Jonathan Skrmetti (Harpeth Hills Church of Christ), attorney general for the state of Tennessee, is the defendant in what the national media argue is the biggest case of the term for the United States Supreme Court: United States v. Skrmetti.
In question is a 2023 Tennessee state law that prevents healthcare professionals from providing gender transition procedures to minors. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Biden administration brought suit against Tennessee for violating the 14th Amendment rights of three teens who seek gender transition procedures.
In this episode, Abilene Christian University professor (and practicing attorney) Dr. Kenneth Pybus asks Skrmetti to explain the "what," the "how," and the "why" of his defense of the Tennessee state law.
Skrmetti also talks about how practicing the law is a ministry, the best way (and not best way) to go about that ministry and how he uses his office to protect the rights of ordinary citizens (such as when he takes big companies to court for making products that harm their users).
Skrmetti shares how he came to become a member of the Church of Christ and why he still prioritizes taking his entire family to Wednesday night Bible class every week.
Link to Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) case referenced in the interview
Link to the Cass Review (2020) referenced in the interview
Find more news and stories at christianchronicle.org
Donate to support this ministry of "information and inspiration" at christianchronicle.org/donate
Send your comments, ideas, and suggestions to podcast@christianchronicle.org
Attend the 16th Annual Brotherhood of Men Conference this October 23 - 25 in Dallas, Texas. Click ewhiteministries.com to learn more and register.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Holly Linden (00:03):
Welcome to the Christian Chronicle Podcast.
We are bringing you the storyshaping Church of Christ
congregations and members aroundthe world.
Here's our host, BT Irwin.
BT Irwin (00:14):
Family and friends, neighbors and, most of all,
strangers.
Welcome to the ChristianChronicle Podcast.
May what you are about to hearbless you and honor God.
Chronicle podcast.
May what you are about to hearbless you and honor God.
On December 6, 2024, theChristian Chronicle's Bobby Ross
Jr posted a report with theheadline Transgender Rights
Debate Moves from the VotingBooth to the Supreme Court of
(00:37):
the United States.
The focus of Bobby's report wasa case that is now before the
Supreme Court United States vScrimeti, which the Associated
Press called quote the mosthigh-profile case of the Supreme
Court's term end quote andChristianity Today called quote
the first meaningfultransgender-issue case to reach
(00:58):
the highest court in our landend.
Quote.
In question is Tennessee SenateBill 1, passed in February 2023,
which prohibits health careproviders from performing
medical procedures for thepurpose of enabling a minor to
identify or live as an identityinconsistent with that minor's
sex.
Of the law, the American CivilLiberties Union and the US
(01:26):
Department of Justice, under theBiden administration,
represented three Tennesseeteenagers who brought suit
against the state of Tennessee,claiming that the law violates
their rights under the 14thAmendment of the US Constitution
.
This amendment protects UScitizens from discrimination on
the basis of sex.
Side note, in the interviewthat follows, you'll hear
references to Bostock.
That was a Supreme Court casedecided in 2020, in which the
(01:49):
court found that discriminationon the basis of gender identity
or sex is unlawful under TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act.
So the plaintiffs claim thatthe state of Tennessee is
violating the 14th Amendmentrights of the three teenagers
who seek medical procedures tochange their gender identities.
That brings us to the defendant, in this case the Attorney
(02:11):
General for the State ofTennessee.
He claims that Tennessee SenateBill 1 does not violate the
14th Amendment.
Further, he defends the statelaw on the grounds that it
protects and upholds the healthand well-being of children.
So why are we doing an episodeon this case?
Well, the Attorney General forthe state of Tennessee, the
Scermetti in United Statesversus Scermetti is Jonathan
(02:33):
Scermetti, who happens to be amember of Harpeth Hills Church
of Christ in Brentwood,tennessee.
We're lucky enough that we gothim to sit down to an interview
with the Christian Chronicle.
For this one, we brought in DrKenneth Pibus, who is chair of
the Department of Journalism andMass Communication at Abilene
Christian University in Abilene,texas.
He also happens to be alicensed and practicing attorney
(02:54):
, so he knows his way around thelegal system.
What follows is an interviewthat Dr Pibus recorded with
Jonathan Scrimetti back inDecember 2024.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (03:03):
I appreciate you taking time out on a Friday
afternoon and even putting a tieon for me.
I appreciate that.
Jonathan Skrmetti (03:11):
Unfortunately it's been on all day, but I'm
so excited to talk with you.
This is the one I've beenlooking forward to the most at
all these interviews.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (03:19):
I guess let's start off talking about the
interviews you have done, You'vebeen.
Have you done more interviewsin the last week and a half than
you have the entire two years?
Jonathan Skrmetti (03:31):
Maybe.
So it's been a lot.
I've been.
You know, the first two days Ithink I did 20.
So I came out of the court andwe had a quick sandwich and then
it was studio to studio tostudio.
We were driving all overWashington and just trying to
(03:52):
talk to people about the case.
And it's important because partof advocacy is making sure that
your side is heard and thatpeople understand the
motivations.
It's easy to caricatureTennessee's position here as
just bigoted or ignorant ormean-spirited, but there are
really good reasons for the lawof the state adopted.
And you know, I think part ofmy job is to explain to people,
(04:15):
especially people who don'tagree, what the reasons are for
it.
You know it's easy to just saythis is bad, we shouldn't do it,
and there are people who Ithink would prefer I just said
that.
But that's not going to winover any hearts of people who
hear from the medicalestablishment that there's a
consensus in favor of thesetreatments.
So we have to really get outand explain to them.
(04:36):
No like, if you actually lookat the evidence, the evidence is
different than where theconsensus is and the evidence is
driving all these veryprogressive European countries
to radically restrict theseprocedures that they had
originally thought were greatand should be widely available.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (04:52):
You know one of the things that I noticed.
I didn't watch all of theinterviews you've done, but I
saw Jake Tapper.
I saw Jake Tapper and Fox.
Maybe it wasn't Fox, Maybe itwas Megyn Kelly, but you're the
same, your demeanor and thethings that you said are the
(05:14):
same in both of those you know.
Tell me about how you decidewhat you're going to talk about.
Jonathan Skrmetti (05:23):
Well, I mean, I think consistency is
important and there's always thekind of urge you know I'm a
pretty conservative guy bynature and there's always the
urge when you're in a friendly,you know very gung-ho
environment to just go alongwith it.
But I think it looks awfullytwo-faced if you don't try to
maintain consistency and themessage is the same either way.
(05:46):
The message is we care aboutthese kids and you know it
doesn't mean that we're going todisparage them or write them
off or, you know, just say thelaw doesn't need to worry about
these people.
I mean, these are kids withreal problems and Tennessee's
law is a solution in part tothose problems.
(06:07):
It's protecting them from goingdown a path that the evidence
shows is bad for them.
And so, you know, part of my jobis to be an ambassador to
people who don't agree.
Part of my job is to be anambassador to people who do
agree and explain to them thatyou know, whatever your feelings
are viscerally about this, ifall you do is express a strong
(06:31):
opinion, and that's that, you'renot going to win arguments in
the long run.
You have to constantly bepersuading people, and that's
the essence of our Americansystem.
Right?
We're supposed to disagree.
We have to disagree.
That's how we get the bestresults, and if your
disagreement is just a matter ofsaying you're wrong and not
(06:52):
engaging further, you're notgoing to win in the long run.
So, for the sake of these kids,everybody who's worried about
this ought to be versed not justin the moral argument, but also
the scientific argument.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (07:04):
Be versed not just in the moral argument but
also the scientific argument,describe for me the experience
from last week.
You had not had you been to aSupreme Court argument before.
I was in the really cheap seatsas a very disinterested
observer, like 20 years ago andthat was the last time I was up
(07:33):
there, so you're sworn in and inthe hour before or the
immediately before the oralarguments, kind of tell me about
the kind of that moment.
How is that hitting you at thetime?
Jonathan Skrmetti (07:46):
Well, it was really neat.
I mean it's an interesting casebecause not only am I the
attorney general in charge ofdefending the state's position,
I'm also the named defendant inthe case and so I think the
chief justice giggled a littlebit when he swore me in.
Maybe I misread it, but it'skind of funny to be up there and
get sworn in when you're theguy the case is against.
And Steve Marshall, the Alabamaattorney general, was sitting
(08:09):
next to me.
He was up there sponsoring oneof his lawyers to be sworn in,
whitney Herman-Dorfer, who's agreat attorney in my office who
clerked for Kavanaugh, andalitoand Barrett at various stages.
She sponsored me so she was upat the council table and you
know it's kind of like a weddingthey tell you where to go,
(08:31):
where to stand, when to stand,when to sit.
You get up, you say I do, andyou know there's always somebody
directing you through it.
And the people at the court werewonderful and there were people
on both sides of the case beingsworn in.
You know there were.
You could just tell by lookingat some of the people which side
(08:51):
they were on.
But everybody was there gettingsworn into the same court in
the same ceremony and it wasreally neat.
It's something I'd alwayswanted to do and put off for a
while.
Did not envision that this washow it would work and then, as
soon as I was sworn in, Istepped up and sat down in the
fourth seat at the table and theargument got going.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (09:12):
Was there anything about it that was
surprising to you as it playedout?
Jonathan Skrmetti (09:20):
So I think the biggest surprise for me was
the court didn't get into theBostock questions that much and
I think everybody thought thatwould be a significant factor.
It may well be a significantfactor but it wasn't discussed a
lot at argument.
And of course that's the onecase where the court has looked
(09:42):
at gender identity issues.
It was in a very narrowstatutory context but it's the
Biden administration'sinterpretation of that case.
That means sexual orientationidentity.
Then it also should in thiscontext apply the 14th Amendment
.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (10:18):
Am I understanding that correctly?
Jonathan Skrmetti (10:20):
Correct.
That's the government'sposition here and you know we we
think the case doesn't supportthat reading, but one way or
another that's going to beresolved soon.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (10:30):
Yeah, so this has been called.
I read one.
Several news articles said themost the most significant case
of the US Supreme Court term,current term.
Would you, would you agree thatthat's the case, other than
having your name on it?
Jonathan Skrmetti (10:49):
It's really awkward because I mean, I think
it probably is the mostimportant case of the term.
There are so many cases outthere involving these gender
identity issues and the lowercourts really need guidance.
These are issues that matter alot to people on both sides.
There's a lot of like fiercecontention here.
You know people care a lotabout these issues and the lower
(11:12):
courts are splintered on them.
With respect to the juvenilemedical issues, we were the
first state to ever win.
Everybody else was sued andlost.
We filed an emergency stay ofthe trial court ruling against
us and that was the first winanybody ever picked up in one of
these cases.
Alabama has since secured one,and I think Missouri got one in
(11:36):
state court recently.
There are other states that aredoing it now, but the landscape
has shifted very quickly andthe cultural tide has shifted
very quickly, it would be.
It's really hard for somebodyfrom 10 years ago to understand
where we are now.
Things have just moved very far, very fast, and so the court
(11:57):
has an opportunity with thiscase to provide some guidance as
to what the law is Now.
I have very, very strongopinions about what the right
answer is, but I'm not on theSupreme Court.
So until we see what theopinion says, I'll just keep
praying.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (12:15):
I know technically and you can correct
me if I'm wrong.
I hope I'm not wrong because Ithink I've been published saying
this.
Technically the case is aboutwhether SB1 violates the 14th
Amendment by discriminatingbased on sex, that the court can
decide the case just bydeciding that and saying no, it
(12:36):
does not discriminate and socase dismissed.
Or yes, it does discriminate.
Back to the lower court fordetermination right.
Right, and there are all sortsof variations in exactly how
that happens, but those are thetwo sort of big paths in front
(12:56):
of the states are doing aboutwhether this is even settled
science, and so there's a lot ofthat discussion and I think so
(13:26):
it was interesting to me and youtell me if I'm wrong that while
that's the kind of the legalquestion, the question that was
really damning maybe for ACLUand for the federal government
was whether transitioningchildren actually solves the
(13:53):
problem of suicide, which iskind of the argument, right?
Jonathan Skrmetti (13:58):
Yeah, yeah, I thought that was the most
important part of the argument.
I mean separate and apart fromhow the case goes, you've seen a
lot of parents almost bulliedwith the question would you
rather have a live daughter or adead son, or would you rather
have a live son or a deaddaughter?
And the implication over therecent conversation is, if you
(14:20):
don't go along with thistransition wholeheartedly, your
child is going to kill himselfand that's horrible.
And you don't want to give kidsthe expectation because there's
a social contagion element tosuicide.
You don't want them to thinkthat that's what they're
supposed to do if they don't gettheir way.
So for the ACLU to admit thatthe research shows no difference
(14:40):
between kids who have receivedthese procedures and kids who
have not just totally redefinesthe conversation from my
perspective and provides somenecessary clarity, sucks some of
the really intense emotion outof it.
I mean it's still a verycontentious issue, still very
(15:03):
emotional issue for a lot ofpeople.
But when you're holding thatweight over a family's head it
radically impacts theirwillingness to continue to ask
questions, to push back.
You know it kills theconversation yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (15:21):
Do you think that the cast review was a, was
something of a turning point ora a pivot point in in that
discussion, that part of thediscussion?
Jonathan Skrmetti (15:32):
it was and you know it's.
The cast review is not somebolt part of the discussion.
It was, and you know the CASTreview is not some bolt out of
the blue.
I mean it's following in thefootsteps of previous systematic
analysis.
That's all pointing in the samedirection.
Now the CAST review is the mostcomprehensive to date and I
don't want to belittle it.
But there's a reason that theseprogressive countries in Europe
(15:53):
have all been restrictingprocedures.
Let me correct that.
All of the countries in Europethat have engaged in systematic
review have been increasinglyrestricting access to these
procedures because they see thatto the extent the research
shows any benefits and some ofit shows none.
Some of it shows weak evidenceof short-term benefits.
(16:15):
The adverse results are muchworse the risks of permanent
loss of fertility, permanentloss of the ability to enjoy
intimacy, blood clots and tumorsand cognitive development
issues and bone density issues.
There are just a host ofmedical complications, many of
(16:37):
which are irreversible, all forbasically no benefit.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (16:42):
You saw what the UK did yesterday and yeah,
yeah that was.
Jonathan Skrmetti (16:48):
that was fortuitous timing, I think,
because one of the argumentsthat the Biden administration
rolled out was well, they're notrestricting it as much as
Tennessee did.
And now in the UK, I mean,there is a narrow experimental
avenue for a very limited numberof kids to be experimented on,
(17:10):
explicitly experimented on butotherwise it's a flat ban across
the country for kids under 18.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (17:16):
Yeah, yeah.
One challenge for me in all ofthis is kind of the argument by
euphemism, and I know you havekind of had to deal with that.
I mean we do this in law and Imean we do this in law.
You do this in law all the timeusing precise words,
(17:55):
no-transcript.
How do you kind of handle that?
How do you?
Well, it's hard.
Jonathan Skrmetti (18:01):
It's hard.
I mean, you know we talk aboutwhat language to use.
You don't want to gratuitouslycontradict what's out there,
right?
You don't want it to sound likeyou're trying to come up with
some cute term just to stick itto the other side.
But their cute terms havepervaded the language and
(18:23):
because they've gotten thismedical consensus, the
literature is replete withgender-affirming care and
reference to these aslife-saving treatments.
And it's a really interestingdivorce between the consensus
and the evidence and we just tryto focus on the evidence.
(18:43):
And there are times when youjust get tripped up.
I mean when everybody's usingthe same language.
You have to be very cognizantand cautious about it.
But at the end of the day, thefacts are the facts and no
matter how they dress them up,the science continues to show
little to no benefit and hugerisks for kids.
(19:05):
And I think just the more I saythe word evidence, the better
I'm doing in my estimation.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (19:12):
Makes sense evidence, the better I'm doing
in my estimation Makes sense.
You, speaking of the majormedical associations, the
American Bar Association, I mean, not only are you up against
that, you know, you're upagainst, well, the federal
government, the ACLU.
Do you feel like a David versusGoliath?
Jonathan Skrmetti (19:39):
So my favorite argument from the other
side is when they talk abouthow transgender Americans lack
political power.
And I'm looking at the ABA andall the medical associations and
the President of the UnitedStates and the US Department of
Justice and Hollywood and allthe medical associations and the
president of the United Statesand the US Department of Justice
and Hollywood and like thebusiness establishment all
lining up on the other side, andit's really hard to take that
(20:01):
argument seriously.
You know, we had, I think, sixor seven lawyers on this case as
it worked its way through.
The other side had somethinglike 30.
And they had a big New Yorkfirm just donating them
resources.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal arevery well funded and the DOJ is
(20:22):
a huge operation that, I think,put a lot of resources into this
case.
So we were definitely thescrappy underdogs.
We'll see how the case turnsout.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (20:32):
Before I embrace the David versus Goliath
analogy, though, how would yourate how national media have
covered the case from yourperspective?
Jonathan Skrmetti (20:44):
I think it's been pretty good.
Actually, you know, there was alot of pre-suit coverage or
pre-argument coverage that Ithought was fairly biased, and
part of that was we were not outthere.
We made a conscious decision tolet the argument speak as our
kind of opening statement withrespect to the case at the
(21:09):
Supreme Court.
So I didn't do media beforehand, we just wanted everything to
be focused on the argument.
And then afterward there wassome hostility in some places
because there had been suchsympathetic coverage of the
other side.
You know they were veryaggressive in the media in terms
of making appearances.
There were a lot of storiesabout the affected children and
(21:32):
just structurally, when you canput a face on the issue and show
you know a kid who's saying I'mgoing to be really hurt if this
goes the other way, that's adifficult conversation to walk
into.
Now there are thedetransitioners who are speaking
publicly, who are very brave todo so, and they were out there
(21:53):
as well, but I don't know thatthey had as much reach.
And then you had, I don't know.
I remember walking into the CNNinterview with Jake Tapper,
which was intimidating.
I mean, I've been doing thisfor two years.
I don't have a ton of mediaexperience.
He has interviewed presidents.
He is a big, big deal in thatworld and he had had opposing
(22:16):
counsel on the day before andCNN had run some really
sympathetic stories about someof the children who were
claiming that if they didn'thave access to these procedures
it would basically be the worstthing that ever happened and
talking about all the bigotrythat was out there against them
and I was candidly, very nervous.
(22:38):
I thought it was a good chancethat I would be gutted like a
fish and he asked a really toughquestion but I had an answer.
And then he asked another toughquestion and I had an answer
and I thought it went prettywell.
I didn't think he was unfairbut I was definitely a little
nervous going in there.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (22:56):
Anything else on US Versus Scrimmetti that
you feel like we need to talkabout?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:02):
I mean.
The only other thing I'd say isI have gotten outreach from so
many people who are praying formy team, praying for me, praying
for the kids that are affected,and I really appreciate that.
It's great encouragement.
And you know, I just given whoreads your publication, I'd like
to make sure that I say thankyou, because I know a lot of
(23:25):
people have been prayingconsistently and you know we all
feel it.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (23:30):
So let's move kind of into your personal
background.
Tell me, I understand you grewup in Connecticut.
What town did you grow up in?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:41):
Mystic, Connecticut.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (23:42):
Mystic, connecticut.
Okay, so, yeah.
So tell me about that.
Sure, how did your family endup in Connecticut?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:51):
So my dad enlisted in the Navy when he got
out of high school and he gotshipped around a little bit,
ended up doing way better thananybody expected on his tests
and he was a nuclear reactor guyon submarines and there's a big
submarine base right up there.
So he was stationed there.
And then my mom grew up inMassachusetts and she got her
(24:12):
degree in education and waslooking for a job and they had
some elementary school teachingjobs.
So they met, fell in love, gotmarried and I was born a few
years after that.
My sister was eight yearsyounger than me and Mystic's a
sweet little small New Englandtown.
(24:33):
It's on the coast.
A lot of neat history there,not a lot of other stuff there.
It was a very quiet upbringingand I was Catholic as a child,
raised Catholic till about sixthgrade, and then there were some
problems in the church we weregoing to.
(24:53):
My dad grew up Catholic, my momgrew up Congregationalist and
so we started going to theCongregationalist church and you
know it was New England, sothere were some people that took
their faith really seriouslyand there were some people, just
like anywhere, who didn'tnecessarily.
(25:15):
You know, I don't want to bepejorative, but like there was a
broad spectrum of engagementwith the scripture.
And you know I was not the mostreligious child.
(25:37):
I mean I, you know I went tochurch but was not transformed
by it.
And I went to George Washingtonfor college.
That was a great experience andthey were very kind and sent me
to Oxford for a couple of years.
They had nominated me for aRhodes Scholarship.
(25:57):
I emphatically did not get one.
