Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 18, 2025 - The Michael Knowles Show

08:08

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Trans Ban For Minors

The US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on transing the kids, Michael Knowles reacts. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Marvelous, excellent breaking news.
	The Supreme Court has sided with my own Attorney General here in Tennessee, Jonathan Scrimetti.
	In U.S. versus Scrimetti, this is the biggest case pertaining to transgenderism and specifically transing the kids that we have in the U.S. And the Supreme Court has just dealt a major 6-3 blow to the pro-trans ideology side and has defended.
	Kids and justice and human nature and reality.
	And this is a really, really good decision.
	And it's a harbinger, I think, of things to come, of good things to come.
	So at issue in the case was this Tennessee law which said that you can't trans the kids.
	And this was a law that, you know, we at The Daily Wire have been really interested in.
	And this is an issue, obviously, that we've been really interested in.
	Matt, obviously, had his movie, What is a Woman, became a global phenomenon.
	I gave a speech that went a little bit viral at CPAC.
	Pointing out that transgenderism is absurd and it's bad for everyone and it's good for no one and for that reason it needs to be eradicated from public life entirely.
	DW has made movies and chocolate companies about this issue.
	We've really, we've cared about this issue a lot because one, it presents a grave injustice toward human beings and especially to kids, but two, because it's just a symbol of all that has gone wrong in liberalism.
	And so to rewind some of the degradation of the past 50, a hundred years, you really, you need to start pulling on that string.
	And for all of those reasons in many, Transing the kids clinics closed.
	Go out there and, you know, convince people of an idea that we used to know for all of history, but now we've got real legal heft behind it.
	What is in this case?
	So, at issue, you had three trans plaintiffs, or the parents of trans kids, saying that they wanted to keep transing their kids.
	And the Tennessee law said, no, you can't.
	So it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
	Is transgenderism protected by the Equal Protection Clause?
	Does the logic of the Bostock decision, which the Supreme Court, even with ostensible conservative Neil Gorsuch, said identifies gender Does all of that imply?
	Does accepting the trans ideology in principle imply?
	That you have to have a right to trans the kids.
	And the Supreme Court said no.
	And the decision's really good.
	So Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision.
	I'm just skimming it here.
	Obviously, it's much longer and this news just broke.
	But Roberts says no.
	Writing for the court, 6-3, the Tennessee law can be upheld.
	Thomas, great good old conservative Clarence Thomas comes in.
	He says, yeah, look, I agree with the court.
	The law obviously should be upheld.
	But I do not agree with the court.
	That we should ignore the Bostock decision.
	He said, I think the Bostock decision, which holds that transgenderism is a protected class and right under civil rights law, Title VII, I think that case fails on its own merit.
	So I still disagree with that case.
	I still think that case should be overturned.
	But regardless, that doesn't affect this case.
	Obviously, we should allow states to prohibit transing the kids if they want.
	Justice Alito, another strong, good, hardcore conservative comes in, and he similarly He disagrees.
	And he says, you know, look, I disagree a little bit with the court's decision because the court is holding that the Tennessee law does not discriminate on the basis of transgender identity.
	And Alito says, yeah, well, I actually think it kind of does, but I just don't think that transgender.
	So he says, look, I disagree with the court a little bit.
	Yeah, the law does kind of, in a sense, discriminate against transgenderism.
	I just think that's a ridiculous framework, meaning there are greater implications for the law, and maybe we need to overturn some other court decisions too.
	But in any case, really good stuff.
	Totally what you would expect of those guys.
	Great news that the other conservative justices have gone along with this.
	There's one last bit I want to read to you from the opinion of the court.
	This is from Roberts' opinion.
	The majority of opinion.
	Hold on.
	He just keeps writing and writing and writing.
	Where is it?
	It's here.
	I guess it's all the way at the end of the opinion.
	Yes, here we are.
	Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this era.
	And it goes on to explain how Tennessee is enacting this law and throwing itself into a heated scientific dispute.
	And so the court is not going to weigh in on that scientific dispute.
	That is not the competency of the court, exactly.
	The court, in the heat of that scientific and medical dispute, is going to put that decision back where it belongs in the hands of the people, and in this case, in the hands of the states.
	Great decision.
	Major win.
	I think a lot of us, certainly in this building, but throughout the entire conservative movement are glad to see this.
	It's a reminder that I think the fever might have broken and reality and sanity are being restored.
	We're not going to make a national policy and a constitutional right of making eunuchs out of little kids.
	What an evil country would do that.
	We're not there yet.
	Thank God we're not there yet.
	Then the question becomes, if there is some kind of civil right to transgenderism, As Bostock holds.
	But states are allowed to not trans the kids as U.S. versus Scrimetti holds.
	How do those two decisions go together?
	This is what we look forward to now.
	Something's got to give.
	Those two decisions don't make sense together.
	Either transgenderism is real or it's not.
	This was the point of my CPAC speech.
	Either a man can become a woman or he can't.
	If a man can become a woman, or if a man can be born in the wrong body or whatever, then you should trans everyone, including the kids, if they want to be trans.
	Because you're making a claim about human nature that implies, taken to its logical conclusion, implies you have to trans the kids.
	But if it's wrong to trans the kids, the only reason it would be wrong to trans the kids is because that claim you're making about human nature and the trans ideology isn't true.
	If it's not true for kids, why would it be true for adults?
	In that case, it's not that a man can be born in the wrong body or that he can change his sex or something.
	We would just go back to the traditional understanding of these issues, which is that sometimes people get a little confused, and sometimes people suffer from mental illnesses.
	And we need to treat those illnesses rather than affirm delusions, which is not good for anyone.
	And in this broader opinion, I forget exactly which justice brought it up.
	It might've been Thomas brings up the Cass Review in the UK, which says, wow, man, these trans...
	They don't work to do what they say they're going to do, but they also just don't even help alleviate anxiety or depression or suicidality.
	So, yikes, maybe this whole ideology is on its way out.
	Maybe this is the beginning, the first major Supreme Court decision to say, okay, we've made some errors in recent years.
	Maybe in the future we're going to reconsider these errors, and maybe we'll end up where we should, which is that transgenderism should be eradicated.
	From public life.
	Entirely.
	The whole preposterous ideology beginning to end.
	Okay.
	Good news.

▲