Oh, So This Dem Rep Was Likely Looking for This Confrontation in the...
Democrats Really Don’t Have Any Idea What a Man Is
'Emergency!' Actor Randolph Mantooth Has Died, but His Career Helped Save Countless Lives
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 328: Biblical Principles in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural
It Is So Plain What Is Wrong With America Today
Choose Life
Time to Hold 'Nonprofit' Hospitals Accountable to the Taxpayers Who Fund Them
Personal Safety When You Take That Wrong Turn
Is There a 'Spectre' Haunting America?
Equal Protection Wasn't Supposed to Be Negotiable
Chicago Man Gets Four Years for $2 Million COVID Loan Fraud Scheme
Iran Closes Strait of Hormuz, Fires on Commercial Ship
Carbondale Store Owner Gets 46 Months for SNAP Fraud, Money Laundering Scheme
Permanent Residency, Permanent Grift: Dominican National Admits ID Theft Scheme
Former Epoch Times CFO Pleads Guilty to Laundering $67 Million
Tipsheet

ACLU Lawyer Stumped When Justice Alito Asks for the Definition of Man and Woman

ACLU Lawyer Stumped When Justice Alito Asks for the Definition of Man and Woman
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appeared to corner an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer during oral arguments, when he asked her to define what it means “to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman.” The lawyer was unable to provide an answer for the court, and yet her entire argument hinged on the idea that states were violating Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, a term the ACLU contends includes gender identity.

Advertisement

"Is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?" Justice Alito asked.

"Yes, your honor," Kathleen Hartnett, the lawyer from the ACLU, replied.

"And what is that definition, for equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?" Alito asked.

"Sorry, I misunderstood your question," Hartnett said. "I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law... We'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court."

"And we don't take issue with the... We're not disputing the definition here. What we are saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams, and that there is a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest," she added.

"Well, how can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means, for equal protection purposes?" Alito asked.

Advertisement

"I think here, we just know, we basically know that they have identified, pursuant to their own statute, that Lindsey qualifies as a birth sex male. And she is being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute...So we are taking the statutes' definitions as we find them, we don't dispute them, we just..."

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement