It's being called the most significant case of the current Supreme Court term, U.S. v. Scermetti.

In this episode, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Scermetti sits down with us to discuss his pivotal role in the case and his defense of a state law aimed at protecting minors from transgender medical procedures. I'm DailyWire,

editor-in-chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's December 7th, and this is a Saturday edition

of Morning Wire. With Trump in, we can finally exhale. But the fact of the matter is, our

nation is broke, and that debt is a house of cards that can't quickly be dismantled. The strategy remains the same. Diversify your savings with Birch Gold. They'll

help you convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold. Now through Black Friday,

get a free one ounce silver eagle for every $5,000 purchased. Text Wire to 989-98 to get your free comprehensive info kit on gold investing.

Trust perch gold, as I do to protect your savings and secure your financial future.

Again, text wire to 9898998 today.

Joining us now is Tennessee's Attorney General Jonathan Scurmetti.

Attorney General, thank you so much for coming on.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what is setting up to be a landmark case on

transgender medical procedures on minors. Your name is on this marquee case. It's you against the

federal government, the U.S. v. Scrametti. So safe to say, no one is more attuned to what happened this week than you. First, how did you against the federal government, the U.S. v. Scrimetti. So it's safe to say, no one is more attuned

to what happened this week than you. First, how did you feel the day went for your case?

I thought it went very well. I can't predict outcomes. You don't know what the court's going to do,

and the justices have months to deliberate. So without talking, you know, horse race here, I thought the day went well for us.

My Solicitor General Matt Rice did a great job making our case.

I was very happy with his oral argument.

The argument went long, which I think reflects that the justices care a lot about this,

recognize there are some complexities here from a legal perspective and that this

could be a very consequential precedent. And so they want to get it right. So I thought they

...