Advisory Opinions Must and May
15 snips
Jan 15, 2026 A deep dive into significant Supreme Court arguments reveals a likely upholding of transgender athlete bans. Discussion includes the complexities surrounding Title IX and the challenges plaintiffs face defining 'woman.' Key rulings are unpacked, such as warrantless police entry and the stacking of charges. Controversial issues like candidate standing in ballot rules are explored, alongside ethical concerns over a legal professional's conduct. The debate on whether judges should carry firearms adds an intriguing twist, alongside insights into Trump’s search for legal counsel.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Biological Sex Shapes Sports Law
- The core legal tension is whether sex classifications for sports hinge on biological sex or gender identity.
- David French argues biological sex drives athletic segregation, making transgender inclusion legally complex.
Subclassing Undermines Equal Protection Fit
- Plaintiffs try to narrow the class to a subclass of biological males without competitive advantage.
- The Idaho Solicitor General warned that continual subclassing would make statutes impossible to fit under intermediate scrutiny.
May Versus Must Matters Legally
- Whether states may ban trans athletes is different from whether they must ban them under Title IX.
- French says 'must' questions (forcing states to allow participation) present stronger legal claims than the 'may' questions before the Court.