That was not a good interviewat all and they had this
consolation prize and it waswonderful.
So I got to go to England.
I had never been out of thecountry before, spent two years
there studying and, you know,getting some perspective, and it
was really great.
(26:18):
And then I went to law schooland I was very fortunate to get
to go to Harvard.
I really enjoyed my time there.
I was the editor in chief ofthe Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy, which is theleading conservative law journal
in the country, and that wasjust great.
That gave me a lot ofopportunity to interact with
some really really smart,influential people and really to
(26:43):
hone my understanding of thelaw and its place in American
society.
Then I clerked for a judge inIowa, judge Colleton, who was
terrific.
And then I went to work for theDepartment of Justice and I was
in the Civil Rights Divisiondoing criminal prosecution, and
that meant police misconduct,hate crimes and human
(27:03):
trafficking.
And the first case they sent meout on after a six-month boot
camp was to Memphis and it wasthese Memphis police officers
that were robbing drug dealersand then reselling the drugs
with their gang buddies, whichwas a that doesn't happen very
often, fortunately, and it was areally exciting case.
(27:24):
I had a great mentor, a localprosecutor who was fantastic.
He's the best trial lawyer I'veever known, steve Parker, and
he took me under wing.
And as we were working on thatcase, the first human
trafficking case in Tennesseecame up and since I was there, I
got to work on that as well,and that's really what started
(27:47):
me on the path to the Church ofChrist.
With the trafficking work therewas just some really horrible
stuff.
I mean just evil, evil thingsthat I learned about firsthand,
you know, talking to these womenwho had been horrifically
wounded, and it was a hugeweight on me.
(28:11):
I mean, I know I was likenothing compared to what they
carry, but just even knowingthat things like that happen and
hearing the details of it ispretty horrifying and it started
to weigh more and more on me.
I also had a case involvingthese white supremacists that
(28:31):
wanted to assassinate PresidentObama and at the sentencing for
one of those defendants therewere about 100 people there and
I said who are all these peopleat the sentencing and one of the
agents on the case said oh,that's the Church of Christ.
They're really weird.
And the defendant's grandfatherwas an elder in the church and
(28:55):
that was literally my firstintroduction to the Churches of
Christ.
Then I'd been a prosecutor forabout five and a half years,
back and forth to Memphis prettymuch all that time.
So I moved to Memphis.
I was tired of airplanes, I wastired of Washington, I was
ready to settle down and shortlyafter I moved, one of my fellow
(29:16):
prosecutors invited me to aSuper Bowl party with the Young
Professionals Group from theWhite Station Church of Christ.
They said you should come visitour church and I had been taken
by surprise at how great theywere and I'd been off and on
going to church but it hadn'treally clicked.
So I said OK, I'll come visit.
So I went to White Station thenext week and within about two
(29:40):
minutes of walking in thebuilding there was just this
physical sense of belonging andrightness and I knew that that's
where I was supposed to be.
And it was really weird.
I'd never had a feeling likethat before, where I was
supposed to be.
And it was really weird.
I had never had a feeling likethat before.
And you know, rodney Plunkettwas the preacher.
We went out to lunch and got totalking and you know, we talked
(30:03):
for about an hour and a half ata Mexican restaurant and I got
baptized that night.
This was about three weeksafter I visited the church.
And then Alicia, who's now mywife, had been on rotation for
physical therapy school so shewas out of town.
She came back about a monthafter that.
There's this new guy.
All her friends knew.
(30:23):
The church ladies were schemingreally hard to get the two of
us together and I needed all thehelp I could get, and so they
made sure that we had time to bearound each other and get to
know each other and we starteddating and got married about a
year and a half after that.
So I mean, this brief periodafter I moved to Memphis was
(30:48):
just life-defining in so manyways.
And then, you know, alicia andI had our first kiddo about a
year after we got married and Iwent into private practice for a
while in Memphis.
Yeah, so Sam was our firstborn.
He is 11 now.
He is.
I mean, I love my kids.
(31:09):
It's so amazing to have theselittle people that are just
learning about the world and youget to see them as they grow
and understand things and learnabout things.
It's such a blessing and itreally does, I think, illuminate
to some small degree therelationship between the Lord
(31:32):
and us.
You know it's a great insightinto the nature of love and how
much you can love someone elseand what it's like to see
something that you had a hand increating develop and blossom
and go on to do all theseincredible things.
(31:52):
So we have Sam and Sadie andLuke and Evelyn and you know
life revolves around family.
I mean my job is pretty busybut I'm able to travel with my
family some for some of thatwork and then I try to minimize
nights away otherwise and we'rea pretty tight family.
(32:14):
The kids, you know, play witheach other.
They play with their friends.
Alicia is homeschooling, so Samand Sadie go to a tutorial two
days a week and have greatfriends there.
But they're home a lot and youknow we talk a lot about things
that go on and work and life andyou know we're trying to give
(32:37):
them a firm spiritual foundation.
And they are little sponges.
I mean they soak up everythinggood and bad that they see.
So we try to do well and I meanI'm very fortunate to be
married to an extraordinarywoman.
Alicia is a great wife and agreat mom and with all the just
craziness of life these dayswith big cases and lots of work
(33:01):
and you know me being in thissuddenly pretty prominent
position.
She's just rolled with it andholds the family together and
makes sure you know that thekids are getting everything that
they need and it's prettyidyllic.
I feel very grateful.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (33:21):
Have you been in Churches of Christ long
enough to know any Church ofChrist jokes?
Jonathan Skrmetti (33:27):
I mean, yes, a few, a few.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (33:30):
Some of them are learned from Baptist friends
, but yeah, there's one relatedto my next question and it's at
the Pearly Gates at St Peter's.
You know, at the gates andthere's a big long line
everybody trying to get in andthere's a commotion up front and
(33:52):
everybody's looking around.
What's happening?
What's happening, and somebodycomes running back and says
Wednesdays don't count,wednesdays don't count.
So I grew up in a church ofChrist and the mindset was you
go every time the doors are open.
So Rubel Shelly's question forme to ask you is why does he go
(34:15):
on Wednesday nights?
Why do you go on Wednesdaynights?
Jonathan Skrmetti (34:20):
So there's two reasons.
The first is because I want mykids there Wednesday nights
because it's a great opportunityfor them to learn more and be
around friends more who are allmoving in the same right
direction, and I love theopportunities that the church
has for them.
As you're well aware, we have agreat children's ministry at
(34:41):
Harpeth Hills.
And the other reason is, youknow, I got kind of a late start
and I love the Bible teaching.
Now, because of my job, I don'tget there consistently on
Wednesday nights anymore.
When I worked for the governorand when I was the chief deputy,
I did a much better job of that, but these days it's a little
bit more hectic.
But to have Rubel or LeonardAllen or any of these other
(35:05):
really wise, really well-readpeople walking through Scripture
and explaining how differentpieces fit together, providing
context and just having anopportunity to better understand
what the Lord breathed out, isawesome.
It is.
(35:25):
I mean.
Every minute in a class withRubel is a blessing and I have
learned so much.
It's like being in grad school.
You get these brilliant,brilliant teachers who are very
serious and very rigorous andyou're alongside people you love
who are trying to understandalongside you, and it's great.
(35:45):
I mean, I really enjoy it and Iknow there's a whole parable
about it.
You don't have to feel bad forshowing up late, but I feel like
there's so much that I didn'thave a chance to learn that
other people have, and so Ireally value that opportunity.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (36:04):
What made you choose Harpeth Hills as you
moved to Nashville with your,with your wife?
What kind of drew you to that?
Jonathan Skrmetti (36:10):
I'll start by saying when we were going to
move, it came kind of out of theblue and I loved White Station.
It was a great church and I wasreally worried about finding a
church in Nashville and I saidthis to Rodney Plunkett and he
laughed and laughed and laughed.
He said you understand,nashville is kind of our Mecca.
Like you're going, you're goingto have a church, your problem
will be there are too manychurches of our Mecca.
(36:31):
Like you're going, you're goingto have a church, your problem
will be there are too manychurches.
And that was true.
I mean, we visited some greatchurches, had really good
relationships with people atdifferent churches.
But Alicia had some collegefriends from Harding University
at Harpeth Hills and that waswhat originally drew us there
and you know, for people she had, she took organic chemistry
(36:52):
with Charlie Walker andapparently you know when you go
through that you're bound forlife.
And Charlie had four kidsalmost identically matched up
with our kids.
So we got to know them reallywell and made friends with other
people at the church and therewere some connections between
Harpeth Hills and White Stationso we felt pretty familiar.
We'd be college roommates ofpeople that we knew and loved
(37:15):
and the preaching was great, theteaching was incredible and you
know we visited and then wevisited again and pretty soon we
were just going consistently.
And then we placed membershipabout two weeks before the
pandemic shut everything downfor a while.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (37:32):
You don't strike me as somebody who's like
a controversy hog, that youjust flock to controversy and
yet, from what I just my basiclooking, you've done pretty much
every hot button issue I knowof in the two years that you've
been AG, redefinition of sexunder Title IX, esg, tech
(37:56):
company, abusive data, socialmedia harms AI, child
exploitation, drag shows,abortion, nil.
Jonathan Skrmetti (38:14):
Taylor Swift.
The lingerie industry withAdore Me, I don't remember that
one, I don't.
Okay, was it an issue with,like, the Chinese supplier or
something?
Maybe?
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (38:24):
It was an issue with their.
Well, they were signing peopleup and you had to for this
lingerie and you had, and it washard to get off of there.
Jonathan Skrmetti (38:36):
Okay, yeah, I don't.
I don't remember that one, butI'm glad we're standing up for
the rights of consumers.
That's, that's probably not.
Yeah, I don't.
I don't think I was veryinvolved in that one, compared
to the others you mentioned.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (38:51):
Yeah, so, yeah.
So why do you think that is?
Jonathan Skrmetti (39:07):
And I don't think that's the case for every
state.
There are two reasons.
The first is I'm in a positionto fix things when there's a
problem, and it's my job to dothat when I can.
And there are a lot of problemsout there and you know, I would
prefer a bland and cheerfullife in Mr Rogers' neighborhood
(39:30):
where everything is great andnobody gets in fights.
But we have a whole legalsystem because people do
disagree about these things andmy job is to be one part of that
system, and the way you solveproblems is by litigating or
threatening to litigate.
The other thing is I'm not anelected AG.
I'm appointed, which means Idon't have to raise money and I
(39:52):
don't have to campaign, whichmeans I have a lot more time on
my hands, so I'm able to getmore involved in a lot of these
cases and keep pushing my folksto do it, because that's my only
job.
