratio decreased by 2%.

The total dropped from about 622,000 abortions in 2021 to 609,000 in 2022, the data revealed.

PRO-LIFE GROUPS CAUTIOUS ON RFK JR. NOMINATION AFTER EVOLVING ABORTION VIEWS

This, as Republican-led states have enacted abortion bans with some exceptions such as medical emergencies after the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling.

Most of the abortions were reported before nine weeks of pregnancy and more than 70% were early medication abortions, which was similar to the numbers from before Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the data.

More than 6% of abortions happened between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy while about 1% were done either at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy, the CDC said in its report.

Women in their 20s made up more than half of abortions, the CDC said.

WYOMING JUDGE STRIKES DOWN STATE ABORTION LAWS, RULING THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The report also said that nearly 60% of the women who had abortions had also given birth before, the data revealed.

The CDC data includes numbers from 47 areas of the U.S. that have published data from 2013 until 2022.