Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

This week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus is another entry in our occasional “Dear (Juris)Prudence” series, in which we invite listeners to ask their burning questions about the law and answer them as best we can. Write to amicus@slate.com to pose a question to Dahlia and Mark. This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dear (Juris)Prudence, 

Can you please critique the reasoning and the effects of the three liberal justices concurring in the Title IX holding of West Virginia v. B.P.J.? 

Mark Joseph Stern: There has been a lot of misunderstanding about exactly what the liberal justices did in B.P.J., and I want to clear that up. The three liberals did side with the supermajority in rejecting B.P.J.’s claim that West Virginia violated Title IX by excluding all transgender girls from playing on female teams. But that agreement can obscure a much sharper divergence. For instance,........

© Slate