Law students and faculty spilled into the corners and rear ledges of Klein Hall’s biggest classroom. The room quickly quieted after Dean Dunoff hushed the beyond-capacity crowd and kicked off the “Supreme Court Roundup.” The panel provided a snapshot of the Court at a moment where longstanding doctrine taught in Constitutional Law a semester ago—in the same, albeit less crowded classroom—teeters on the brink of obsolescence. Professors Purvis, Rangel-Medina and Heath each spoke about the changing landscape within their legal expertise: LGBT rights, immigration and administrative law, respectively.   “Certain Medical Uses”   Professor Purvis began with an overview of U.S. v. Skrmetti, a paradigm shift in equal protection doctrine. The case stemmed from Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, which restricted minors from seeking treatment to alter their birth genders.   Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts upheld the limitation by worming his way through the statute, stating that the restriction was placed on minors—a permissive classification (think voting or alcohol)—and levied on only a subset of minors seeking treatment for “certain medical uses.” Because these “uses” are …