Justice Elena Kagan

I mean, the prohibited purpose here is treating gender dysphoria, which is to say that the prohibited purpose is something about whether or not one is identifying with one's own sex or another sex. The whole thing is imbued with sex. I mean, it's based on sex.

I mean, the prohibited purpose here is treating gender dysphoria, which is to say that the prohibited purpose is something about whether or not one is identifying with one's own sex or another sex. The whole thing is imbued with sex. I mean, it's based on sex.

On the other side of the balance, the restriction that I mentioned was imposed by the British government some months ago. It was reaffirmed.

On the other side of the balance, the restriction that I mentioned was imposed by the British government some months ago. It was reaffirmed.

Let me ask a question about another issue that came up during Justice Kagan's questioning.

Let me ask a question about another issue that came up during Justice Kagan's questioning.

So, you know, let's say that we're an individual person even, let's say it wasn't a class, and goes up and gets a ruling from the Second Circuit that the EO is illegal. Does the government commit to not applying its EO in the entire Second Circuit?

So, you know, let's say that we're an individual person even, let's say it wasn't a class, and goes up and gets a ruling from the Second Circuit that the EO is illegal. Does the government commit to not applying its EO in the entire Second Circuit?

Yes, that is generally your practice.

Yes, that is generally your practice.

I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?

I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?

The real brunt of my question is in a case like this, the government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court because it's not really losing anything. It's losing a lot of individual cases which still allow it to enforce its CEO against the vast majority of people to whom it applies.

The real brunt of my question is in a case like this, the government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court because it's not really losing anything. It's losing a lot of individual cases which still allow it to enforce its CEO against the vast majority of people to whom it applies.