Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that sought to overturn a ban on gender affirming care for minors in Tennessee. Of course you can't always tell how things are going to turn out by listening to the arguments but you can sometimes get a hint of what each justice is thinking. So here are some of the highlights (or lowlights depending how you look at it).

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar Argues the Ban is Sex Discrimination

First up and setting the tone for the opponents of the ban was Prelogar.

She argues that the law is a fundamental example of sex discrimination because it treats the sexes unequally.

She calls it a “facial sex classification.”

ACLU Lawyer Chase Strangio Also Argues the Ban is About Sex and Therefore Unconstitutional

It's a somewhat convoluted argument.

Strangio explains it like this: A birth-sex male who hits puberty too early can receive puberty blockers in order to later develop like other boys. A birth-sex female may also want to to receive puberty blockers in order to undergo puberty as a typical boy. So it is the same purpose, Strangio says, and what makes the treatment prohibited for the latter person is sex.

Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice Argues Lawmakers Not Judges Should Decide

Arguing in defense of the ban, Rice says the issue here is the medical purpose of treatment not the sex of the person receiving it.

“These interventions carry often irreversible and life-altering consequences, and the systematic reviews conducted by European health authorities have found no established benefits,” Rice said. “Politically accountable lawmakers, not judges, are in the best position to assess this evolving medical issue.”

Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests the Case is About Age, Not Sex

Questions are in order of seniority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, as the longest-serving jurist on the court, has the privilege of asking the first question, and does. He wants to know why the court should think of the Tennessee ban as a sex-related case when it applies only to minors. He asks: Isn’t that an age classification?

Chief Justice John Roberts Questions Whether Judges Should Be Making Decisions About Medical Claims

The left was counting on Roberts as a possible swing vote but it sounds like he's not eager to create Roe 2.0.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a closely watched vote in the transgender medicine case, suggested that the court should leave questions of “medical nuances” to the states, a troubling sign for the minors challenging Tennessee’s ban.

Roberts posed a series of questions for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar focused on how the questions raised by Tennessee case were different from other cases concerning sex-based policies.

Those previous cases, he said, weren’t “intensely affected by medical considerations.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh Asks If the Same Arguments Would Apply to Trans Girls Competing in Sports

This issue isn't before the court today but he's wondering how far this argument will go if adopted.

Justice Kavanaugh asks about trans athletes in women’s and girls’ sports, which has become a major national cultural issue in recent years. Could laws that ban transgender girls and women from competing on female teams be constitutional? Prelogar says that situation is different from gender-transition medical treatment, because sports affect other people.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is Trying to Help the Opponents of the Ban

Not surprising, but all of the liberal justices appear to have made up their minds.

“Some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don’t they?” Sotomayor asked. “Some attempt suicide,” she said, adding, “Drug addiction is very high among some of these children because of their distress, correct?”

Justice Elena Kagan Sides with the Government

Again, no surprises on the left side of the aisle.

Kagan seemed to embrace the government argument that Tennessee’s ban is a violation of the equal-protection clause if it is reviewed under the heightened standard reserved for laws that might discriminate based on sex.

Kagan pointed to the government’s argument that Tennessee’s law bans the use of hormones and other treatments for gender transition in minors but specifically allows them for the treatment of minors in other circumstances.

Justice Samuel Alito Says Proponents of Gender Affirming Care Can't Back Up Their Claims

It's almost routine for activists to claim gender affirming care saves lives, but does it?

Justice Alito says it is “a bit distressing” that opponents of the Tennessee ban keep making “categorical statements” about medical questions, both in oral arguments and briefs, that, he says, “seem to me to be hotly disputed.” He questions, for example, whether it is clearly established that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide for trans youth.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Plays the Race Card

Justice Jackson compared the gender affirming care ban to limits on interracial marriage.

“I mean, these laws, the law here operates in the same way,” Jackson said of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care. “The question of can you marry this other person depended upon what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. … If you couldn’t, I take your law to be doing basically the same thing.”

Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice replied, "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."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Parental Rights

There has been an argument circulating against the ban from the right and it involves parental rights.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the issue of parental rights, a question that isn’t directly at issue in the Skrmetti case but that has been playing out in briefs and causing an interesting debate among conservatives.

Some Republicans are siding with the Biden administration and opposing Tennessee’s transgender law because, they say, it conflicts with a long-held conservative notion of parental rights. When transgender minors in Tennessee seek treatment, they are making those medical decisions alongside their parents.

Justice Neil Gorsuch Stays Mum

One of the things we're usually looking for when trying to read the oral argument tea leaves are any signs that one of the justices is resonating with arguments from the other side of the aisle. In today's arguments, Justice Gorsuch has declined to ask any questions which seems a bit ominous.

Justice Gorsuch, the conservative author of the Supreme Court’s previous opinion supporting trans rights, has for a second time declined to ask any questions. He is keeping his thinking on this new trans rights case very close to the vest today.

Conclusions: 

Media outlets seem to be in agreement that the conservative majority is hesitant to overrule the Tennessee ban.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed deep skepticism Wednesday about a challenge to a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, with several key justices repeatedly questioning whether the thorny issues should be left to elected lawmakers to decide.

The liberals are in lockstep but it probably won't matter.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said leaving the question to the states was an alarming abdication of responsibility. “I’m suddenly quite worried,” she said, adding that courts must assess the constitutionality of laws challenged on equal protections...

Assessing the court’s ultimate direction was complicated by the silence of the author of the employment discrimination case, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. But it seemed probable that there were at least five votes for rejecting the equal protection challenge to the law.

Will Gorsuch really side with the liberals on this one? He is the author of the previous case on discrimination against trans people so it's not impossible. Given his silence, we'll have to wait and see where he lands.