The Supreme Court spent last week hearing arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from providing transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors. It’s a logical law that protects against the mutilation of children, but of course, the left is upset that kids won’t be given what it euphemistically calls “gender affirming care.” Despite being a state-level case, the Biden administration has intervened, apparently deciding that this will be the battle that concludes its disastrous term. Josh Hammer, senior editor at large for Newsweek, joins Jill Savage and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News Tonight” to discuss the situation. “Does the Biden administration actually have grounds right now to intervene in a state policy like this?” Jill asks. Hammer explains that the Department of Justice filed what is called a writ of certiorari — a legal document that requires the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision, granted four SCOTUS judges agree to hear the case. “This case is styled U.S. vs. Skrmetti, which means that the United States is the lead plaintiff here,” Hammer says. “That actually has a very concrete, practical application when it comes to Donald Trump and JD Vance and Pam Bondi, assuming that she's going to be the AG pick come January 20.” “They can move to withdraw this case, and specifically, they should make a motion to ... dismiss it as ‘improvidently granted,’” meaning that SCOTUS should never have accepted the case for review in the first place, he adds. “There's no reason why the United States should be in the procedural posture of suing Tennessee for a common sensical, civilizationally sound law.” However, even if the Trump administration moves to “dig this case” and motion is denied, Hammer predicts the outcome will still be favorable. “I was pretty happy with the way this argument went,” he says. Peterson, who also watched the hearing, says that “the discrepancy between the two sides” was “astounding.” “On the one side, you have the ACLU lawyer claiming that less than 1% of minors who undergo this surgery have regrets, and then you have Tennessee and the attorney general saying, ‘No, no, actually 85% desists from transition,”’ he recounts. “You really do have two sides talking in completely different universes.” Hammer agrees: “What you saw at SCOTUS on Wednesday, I think, are two diametrically opposed conceptions of the human person. You saw two diametrically opposed conceptions of anthropology — of what it means to be human in the first place.” “On the one hand, you have the ACLU left-wing argument, which is that human life is basically a pick-your-own adventure. ... On the other hand, you have the old-fashioned view — the view of Genesis 1:27: ‘Male and female, God created them,”’ he adds. Because of the radically opposed viewpoints, “Neutrality here is just not an option.” “You actually have to put a thumb on the scale from both a political perspective and indeed from a judicial and a jurisprudential perspective here. At some point, you actually have to say that the moral heart of the issue in this particular case dictates that there is male and female and that we are not going to arbitrarily concoct some sort of pseudo classification based on alleged ‘transgender status,’” says Hammer. “I am hopeful that in the majority opinion, or at least in one of the concurrences there, that we will get some morally forthright language.” To hear more on the case, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likening transgender surgeries on minors to interracial marriage, watch the clip above. Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.