I'm not doing something elseand then trying to balance a
huge political operation withthe legal side.
(40:13):
We are just the legal side hereand I think that lets us do a
lot more.
I have an eight-year term and Idon't have to worry about
fundraising, and that just givesme the latitude to be as much
of an AG as I want to be, andthere are a lot of good things
we can do.
I mean the Ticketmastersituation.
It's not the case of thecentury, but that's an abusive
(40:35):
monopoly that's been in placefor decades and it was long
overdue for somebody to dosomething about it.
And Taylor Swift and the Aresticket debacle catalyzed it, and
we're obviously not the onlyones involved.
It's a big team effort, but itwas great to be able to say this
(40:56):
is nonsense, it's illegal, it'stime for it to stop.
And the same with the NCAA.
That organization has been anarbitrary bully for a long time
and the enforcement has not beenfair.
It has not been just, and whenthey targeted Tennessee, it was
extremely gratifying to be ableto put a stop to it, because
(41:17):
what they were doing was notright.
You know so and I will grantyou it was awesome to do both of
those, because there were a lotof people who don't care at all
about the law who are veryenthusiastic, and it's nice to
have people encourage you.
The NIL issue of the NCAA inparticular we went out for
(41:38):
Valentine's Day dinner to arestaurant and the person at the
podium asked my name and I saidJonathan Scarametti, and I got
a big go Vols from the boothnext to the door, which is
pretty neat.
But, you know, regardless ofall that ancillary stuff, it's
the right thing to do.
You know, we were vindicated bythe court and we were able to
(42:01):
stop the harm from happeningunjustly.
The social media stuff, which Ithink is, you know, alongside
the gender identity work,probably the most significant
work that we're doing that'saffected a whole generation of
American kids.
I mean literally a generation.
And if you look at thestatistics, mental health for
teenagers fell off a cliff andyou see all these increases in
(42:24):
negative psychological issuesdepression, anxiety, sleep
deprivation, suicidality, allthis horrible stuff, and a lot
of it can be directly traced tothe actions of a very few
companies who made designdecisions that hurt kids and
they knew that they did it.
We're in a position to make themstop and if we can do that and
(42:45):
we can protect the nextgeneration from the same harms,
that is thousands, hundreds ofthousands, millions of lives
made better through the law.
And, of course, the law doesn'tgovern everything.
I'm a big believer in being aslight a touch as you can be to
solve the problems, but thereare real problems and we're able
(43:07):
to do something about it, andit's an incredible feeling.
I mean, this is not where Ithought my life would end up at
all, and so every day I wake upgrateful and I want to make sure
that I'm doing everything I canto justify having this job.
There were other good peoplethat applied, I got it and I
need to prove every day that itwas the right decision.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (43:28):
I guess we didn't talk about the opioid,
opioid uh stuff that you didbefore.
Um, that was, that was when youwere assistant, uh ag yeah, uh,
chief deputy ag.
Jonathan Skrmetti (43:39):
So I was yeah , it's, it's the number two spot
in the office and I wasrecruited for that out of my
firm in memphis and thrown intoopioids and it was called by the
Washington Post and the NewYork Times and the Wall Street
Journal.
All of them agreed it was themost complicated civil
litigation in American historyand I was smack in the middle of
(44:01):
it.
We had a great team fromTennessee and we ended up
resolving it with these huge,huge, multi-billion dollar
settlements and in Tennessee,I'm glad to say, the large
majority of that money is goingtowards abatement efforts.
So medical interventions,criminal justice interventions,
mental health interventions,education things that are
(44:24):
actually going to make adifference and I'm really proud
of the work that we've been ableto do on that.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (44:29):
You're College Republicans, law school
Republicans, editor of the LawReview.
That leans conservativeFederalist Society.
But that doesn't mean that asan AG you're partisan in what
(44:54):
you have done.
I mean, much of what you'vedone is unrelated to kind of
political interests, right.
Jonathan Skrmetti (45:02):
It's one of my favorite parts of the job.
I mean, there are bigdifferences in opinion.
We're at a very polarized time.
But Phil Weiser, the ColoradoAG, he and I worked together on
a bunch of big tech issues,antitrust issues.
We get along.
Great.
Tish James in New York obviouslyan extremely outspoken, very
(45:24):
controversial liberal figure.
Ken Paxton in Texas veryoutspoken, controversial
conservative figure.
But all of us can come togetheron things like social media and
work together because it's theright thing to do, because we
all care about our kids and wewant to do right by them.
And it's those times when wecan do that and all move in the
(45:45):
same direction.
It's a great reminder that wedon't have to be fighting all
the time.
Or if we're fighting, it's agreat reminder that we don't
have to be fighting all the time.
Or if we're fighting, we're allfighting together on the same
side against someone else.
And it feels a littleold-fashioned sometimes to work
on the bipartisan cases, butit's very satisfying, and I mean
, of course, there are somethings that we do that are super
(46:06):
partisan.
We got injunctions against abunch of the Biden
administration.
You know regulatory overreachissues.
You know Title IX rule, theTitle VII guidance, the 1557
rule.
So it's an interesting worldwhere sometimes you're fighting
like cats and dogs.
But then we work with the DOJon some of these antitrust cases
(46:28):
.
I get along great with theBiden administration's head of
antitrust and there's a lot ofconstructive engagement there.
You know we just have toremember you figure out which
side is the right side and youfight for it.
And you know there's nopermanent bad guy out there.
There are companies that we'resuing, that we're also working
(46:49):
with on other fronts to solveother problems, and it's a
little bit humbling to recognizethat.
All of us have our flaws.
All of us end up somebody'svillain at one time or another.
But we're all the same.
We're all made in the image ofGod, we're all falling short of
the glory of God and we're alltrying to do our best.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (47:09):
One of the accusations, or one of the, I
guess, criticisms of your office, or at least the conservative
side, on this transgender debate, is well, tennessee is imposing
religious views, right, thatthis is a religious decision and
(47:32):
not a, you know, not a sciencedecision.
And you know, and I think theresponse would be well, no, it's
unproven science, right, andwe're protecting children.
On the other hand, I would hopeI know in my career that I'm
different because I'm aChristian, and I would hope that
(47:54):
our Christian worldview, myChristian worldview, affects how
I do what I do.
And so have you spent much timethinking about that?
And some people would say well,I just divorce it, but I don't
know that that's the right wayto do it.
How would you unpack that?
Jonathan Skrmetti (48:16):
So I think there are a lot of things I do
because I'm a Christian.
I'm still in public servicebecause I'm a Christian.
It would be really easy to gooff and make a lot of money
somewhere, but this is a way toserve and to glorify the Lord
through service and throughbeing a good attorney, and I
(48:36):
value that.
So there are a lot of decisionsI make that are, at heart,
moral decisions and that's whatinforms my decision making.
I know that if I'm trying topersuade someone who doesn't
agree with me, me saying this isa conviction of my faith is not
going to move them.
I have to be able to give themreasons to help them be more
(48:59):
open-minded and try to thinkabout it in ways that bring them
to my side issues we're lookingat, especially with the
Scrametti case and thetransgender kid transition
issues.
There are some people who thinkthat I'm being really squishy
for not just going out there andthundering.
(49:19):
This is wrong.
How can you not see it's wrong,but that's the perspective that
lost every federal case upuntil ours.
If you're going to persuade,you have to give people reasons
that they can latch on to, andyou know, paul gave us a great
example when he went to Athens,he walked into a den of
philosophers who didn't agreewith them and he talked to them
(49:42):
and he reasoned with them andthrough that he was able to win
over some hearts and minds andhe was able to bring some people
to Christ.
But he didn't do it by going inand saying you're wrong, I'm
right.
He talked to them about thereasons why they were wrong and
the reasons why they should opentheir minds and the reasons why
they were already connectedwith him and already you know,
(50:04):
worshiping this unnamed God.
And oh, let me explain to youwhat that really means.
And so when I read the Bible, Imean God gifted us with reason
and we're supposed to use it andto use that reason to glorify
him by talking to people whodon't have the same convictions
that I do.
You know it was people who weredoing that that softened my
(50:27):
heart, to win me over to getbaptized.
So you know, there could be amissional outcome to some of
this, but there's also a legaloutcome, and for the legal
outcome to be successful, youhave to work through it from a
more objective and neutralperspective and find things that
other people can latch onto,even if they don't agree, and I
(50:50):
mean that's just all there is toit.
Like in my house we talk a lotabout the Lord's role in this
litigation and we talk about theimportance of this from the
perspective of humans as createdbeings.
You know, it's a much differentperspective than you can bring
(51:11):
into a courtroom, because ifthat's what you're saying in the
courtroom, our legal system isbased on the shared perspective
of everybody and that in Americais diverse as it is these days.
That means there are a lot ofpeople with different flavors of
Christianity.
There are people who aren'tChristians, there are people who
aren't believers in anything,and the medical evidence is
(51:35):
something that everybody canlook at and everybody in an
objective posture can agreeabout.
So that's why I take thatapproach.
I will give you one quickanecdote before I go, and that
is when I joined the Churches ofChrist.
One quick anecdote before I go,and that is when I joined the
Churches of Christ.
My parents were very curious.
You know they're in New England.
There's very few church plantsup there.
(51:57):
They weren't familiar and itcame out that it was an a
cappella church and my dad wasshocked and he said they still
let you join.
So I make a joyful noise, butit's definitely that's one of
the reasons I stay humble.
BT Irwin (52:19):
Thank you to Jonathan Scrimetti, attorney General for
the State of Tennessee andmember of Harpeth Hills Church
of Christ, for giving thisinterview to the Christian
Chronicle, and thank you to DrKenneth Pibus of Abilene
Christian University for askingthe questions today.
You'll find lots of links inthe show notes if you want to
dig deeper into this case andthe circumstances that surround
it.
We hope that something youheard in this episode encouraged
, enlightened or enriched you insome way.
(52:40):
If it did, please pay itforward, subscribe to the
podcast and share it with afriend, recommend and review it
wherever you listen to yourfavorite podcasts.
Your subscription,recommendation and review help
us reach more people, and pleasesend your comments, ideas and
suggestions to podcast atchristianchronicleorg.
Don't forget our ministry toinform and inspire Christians
(53:01):
and congregations around theworld is a nonprofit ministry
that relies on your generosity.
