This episode revisits the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock decision and examines how the Court's recent retreat from Bostock in United States v. Skrmetti sets up a constitutional showdown over transgender rights in school sports.

We analyze the methodical legal reasoning behind Bostock's landmark ruling that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees, then explore how each faction of justices treated Bostock differently in Skrmetti's constitutional challenge to Tennessee's transgender healthcare ban.

The episode concludes by examining how both sides strategically deployed Bostock and anticipated Skrmetti's outcome in their cert petitions for the upcoming transgender sports cases, revealing fundamental disagreements about statutory interpretation, constitutional methodology, and the scope of civil rights protections.

Cases Covered:

• Bostock v. Clayton County | Case No. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107 | Opinion: Here
• United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Opinion: Here
• State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-735 | Docket Link: Here
• Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here
• West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here

Episodes Referenced:

• August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins | Link: Here
• July 7th Roundup: New Certs: Transgender Rights in Schools and Religious Liberties | Link: Here
• Opinion Summary: United States v. Skrmetti | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23-477 | Link: Here
• Oral Argument: United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Date Argued: 12/4/24 | Link: Here

This episode catches up on recent Supreme Court developments in the regular and emergency dockets.

• We examine how the Court may be preparing to reshape voting rights law through Louisiana v. Callais, then dive into the contentious emergency docket battle in Trump v. Doyle over presidential firing power and agency independence.
• The second half features an in-depth analysis of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), exploring how a seemingly narrow Miranda ruling about re-invoking counsel rights later became a foundation for broader limitations on constitutional protections, while showcasing the fractured judicial philosophies of Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas on court-made constitutional rules.

Case Covered:

1. Trump v. Boyle | Case No. 25A11 | Docket Link: Here
2. Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Docket Link: Here | Supplemental Briefing Order: Here (Consolidated with Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Docket Link: Here)
3. Maryland v. Shatzer | Case No. No. 08-680 | Opinion: Here
4. Vega v. Tekoh | Case No. 21–499 | Opinion: Here

Episodes Referenced:

Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966 | Episode Link: Here

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Introduction

[00:01:58] Regular Docket Update: Louisiana v. Callais

[00:03:09] Emergency Docket Drama: Trump v. Boyle

[00:07:24] Deep Dive: Maryland v. Shatzer Analysis

[00:08:20] Shatzer's Case Details and Supreme Court Ruling

[00:19:42] Implications and Evolution of Miranda Rights

[00:21:42] Conclusion

This episode examines a July 14th Supreme Court emergency docket ruling that reveals fundamental tensions about executive power over federal agency firings at the Education Department and the limits of congressional authority.

This episode also compares and contrasts this case (McMahon v. New York) with OPM v. AFGE, a government workforce reduction case discussed in our July 9th episode. In both cases, the government raised virtually identical arguments about standing, jurisdiction and the merits. In both cases, SCOTUS permitted the reductions to take effect while litigation played out.

Case Covered:

McMahon v. New York | Case No. 24A1203 | Docked Link: Here

Bottom Line: SCOTUS allows Trump Administration to proceed with eliminating over half the Department of Education's workforce while legal challenges continue, despite lower courts finding likely constitutional violations.