Morning Report

March 16, 2026 — Monday Morning Report

Mar 16, 2026

0302 AM SCOTUS TT·0302 March SCOTUS News Update daily AM YT

A federal appeals court judge wrote a dissent about transgender rights using language so offensive that his own colleagues put a formal rebuke in the record.

A 9th Circuit case involving transgender rights produced more noteworthy collateral than it did legal precedent: a dissenting judge used coarse, offensive language about trans people, prompting formal criticism from his colleagues in the record. Bryan declined to quote it. The outcome itself wasn't a dramatic legal shift, but the institutional damage — a sitting federal judge lowering the register of legal discourse — was Bryan's focus. A dissent carries no precedential weight; its harm is to the credibility of the court itself.

Constitutional question: No major new constitutional holding.

Anderson v. Crouch · 22-1927

The Fourth Circuit said West Virginia can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care — and the reasoning used language about forcing people to "appreciate their sex" that went somewhere Skrmetti never went.

The 4th Circuit reversed a lower court decision, allowing West Virginia to exclude gender-affirming care from Medicaid coverage. The court cited Skrmetti (the SCOTUS 2025 ruling that allowed restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, finding they discriminated by age and diagnosis rather than transgender status, subject only to rational basis review). But Bryan flagged that the 4th Circuit expanded beyond Skrmetti's narrow holding: it stated that "bans based on transgender status may still have rational basis" — which is not what Skrmetti said — and justified the restriction partly on the basis that states may "force people to appreciate their sex." Bryan: "That is not your typical legal reasoning. It sounds a little less black robe and a little more red robe." He expected this decision would face further review; said it surprised him from the 4th Circuit and he'd expect this from the 5th.

Constitutional question: Whether Skrmetti's narrow holding (minors, specific procedures, rational basis based on age/diagnosis) can be extended to justify adult Medicaid coverage exclusions on broader gender-category grounds — and whether "appreciating one's sex" constitutes a rational government interest under equal protection.

Federal Reserve Board v. United States · 26-mc-00012

A federal judge quashed subpoenas targeting the Federal Reserve Chair, found they were a harassment campaign, and then unsealed everything the U.S. attorney didn't want made public.

A U.S. attorney's office served subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board as part of what the Board characterized as a poorly disguised attempt to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell into resigning. Powell had publicly refused to lower interest rates on presidential demand. The Board filed a motion to quash, which Judge Boasberg granted. Boasberg cited 100+ statements by the president and his deputies attacking Powell (including calling him "dumb," "too stupid to be Fed chair," and "a total loser"), a meeting where the president berated U.S. attorneys for not moving faster against political opponents (the day before the subpoenas were served), and a direct presidential threat that if Powell didn't change Fed rates "I may have to force him." The judge found the subpoenas were a fishing expedition used for harassment — expressly prohibited use of grand jury subpoenas. As a final move, the judge also granted the Fed's request to unseal all filings the U.S. attorney had tried to keep private. Bryan: "This one burned my hands."

Grand jury subpoena scope (prohibition on harassment

Constitutional question: Whether prosecutorial resources may be directed at a sitting independent agency chairman at presidential direction — and whether the Federal Reserve's institutional independence (the Trump v. Cook question, pending at SCOTUS) extends to protection from grand jury subpoenas issued under political pressure.

Rise Economy v. Vought · 25-cv-10481

Russell Vought was put in charge of the CFPB, told the Federal Reserve Board the agency needed zero dollars, and a court reminded him that his job is to run the CFPB — not dismantle it by starving it.

Russell Vought (Heritage Foundation founder, OMB director under Trump) was named acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. His first act: tell the Federal Reserve Board that the CFPB's funding request was $0. A series of lawsuits followed, arguing Vought was violating his statutory duty to operate the agency. Vought kept losing, and tried a new approach: when the Fed's income dropped below the 6.5% threshold that triggers the CFPB's supplemental funding mechanism, Vought claimed he was no longer legally "allowed" to request money. The court's response: your statutory duty is to operate the CFPB. You can't use a funding technicality to accomplish what courts have already said you can't do directly. And even if the technicality argument was viable, you'd need to go back and fix the months you spent not asking — not just start complying today while the court is watching.

Constitutional question: Whether a presidentially-appointed acting director of a congressionally-created agency can functionally dissolve it through inaction — refusing to perform a congressionally mandated function rather than seeking removal. *Seila Law* already resolved the removal question; the remaining constitutional issue is statutory abdication: whether Congress's mandate to operate the CFPB can be defeated by an officer who simply refuses to ask for the money Congress said he must request.

← March 13, 2026 — Aloha Friday the 13th March 17, 2026 — Tuesday Morning Report (Boston Brian Day) →