So if you like the show and youwant to keep it going and make
it better, please make atax-deductible gift to the
Christian Chronicle atchristianchronicleorg.
Slash donate Until next time.
May grace and peace be yours inabundance.
Holly Linden (53:21):
The Christian Chronicle podcast is a
production of the ChristianChronicle Inc.
Informing and inspiring Churchof Christ congregations, members
and ministries around the worldsince 1943.
The Christian ChroniclesManaging Editor is Audrey
Jackson, editor-in-chief BobbyRoss Jr and President and CEO
(53:43):
Eric Trigestad.
The Christian Chronicle Podcastis written, directed, hosted
and edited by BT Irwin and isproduced by James Flanagan in
Detroit, michigan, usa.
Welcome to the Christian Chronicle Podcast.
We are bringing you the storyshaping Church of Christ
congregations and members aroundthe world.
Here's our host, BT Irwin.
BT Irwin (00:14):
Family and friends, neighbors and, most of all,
strangers.
Welcome to the ChristianChronicle Podcast.
May what you are about to hearbless you and honor God.
Chronicle podcast.
May what you are about to hearbless you and honor God.
On December 6, 2024, theChristian Chronicle's Bobby Ross
Jr posted a report with theheadline Transgender Rights
Debate Moves from the VotingBooth to the Supreme Court of
(00:37):
the United States.
The focus of Bobby's report wasa case that is now before the
Supreme Court United States vScrimeti, which the Associated
Press called quote the mosthigh-profile case of the Supreme
Court's term end quote andChristianity Today called quote
the first meaningfultransgender-issue case to reach
(00:58):
the highest court in our landend.
Quote.
In question is Tennessee SenateBill 1, passed in February 2023,
which prohibits health careproviders from performing
medical procedures for thepurpose of enabling a minor to
identify or live as an identityinconsistent with that minor's
sex.
Of the law, the American CivilLiberties Union and the US
(01:26):
Department of Justice, under theBiden administration,
represented three Tennesseeteenagers who brought suit
against the state of Tennessee,claiming that the law violates
their rights under the 14thAmendment of the US Constitution
.
This amendment protects UScitizens from discrimination on
the basis of sex.
Side note, in the interviewthat follows, you'll hear
references to Bostock.
That was a Supreme Court casedecided in 2020, in which the
(01:49):
court found that discriminationon the basis of gender identity
or sex is unlawful under TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act.
So the plaintiffs claim thatthe state of Tennessee is
violating the 14th Amendmentrights of the three teenagers
who seek medical procedures tochange their gender identities.
That brings us to the defendant, in this case the Attorney
(02:11):
General for the State ofTennessee.
He claims that Tennessee SenateBill 1 does not violate the
14th Amendment.
Further, he defends the statelaw on the grounds that it
protects and upholds the healthand well-being of children.
So why are we doing an episodeon this case?
Well, the Attorney General forthe state of Tennessee, the
Scermetti in United Statesversus Scermetti is Jonathan
(02:33):
Scermetti, who happens to be amember of Harpeth Hills Church
of Christ in Brentwood,tennessee.
We're lucky enough that we gothim to sit down to an interview
with the Christian Chronicle.
For this one, we brought in DrKenneth Pibus, who is chair of
the Department of Journalism andMass Communication at Abilene
Christian University in Abilene,texas.
He also happens to be alicensed and practicing attorney
(02:54):
, so he knows his way around thelegal system.
What follows is an interviewthat Dr Pibus recorded with
Jonathan Scrimetti back inDecember 2024.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (03:03):
I appreciate you taking time out on a Friday
afternoon and even putting a tieon for me.
I appreciate that.
Jonathan Skrmetti (03:11):
Unfortunately it's been on all day, but I'm
so excited to talk with you.
This is the one I've beenlooking forward to the most at
all these interviews.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (03:19):
I guess let's start off talking about the
interviews you have done, You'vebeen.
Have you done more interviewsin the last week and a half than
you have the entire two years?
Jonathan Skrmetti (03:31):
Maybe.
So it's been a lot.
I've been.
You know, the first two days Ithink I did 20.
So I came out of the court andwe had a quick sandwich and then
it was studio to studio tostudio.
We were driving all overWashington and just trying to
(03:52):
talk to people about the case.
And it's important because partof advocacy is making sure that
your side is heard and thatpeople understand the
motivations.
It's easy to caricatureTennessee's position here as
just bigoted or ignorant ormean-spirited, but there are
really good reasons for the lawof the state adopted.
And you know, I think part ofmy job is to explain to people,
(04:15):
especially people who don'tagree, what the reasons are for
it.
You know it's easy to just saythis is bad, we shouldn't do it,
and there are people who Ithink would prefer I just said
that.
But that's not going to winover any hearts of people who
hear from the medicalestablishment that there's a
consensus in favor of thesetreatments.
So we have to really get outand explain to them.
(04:36):
No like, if you actually lookat the evidence, the evidence is
different than where theconsensus is and the evidence is
driving all these veryprogressive European countries
to radically restrict theseprocedures that they had
originally thought were greatand should be widely available.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (04:52):
You know one of the things that I noticed.
I didn't watch all of theinterviews you've done, but I
saw Jake Tapper.
I saw Jake Tapper and Fox.
Maybe it wasn't Fox, Maybe itwas Megyn Kelly, but you're the
same, your demeanor and thethings that you said are the
(05:14):
same in both of those you know.
Tell me about how you decidewhat you're going to talk about.
Jonathan Skrmetti (05:23):
Well, I mean, I think consistency is
important and there's always thekind of urge you know I'm a
pretty conservative guy bynature and there's always the
urge when you're in a friendly,you know very gung-ho
environment to just go alongwith it.
But I think it looks awfullytwo-faced if you don't try to
maintain consistency and themessage is the same either way.
(05:46):
The message is we care aboutthese kids and you know it
doesn't mean that we're going todisparage them or write them
off or, you know, just say thelaw doesn't need to worry about
these people.
I mean, these are kids withreal problems and Tennessee's
law is a solution in part tothose problems.
(06:07):
It's protecting them from goingdown a path that the evidence
shows is bad for them.
And so, you know, part of my jobis to be an ambassador to
people who don't agree.
Part of my job is to be anambassador to people who do
agree and explain to them thatyou know, whatever your feelings
are viscerally about this, ifall you do is express a strong
(06:31):
opinion, and that's that, you'renot going to win arguments in
the long run.
You have to constantly bepersuading people, and that's
the essence of our Americansystem.
Right?
We're supposed to disagree.
We have to disagree.
That's how we get the bestresults, and if your
disagreement is just a matter ofsaying you're wrong and not
(06:52):
engaging further, you're notgoing to win in the long run.
So, for the sake of these kids,everybody who's worried about
this ought to be versed not justin the moral argument, but also
the scientific argument.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (07:04):
Be versed not just in the moral argument but
also the scientific argument,describe for me the experience
from last week.
You had not had you been to aSupreme Court argument before.
I was in the really cheap seatsas a very disinterested
observer, like 20 years ago andthat was the last time I was up
(07:33):
there, so you're sworn in and inthe hour before or the
immediately before the oralarguments, kind of tell me about
the kind of that moment.
How is that hitting you at thetime?
Jonathan Skrmetti (07:46):
Well, it was really neat.
I mean it's an interesting casebecause not only am I the
attorney general in charge ofdefending the state's position,
I'm also the named defendant inthe case and so I think the
chief justice giggled a littlebit when he swore me in.
Maybe I misread it, but it'skind of funny to be up there and
get sworn in when you're theguy the case is against.
And Steve Marshall, the Alabamaattorney general, was sitting
(08:09):
next to me.
He was up there sponsoring oneof his lawyers to be sworn in,
whitney Herman-Dorfer, who's agreat attorney in my office who
clerked for Kavanaugh, andalitoand Barrett at various stages.
She sponsored me so she was upat the council table and you
know it's kind of like a weddingthey tell you where to go,
(08:31):
where to stand, when to stand,when to sit.
You get up, you say I do, andyou know there's always somebody
directing you through it.
And the people at the court werewonderful and there were people
on both sides of the case beingsworn in.
You know there were.
You could just tell by lookingat some of the people which side
(08:51):
they were on.
But everybody was there gettingsworn into the same court in
the same ceremony and it wasreally neat.
It's something I'd alwayswanted to do and put off for a
while.
Did not envision that this washow it would work and then, as
soon as I was sworn in, Istepped up and sat down in the
fourth seat at the table and theargument got going.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (09:12):
Was there anything about it that was
surprising to you as it playedout?
Jonathan Skrmetti (09:20):
So I think the biggest surprise for me was
the court didn't get into theBostock questions that much and
I think everybody thought thatwould be a significant factor.
It may well be a significantfactor but it wasn't discussed a
lot at argument.
And of course that's the onecase where the court has looked
(09:42):
at gender identity issues.
It was in a very narrowstatutory context but it's the
Biden administration'sinterpretation of that case.
That means sexual orientationidentity.
Then it also should in thiscontext apply the 14th Amendment
.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (10:18):
Am I understanding that correctly?
Jonathan Skrmetti (10:20):
Correct.
That's the government'sposition here and you know we we
think the case doesn't supportthat reading, but one way or
another that's going to beresolved soon.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (10:30):
Yeah, so this has been called.
I read one.
Several news articles said themost the most significant case
of the US Supreme Court term,current term.
Would you, would you agree thatthat's the case, other than
having your name on it?
Jonathan Skrmetti (10:49):
It's really awkward because I mean, I think
it probably is the mostimportant case of the term.
There are so many cases outthere involving these gender
identity issues and the lowercourts really need guidance.
These are issues that matter alot to people on both sides.
There's a lot of like fiercecontention here.
You know people care a lotabout these issues and the lower
(11:12):
courts are splintered on them.
With respect to the juvenilemedical issues, we were the
first state to ever win.
Everybody else was sued andlost.
We filed an emergency stay ofthe trial court ruling against
us and that was the first winanybody ever picked up in one of
these cases.
Alabama has since secured one,and I think Missouri got one in
(11:36):
state court recently.
There are other states that aredoing it now, but the landscape
has shifted very quickly andthe cultural tide has shifted
very quickly, it would be.
It's really hard for somebodyfrom 10 years ago to understand
where we are now.
Things have just moved very far, very fast, and so the court
(11:57):
has an opportunity with thiscase to provide some guidance as
to what the law is Now.
I have very, very strongopinions about what the right
answer is, but I'm not on theSupreme Court.
