As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of the issue.

If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of ‘closely scrutiniz(ing) legislative choices’ in all these domains.

transgender people don’t deserve such protection

transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination

Legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied.

Even if a law does clearly and undeniably discriminate on the basis of transgender status, then it still wouldn’t trigger heightened scrutiny.

Did you just say you’re not going to listen to what a circuit court says?

We're here because of Planned Parenthood not being a qualified provider in South Carolina, but would this open the floodgates of people bringing lawsuits because they can't see the provider of their choice?

That seems pretty empty because it would be just kind of throwing a number out there for the sake of throwing a number.

tak[es] a tool away from EPA

she would have the exact same burden

She would have the exact same burden.

Petitioner turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results.

You concede that private acts don't get immunity?

Writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans…

History is consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.

History is consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.

Rendering the decision legislative also ensures that a decision to suspend emerges from a process that is relatively more representative of the people whose civil liberties are at stake.

Roe v. Wade clearly held that the constitution protected a woman`s right to terminate a pregnancy. Casey upheld that central holding and spelled out in greater detail the test that the court uses to consider the legality of abortion…

I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey.

I don’t think that abortion or the right to abortion is -- would change even...

It doesn`t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden.

It’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?

I’m wondering if in a defensive posture in state court, the constitutional defense can be fully aired.

Even apart from these procedural requirements that you're talking about, I'm wondering if, in a defensive posture in state court, the constitutional defense can be fully aired.