ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argues that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong in their decision to re-instate S.B. 1s ban on gender-affirming care in Tennessee, stating that they incorrectly applied rational basis review to this issue. Instead, he argues that intermediate scrutiny is necessary.Rational basis review is a type of judicial review to determine whether governments are acting in line with regulations. Intermediate scrutiny draws from a constitutional review to determine whether a legal action aligns with the United States Constitution in this case, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which regulates sex-based discrimination.In response to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Strangio also points out that these issues are inherently intertwined with advocacy for gay rights, drawing from bans on cross-dressing and trans people entering the military, both issues that affect gay individuals as well.Strangio further responded to Justice Brett Kavanaughs attempt to circle back to trans people in sports, making a brief point in favor of the way anti-discrimination measures could be used to argue for the inclusion of trans women athletes while still suggesting that is not the core of the current issue.This is just one update in a bigger story. Dont miss LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court hears arguments in challenge to gender-affirming care ban on LGBTQ Nation for more context and updates.