So until we see what theopinion says, I'll just keep
praying.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (12:15):
I know technically and you can correct
me if I'm wrong.
I hope I'm not wrong because Ithink I've been published saying
this.
Technically the case is aboutwhether SB1 violates the 14th
Amendment by discriminatingbased on sex, that the court can
decide the case just bydeciding that and saying no, it
(12:36):
does not discriminate and socase dismissed.
Or yes, it does discriminate.
Back to the lower court fordetermination right.
Right, and there are all sortsof variations in exactly how
that happens, but those are thetwo sort of big paths in front
(12:56):
of the states are doing aboutwhether this is even settled
science, and so there's a lot ofthat discussion and I think so
(13:26):
it was interesting to me and youtell me if I'm wrong that while
that's the kind of the legalquestion, the question that was
really damning maybe for ACLUand for the federal government
was whether transitioningchildren actually solves the
(13:53):
problem of suicide, which iskind of the argument, right?
Jonathan Skrmetti (13:58):
Yeah, yeah, I thought that was the most
important part of the argument.
I mean separate and apart fromhow the case goes, you've seen a
lot of parents almost bulliedwith the question would you
rather have a live daughter or adead son, or would you rather
have a live son or a deaddaughter?
And the implication over therecent conversation is, if you
(14:20):
don't go along with thistransition wholeheartedly, your
child is going to kill himselfand that's horrible.
And you don't want to give kidsthe expectation because there's
a social contagion element tosuicide.
You don't want them to thinkthat that's what they're
supposed to do if they don't gettheir way.
So for the ACLU to admit thatthe research shows no difference
(14:40):
between kids who have receivedthese procedures and kids who
have not just totally redefinesthe conversation from my
perspective and provides somenecessary clarity, sucks some of
the really intense emotion outof it.
I mean it's still a verycontentious issue, still very
(15:03):
emotional issue for a lot ofpeople.
But when you're holding thatweight over a family's head it
radically impacts theirwillingness to continue to ask
questions, to push back.
You know it kills theconversation yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (15:21):
Do you think that the cast review was a, was
something of a turning point ora a pivot point in in that
discussion, that part of thediscussion?
Jonathan Skrmetti (15:32):
it was and you know it's.
The cast review is not somebolt part of the discussion.
It was, and you know the CASTreview is not some bolt out of
the blue.
I mean it's following in thefootsteps of previous systematic
analysis.
That's all pointing in the samedirection.
Now the CAST review is the mostcomprehensive to date and I
don't want to belittle it.
But there's a reason that theseprogressive countries in Europe
(15:53):
have all been restrictingprocedures.
Let me correct that.
All of the countries in Europethat have engaged in systematic
review have been increasinglyrestricting access to these
procedures because they see thatto the extent the research
shows any benefits and some ofit shows none.
Some of it shows weak evidenceof short-term benefits.
(16:15):
The adverse results are muchworse the risks of permanent
loss of fertility, permanentloss of the ability to enjoy
intimacy, blood clots and tumorsand cognitive development
issues and bone density issues.
There are just a host ofmedical complications, many of
(16:37):
which are irreversible, all forbasically no benefit.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (16:42):
You saw what the UK did yesterday and yeah,
yeah that was.
Jonathan Skrmetti (16:48):
that was fortuitous timing, I think,
because one of the argumentsthat the Biden administration
rolled out was well, they're notrestricting it as much as
Tennessee did.
And now in the UK, I mean,there is a narrow experimental
avenue for a very limited numberof kids to be experimented on,
(17:10):
explicitly experimented on butotherwise it's a flat ban across
the country for kids under 18.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (17:16):
Yeah, yeah.
One challenge for me in all ofthis is kind of the argument by
euphemism, and I know you havekind of had to deal with that.
I mean we do this in law and Imean we do this in law.
You do this in law all the timeusing precise words,
(17:55):
no-transcript.
How do you kind of handle that?
How do you?
Well, it's hard.
Jonathan Skrmetti (18:01):
It's hard.
I mean, you know we talk aboutwhat language to use.
You don't want to gratuitouslycontradict what's out there,
right?
You don't want it to sound likeyou're trying to come up with
some cute term just to stick itto the other side.
But their cute terms havepervaded the language and
(18:23):
because they've gotten thismedical consensus, the
literature is replete withgender-affirming care and
reference to these aslife-saving treatments.
And it's a really interestingdivorce between the consensus
and the evidence and we just tryto focus on the evidence.
(18:43):
And there are times when youjust get tripped up.
I mean when everybody's usingthe same language.
You have to be very cognizantand cautious about it.
But at the end of the day, thefacts are the facts and no
matter how they dress them up,the science continues to show
little to no benefit and hugerisks for kids.
(19:05):
And I think just the more I saythe word evidence, the better
I'm doing in my estimation.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (19:12):
Makes sense evidence, the better I'm doing
in my estimation Makes sense.
You, speaking of the majormedical associations, the
American Bar Association, I mean, not only are you up against
that, you know, you're upagainst, well, the federal
government, the ACLU.
Do you feel like a David versusGoliath?
Jonathan Skrmetti (19:39):
So my favorite argument from the other
side is when they talk abouthow transgender Americans lack
political power.
And I'm looking at the ABA andall the medical associations and
the President of the UnitedStates and the US Department of
Justice and Hollywood and allthe medical associations and the
president of the United Statesand the US Department of Justice
and Hollywood and like thebusiness establishment all
lining up on the other side, andit's really hard to take that
(20:01):
argument seriously.
You know, we had, I think, sixor seven lawyers on this case as
it worked its way through.
The other side had somethinglike 30.
And they had a big New Yorkfirm just donating them
resources.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal arevery well funded and the DOJ is
(20:22):
a huge operation that, I think,put a lot of resources into this
case.
So we were definitely thescrappy underdogs.
We'll see how the case turnsout.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (20:32):
Before I embrace the David versus Goliath
analogy, though, how would yourate how national media have
covered the case from yourperspective?
Jonathan Skrmetti (20:44):
I think it's been pretty good.
Actually, you know, there was alot of pre-suit coverage or
pre-argument coverage that Ithought was fairly biased, and
part of that was we were not outthere.
We made a conscious decision tolet the argument speak as our
kind of opening statement withrespect to the case at the
(21:09):
Supreme Court.
So I didn't do media beforehand, we just wanted everything to
be focused on the argument.
And then afterward there wassome hostility in some places
because there had been suchsympathetic coverage of the
other side.
You know they were veryaggressive in the media in terms
of making appearances.
There were a lot of storiesabout the affected children and
(21:32):
just structurally, when you canput a face on the issue and show
you know a kid who's saying I'mgoing to be really hurt if this
goes the other way, that's adifficult conversation to walk
into.
Now there are thedetransitioners who are speaking
publicly, who are very brave todo so, and they were out there
(21:53):
as well, but I don't know thatthey had as much reach.
And then you had, I don't know.
I remember walking into the CNNinterview with Jake Tapper,
which was intimidating.
I mean, I've been doing thisfor two years.
I don't have a ton of mediaexperience.
He has interviewed presidents.
He is a big, big deal in thatworld and he had had opposing
(22:16):
counsel on the day before andCNN had run some really
sympathetic stories about someof the children who were
claiming that if they didn'thave access to these procedures
it would basically be the worstthing that ever happened and
talking about all the bigotrythat was out there against them
and I was candidly, very nervous.
(22:38):
I thought it was a good chancethat I would be gutted like a
fish and he asked a really toughquestion but I had an answer.
And then he asked another toughquestion and I had an answer
and I thought it went prettywell.
I didn't think he was unfairbut I was definitely a little
nervous going in there.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (22:56):
Anything else on US Versus Scrimmetti that
you feel like we need to talkabout?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:02):
I mean.
The only other thing I'd say isI have gotten outreach from so
many people who are praying formy team, praying for me, praying
for the kids that are affected,and I really appreciate that.
It's great encouragement.
And you know, I just given whoreads your publication, I'd like
to make sure that I say thankyou, because I know a lot of
(23:25):
people have been prayingconsistently and you know we all
feel it.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (23:30):
So let's move kind of into your personal
background.
Tell me, I understand you grewup in Connecticut.
What town did you grow up in?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:41):
Mystic, Connecticut.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (23:42):
Mystic, connecticut.
Okay, so, yeah.
So tell me about that.
Sure, how did your family endup in Connecticut?
Jonathan Skrmetti (23:51):
So my dad enlisted in the Navy when he got
out of high school and he gotshipped around a little bit,
ended up doing way better thananybody expected on his tests
and he was a nuclear reactor guyon submarines and there's a big
submarine base right up there.
So he was stationed there.
And then my mom grew up inMassachusetts and she got her
(24:12):
degree in education and waslooking for a job and they had
some elementary school teachingjobs.
So they met, fell in love, gotmarried and I was born a few
years after that.
My sister was eight yearsyounger than me and Mystic's a
sweet little small New Englandtown.
(24:33):
It's on the coast.
A lot of neat history there,not a lot of other stuff there.
It was a very quiet upbringingand I was Catholic as a child,
raised Catholic till about sixthgrade, and then there were some
problems in the church we weregoing to.
(24:53):
My dad grew up Catholic, my momgrew up Congregationalist and
so we started going to theCongregationalist church and you
know it was New England, sothere were some people that took
their faith really seriouslyand there were some people, just
like anywhere, who didn'tnecessarily.
(25:15):
You know, I don't want to bepejorative, but like there was a
broad spectrum of engagementwith the scripture.
And you know I was not the mostreligious child.
(25:37):
I mean I, you know I went tochurch but was not transformed
by it.
And I went to George Washingtonfor college.
That was a great experience andthey were very kind and sent me
to Oxford for a couple of years.
They had nominated me for aRhodes Scholarship.
(25:57):
I emphatically did not get one.
That was not a good interviewat all and they had this
consolation prize and it waswonderful.
So I got to go to England.
I had never been out of thecountry before, spent two years
there studying and, you know,getting some perspective, and it
was really great.
(26:18):
And then I went to law schooland I was very fortunate to get
to go to Harvard.
I really enjoyed my time there.
I was the editor in chief ofthe Harvard Journal of Law and
Public Policy, which is theleading conservative law journal
in the country, and that wasjust great.
That gave me a lot ofopportunity to interact with
some really really smart,influential people and really to
(26:43):
hone my understanding of thelaw and its place in American
society.
Then I clerked for a judge inIowa, judge Colleton, who was
terrific.
And then I went to work for theDepartment of Justice and I was
in the Civil Rights Divisiondoing criminal prosecution, and
that meant police misconduct,hate crimes and human
(27:03):
trafficking.
And the first case they sent meout on after a six-month boot
camp was to Memphis and it wasthese Memphis police officers
that were robbing drug dealersand then reselling the drugs
with their gang buddies, whichwas a that doesn't happen very
often, fortunately, and it was areally exciting case.
(27:24):
I had a great mentor, a localprosecutor who was fantastic.
He's the best trial lawyer I'veever known, steve Parker, and
he took me under wing.
And as we were working on thatcase, the first human
trafficking case in Tennesseecame up and since I was there, I
got to work on that as well,and that's really what started
(27:47):
me on the path to the Church ofChrist.
With the trafficking work therewas just some really horrible
stuff.
I mean just evil, evil thingsthat I learned about firsthand,
you know, talking to these womenwho had been horrifically
wounded, and it was a hugeweight on me.
(28:11):
I mean, I know I was likenothing compared to what they
carry, but just even knowingthat things like that happen and
hearing the details of it ispretty horrifying and it started
to weigh more and more on me.
I also had a case involvingthese white supremacists that
(28:31):
wanted to assassinate PresidentObama and at the sentencing for
one of those defendants therewere about 100 people there and
I said who are all these peopleat the sentencing and one of the
agents on the case said oh,that's the Church of Christ.
They're really weird.
And the defendant's grandfatherwas an elder in the church and
(28:55):
that was literally my firstintroduction to the Churches of
Christ.
Then I'd been a prosecutor forabout five and a half years,
back and forth to Memphis prettymuch all that time.
So I moved to Memphis.
I was tired of airplanes, I wastired of Washington, I was
ready to settle down and shortlyafter I moved, one of my fellow
(29:16):
prosecutors invited me to aSuper Bowl party with the Young
Professionals Group from theWhite Station Church of Christ.
They said you should come visitour church and I had been taken
by surprise at how great theywere and I'd been off and on
going to church but it hadn'treally clicked.
So I said OK, I'll come visit.
So I went to White Station thenext week and within about two
(29:40):
minutes of walking in thebuilding there was just this
physical sense of belonging andrightness and I knew that that's
where I was supposed to be.
And it was really weird.
I'd never had a feeling likethat before, where I was
supposed to be.
And it was really weird.
I had never had a feeling likethat before.
And you know, rodney Plunkettwas the preacher.
We went out to lunch and got totalking and you know, we talked
(30:03):
for about an hour and a half ata Mexican restaurant and I got
baptized that night.
This was about three weeksafter I visited the church.
And then Alicia, who's now mywife, had been on rotation for
physical therapy school so shewas out of town.
She came back about a monthafter that.
There's this new guy.
All her friends knew.
(30:23):
The church ladies were schemingreally hard to get the two of
us together and I needed all thehelp I could get, and so they
made sure that we had time to bearound each other and get to
know each other and we starteddating and got married about a
year and a half after that.
So I mean, this brief periodafter I moved to Memphis was
(30:48):
just life-defining in so manyways.
And then, you know, alicia andI had our first kiddo about a
year after we got married and Iwent into private practice for a
while in Memphis.
Yeah, so Sam was our firstborn.
He is 11 now.
He is.
I mean, I love my kids.
(31:09):
It's so amazing to have theselittle people that are just
learning about the world and youget to see them as they grow
and understand things and learnabout things.
It's such a blessing and itreally does, I think, illuminate
to some small degree therelationship between the Lord
(31:32):
and us.
You know it's a great insightinto the nature of love and how
much you can love someone elseand what it's like to see
something that you had a hand increating develop and blossom
and go on to do all theseincredible things.
(31:52):
So we have Sam and Sadie andLuke and Evelyn and you know
life revolves around family.
I mean my job is pretty busybut I'm able to travel with my
family some for some of thatwork and then I try to minimize
nights away otherwise and we'rea pretty tight family.
(32:14):
The kids, you know, play witheach other.
They play with their friends.
Alicia is homeschooling, so Samand Sadie go to a tutorial two
days a week and have greatfriends there.
But they're home a lot and youknow we talk a lot about things
that go on and work and life andyou know we're trying to give
(32:37):
them a firm spiritual foundation.
And they are little sponges.
I mean they soak up everythinggood and bad that they see.
So we try to do well and I meanI'm very fortunate to be
married to an extraordinarywoman.
Alicia is a great wife and agreat mom and with all the just
craziness of life these dayswith big cases and lots of work
(33:01):
and you know me being in thissuddenly pretty prominent
position.
She's just rolled with it andholds the family together and
makes sure you know that thekids are getting everything that
they need and it's prettyidyllic.
I feel very grateful.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (33:21):
Have you been in Churches of Christ long
enough to know any Church ofChrist jokes?
Jonathan Skrmetti (33:27):
I mean, yes, a few, a few.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (33:30):
Some of them are learned from Baptist friends
, but yeah, there's one relatedto my next question and it's at
the Pearly Gates at St Peter's.
You know, at the gates andthere's a big long line
everybody trying to get in andthere's a commotion up front and
(33:52):
everybody's looking around.
What's happening?
What's happening, and somebodycomes running back and says
Wednesdays don't count,wednesdays don't count.
So I grew up in a church ofChrist and the mindset was you
go every time the doors are open.
So Rubel Shelly's question forme to ask you is why does he go
(34:15):
on Wednesday nights?
Why do you go on Wednesdaynights?
Jonathan Skrmetti (34:20):
So there's two reasons.
The first is because I want mykids there Wednesday nights
because it's a great opportunityfor them to learn more and be
around friends more who are allmoving in the same right
direction, and I love theopportunities that the church
has for them.
As you're well aware, we have agreat children's ministry at
(34:41):
Harpeth Hills.
And the other reason is, youknow, I got kind of a late start
and I love the Bible teaching.
Now, because of my job, I don'tget there consistently on
Wednesday nights anymore.
When I worked for the governorand when I was the chief deputy,
I did a much better job of that, but these days it's a little
bit more hectic.
But to have Rubel or LeonardAllen or any of these other
(35:05):
really wise, really well-readpeople walking through Scripture
and explaining how differentpieces fit together, providing
context and just having anopportunity to better understand
what the Lord breathed out, isawesome.
It is.
(35:25):
I mean.
Every minute in a class withRubel is a blessing and I have
learned so much.
It's like being in grad school.
You get these brilliant,brilliant teachers who are very
serious and very rigorous andyou're alongside people you love
who are trying to understandalongside you, and it's great.
(35:45):
I mean, I really enjoy it and Iknow there's a whole parable
about it.
You don't have to feel bad forshowing up late, but I feel like
there's so much that I didn'thave a chance to learn that
other people have, and so Ireally value that opportunity.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (36:04):
What made you choose Harpeth Hills as you
moved to Nashville with your,with your wife?
What kind of drew you to that?
Jonathan Skrmetti (36:10):
I'll start by saying when we were going to
move, it came kind of out of theblue and I loved White Station.
It was a great church and I wasreally worried about finding a
church in Nashville and I saidthis to Rodney Plunkett and he
laughed and laughed and laughed.
He said you understand,nashville is kind of our Mecca.
Like you're going, you're goingto have a church, your problem
will be there are too manychurches of our Mecca.
(36:31):
Like you're going, you're goingto have a church, your problem
will be there are too manychurches.
And that was true.
I mean, we visited some greatchurches, had really good
relationships with people atdifferent churches.
But Alicia had some collegefriends from Harding University
at Harpeth Hills and that waswhat originally drew us there
and you know, for people she had, she took organic chemistry
(36:52):
with Charlie Walker andapparently you know when you go
through that you're bound forlife.
And Charlie had four kidsalmost identically matched up
with our kids.
So we got to know them reallywell and made friends with other
people at the church and therewere some connections between
Harpeth Hills and White Stationso we felt pretty familiar.
We'd be college roommates ofpeople that we knew and loved
(37:15):
and the preaching was great, theteaching was incredible and you
know we visited and then wevisited again and pretty soon we
were just going consistently.
And then we placed membershipabout two weeks before the
pandemic shut everything downfor a while.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (37:32):
You don't strike me as somebody who's like
a controversy hog, that youjust flock to controversy and
yet, from what I just my basiclooking, you've done pretty much
every hot button issue I knowof in the two years that you've
been AG, redefinition of sexunder Title IX, esg, tech
(37:56):
company, abusive data, socialmedia harms AI, child
exploitation, drag shows,abortion, nil.
Jonathan Skrmetti (38:14):
Taylor Swift.
The lingerie industry withAdore Me, I don't remember that
one, I don't.
Okay, was it an issue with,like, the Chinese supplier or
something?
Maybe?
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (38:24):
It was an issue with their.
Well, they were signing peopleup and you had to for this
lingerie and you had, and it washard to get off of there.
Jonathan Skrmetti (38:36):
Okay, yeah, I don't.
I don't remember that one, butI'm glad we're standing up for
the rights of consumers.
That's, that's probably not.
Yeah, I don't.
I don't think I was veryinvolved in that one, compared
to the others you mentioned.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (38:51):
Yeah, so, yeah.
So why do you think that is?
Jonathan Skrmetti (39:07):
And I don't think that's the case for every
state.
There are two reasons.
The first is I'm in a positionto fix things when there's a
problem, and it's my job to dothat when I can.
And there are a lot of problemsout there and you know, I would
prefer a bland and cheerfullife in Mr Rogers' neighborhood
(39:30):
where everything is great andnobody gets in fights.
But we have a whole legalsystem because people do
disagree about these things andmy job is to be one part of that
system, and the way you solveproblems is by litigating or
threatening to litigate.
The other thing is I'm not anelected AG.
I'm appointed, which means Idon't have to raise money and I
(39:52):
don't have to campaign, whichmeans I have a lot more time on
my hands, so I'm able to getmore involved in a lot of these
cases and keep pushing my folksto do it, because that's my only
job.
I'm not doing something elseand then trying to balance a
huge political operation withthe legal side.
(40:13):
We are just the legal side hereand I think that lets us do a
lot more.
I have an eight-year term and Idon't have to worry about
fundraising, and that just givesme the latitude to be as much
of an AG as I want to be, andthere are a lot of good things
we can do.
I mean the Ticketmastersituation.
It's not the case of thecentury, but that's an abusive
(40:35):
monopoly that's been in placefor decades and it was long
overdue for somebody to dosomething about it.
And Taylor Swift and the Aresticket debacle catalyzed it, and
we're obviously not the onlyones involved.
It's a big team effort, but itwas great to be able to say this
(40:56):
is nonsense, it's illegal, it'stime for it to stop.
And the same with the NCAA.
That organization has been anarbitrary bully for a long time
and the enforcement has not beenfair.
It has not been just, and whenthey targeted Tennessee, it was
extremely gratifying to be ableto put a stop to it, because
(41:17):
what they were doing was notright.
You know so and I will grantyou it was awesome to do both of
those, because there were a lotof people who don't care at all
about the law who are veryenthusiastic, and it's nice to
have people encourage you.
The NIL issue of the NCAA inparticular we went out for
(41:38):
Valentine's Day dinner to arestaurant and the person at the
podium asked my name and I saidJonathan Scarametti, and I got
a big go Vols from the boothnext to the door, which is
pretty neat.
But, you know, regardless ofall that ancillary stuff, it's
the right thing to do.
You know, we were vindicated bythe court and we were able to
(42:01):
stop the harm from happeningunjustly.
The social media stuff, which Ithink is, you know, alongside
the gender identity work,probably the most significant
work that we're doing that'saffected a whole generation of
American kids.
I mean literally a generation.
And if you look at thestatistics, mental health for
teenagers fell off a cliff andyou see all these increases in
(42:24):
negative psychological issuesdepression, anxiety, sleep
deprivation, suicidality, allthis horrible stuff, and a lot
of it can be directly traced tothe actions of a very few
companies who made designdecisions that hurt kids and
they knew that they did it.
We're in a position to make themstop and if we can do that and
(42:45):
we can protect the nextgeneration from the same harms,
that is thousands, hundreds ofthousands, millions of lives
made better through the law.
And, of course, the law doesn'tgovern everything.
I'm a big believer in being aslight a touch as you can be to
solve the problems, but thereare real problems and we're able
(43:07):
to do something about it, andit's an incredible feeling.
I mean, this is not where Ithought my life would end up at
all, and so every day I wake upgrateful and I want to make sure
that I'm doing everything I canto justify having this job.
There were other good peoplethat applied, I got it and I
need to prove every day that itwas the right decision.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (43:28):
I guess we didn't talk about the opioid,
opioid uh stuff that you didbefore.
Um, that was, that was when youwere assistant, uh ag yeah, uh,
chief deputy ag.
Jonathan Skrmetti (43:39):
So I was yeah , it's, it's the number two spot
in the office and I wasrecruited for that out of my
firm in memphis and thrown intoopioids and it was called by the
Washington Post and the NewYork Times and the Wall Street
Journal.
All of them agreed it was themost complicated civil
litigation in American historyand I was smack in the middle of
(44:01):
it.
We had a great team fromTennessee and we ended up
resolving it with these huge,huge, multi-billion dollar
settlements and in Tennessee,I'm glad to say, the large
majority of that money is goingtowards abatement efforts.
So medical interventions,criminal justice interventions,
mental health interventions,education things that are
(44:24):
actually going to make adifference and I'm really proud
of the work that we've been ableto do on that.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (44:29):
You're College Republicans, law school
Republicans, editor of the LawReview.
That leans conservativeFederalist Society.
But that doesn't mean that asan AG you're partisan in what
(44:54):
you have done.
I mean, much of what you'vedone is unrelated to kind of
political interests, right.
Jonathan Skrmetti (45:02):
It's one of my favorite parts of the job.
I mean, there are bigdifferences in opinion.
We're at a very polarized time.
But Phil Weiser, the ColoradoAG, he and I worked together on
a bunch of big tech issues,antitrust issues.
We get along.
Great.
Tish James in New York obviouslyan extremely outspoken, very
(45:24):
controversial liberal figure.
Ken Paxton in Texas veryoutspoken, controversial
conservative figure.
But all of us can come togetheron things like social media and
work together because it's theright thing to do, because we
all care about our kids and wewant to do right by them.
And it's those times when wecan do that and all move in the
(45:45):
same direction.
It's a great reminder that wedon't have to be fighting all
the time.
Or if we're fighting, it's agreat reminder that we don't
have to be fighting all the time.
Or if we're fighting, we're allfighting together on the same
side against someone else.
And it feels a littleold-fashioned sometimes to work
on the bipartisan cases, butit's very satisfying, and I mean
, of course, there are somethings that we do that are super
(46:06):
partisan.
We got injunctions against abunch of the Biden
administration.
You know regulatory overreachissues.
You know Title IX rule, theTitle VII guidance, the 1557
rule.
So it's an interesting worldwhere sometimes you're fighting
like cats and dogs.
But then we work with the DOJon some of these antitrust cases
(46:28):
.
I get along great with theBiden administration's head of
antitrust and there's a lot ofconstructive engagement there.
You know we just have toremember you figure out which
side is the right side and youfight for it.
And you know there's nopermanent bad guy out there.
There are companies that we'resuing, that we're also working
(46:49):
with on other fronts to solveother problems, and it's a
little bit humbling to recognizethat.
All of us have our flaws.
All of us end up somebody'svillain at one time or another.
But we're all the same.
We're all made in the image ofGod, we're all falling short of
the glory of God and we're alltrying to do our best.
Dr. Kenneth Pybus (47:09):
One of the accusations, or one of the, I
guess, criticisms of your office, or at least the conservative
side, on this transgender debate, is well, tennessee is imposing
religious views, right, thatthis is a religious decision and
(47:32):
not a, you know, not a sciencedecision.
And you know, and I think theresponse would be well, no, it's
unproven science, right, andwe're protecting children.
On the other hand, I would hopeI know in my career that I'm
different because I'm aChristian, and I would hope that
(47:54):
our Christian worldview, myChristian worldview, affects how
I do what I do.
And so have you spent much timethinking about that?
And some people would say well,I just divorce it, but I don't
know that that's the right wayto do it.
How would you unpack that?
Jonathan Skrmetti (48:16):
So I think there are a lot of things I do
because I'm a Christian.
I'm still in public servicebecause I'm a Christian.
It would be really easy to gooff and make a lot of money
somewhere, but this is a way toserve and to glorify the Lord
through service and throughbeing a good attorney, and I
(48:36):
value that.
So there are a lot of decisionsI make that are, at heart,
moral decisions and that's whatinforms my decision making.
I know that if I'm trying topersuade someone who doesn't
agree with me, me saying this isa conviction of my faith is not
going to move them.
I have to be able to give themreasons to help them be more
(48:59):
open-minded and try to thinkabout it in ways that bring them
to my side issues we're lookingat, especially with the
Scrametti case and thetransgender kid transition
issues.
There are some people who thinkthat I'm being really squishy
for not just going out there andthundering.
(49:19):
This is wrong.
How can you not see it's wrong,but that's the perspective that
lost every federal case upuntil ours.
If you're going to persuade,you have to give people reasons
that they can latch on to, andyou know, paul gave us a great
example when he went to Athens,he walked into a den of
philosophers who didn't agreewith them and he talked to them
(49:42):
and he reasoned with them andthrough that he was able to win
over some hearts and minds andhe was able to bring some people
to Christ.
But he didn't do it by going inand saying you're wrong, I'm
right.
He talked to them about thereasons why they were wrong and
the reasons why they should opentheir minds and the reasons why
they were already connectedwith him and already you know,
(50:04):
worshiping this unnamed God.
And oh, let me explain to youwhat that really means.
And so when I read the Bible, Imean God gifted us with reason
and we're supposed to use it andto use that reason to glorify
him by talking to people whodon't have the same convictions
that I do.
You know it was people who weredoing that that softened my
(50:27):
heart, to win me over to getbaptized.
So you know, there could be amissional outcome to some of
this, but there's also a legaloutcome, and for the legal
outcome to be successful, youhave to work through it from a
more objective and neutralperspective and find things that
other people can latch onto,even if they don't agree, and I
(50:50):
mean that's just all there is toit.
Like in my house we talk a lotabout the Lord's role in this
litigation and we talk about theimportance of this from the
perspective of humans as createdbeings.
You know, it's a much differentperspective than you can bring
(51:11):
into a courtroom, because ifthat's what you're saying in the
courtroom, our legal system isbased on the shared perspective
of everybody and that in Americais diverse as it is these days.
That means there are a lot ofpeople with different flavors of
Christianity.
There are people who aren'tChristians, there are people who
aren't believers in anything,and the medical evidence is
(51:35):
something that everybody canlook at and everybody in an
objective posture can agreeabout.
So that's why I take thatapproach.
I will give you one quickanecdote before I go, and that
is when I joined the Churches ofChrist.
One quick anecdote before I go,and that is when I joined the
Churches of Christ.
My parents were very curious.
You know they're in New England.
There's very few church plantsup there.
(51:57):
They weren't familiar and itcame out that it was an a
cappella church and my dad wasshocked and he said they still
let you join.
So I make a joyful noise, butit's definitely that's one of
the reasons I stay humble.
BT Irwin (52:19):
Thank you to Jonathan Scrimetti, attorney General for
the State of Tennessee andmember of Harpeth Hills Church
of Christ, for giving thisinterview to the Christian
Chronicle, and thank you to DrKenneth Pibus of Abilene
Christian University for askingthe questions today.
You'll find lots of links inthe show notes if you want to
dig deeper into this case andthe circumstances that surround
it.
We hope that something youheard in this episode encouraged
, enlightened or enriched you insome way.
(52:40):
If it did, please pay itforward, subscribe to the
podcast and share it with afriend, recommend and review it
wherever you listen to yourfavorite podcasts.
Your subscription,recommendation and review help
us reach more people, and pleasesend your comments, ideas and
suggestions to podcast atchristianchronicleorg.
Don't forget our ministry toinform and inspire Christians
(53:01):
and congregations around theworld is a nonprofit ministry
that relies on your generosity.
So if you like the show and youwant to keep it going and make
it better, please make atax-deductible gift to the
Christian Chronicle atchristianchronicleorg.
Slash donate Until next time.
May grace and peace be yours inabundance.
Holly Linden (53:21):
The Christian Chronicle podcast is a
production of the ChristianChronicle Inc.
Informing and inspiring Churchof Christ congregations, members
and ministries around the worldsince 1943.
The Christian ChroniclesManaging Editor is Audrey
Jackson, editor-in-chief BobbyRoss Jr and President and CEO
(53:43):
Eric Trigestad.
The Christian Chronicle Podcastis written, directed, hosted
and edited by BT Irwin and isproduced by James Flanagan in
Detroit, michigan, usa.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!