This plus Kavanaugh’s previous opinion (below) is such a perfect encapsulation of the conservative justices’ race jurisprudence: There is nothing worse than race discrimination, but fortunately nothing counts as race.

🚨🚨 SCOOP @ms.now : The Department of Veteran Affairs has quietly implemented its abortion ban following a DOJ memo issued last week. This will affect 9 million veterans and their dependents, and has been a long time coming: It was outlined in Project 2025. Read/share 👇

The Supreme Court signaling that Mahmoud may extend beyond curricular opt-outs. We anticipated this move in the vaccine context in our recent comment, @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13....

Been saying this for a year now. After SFFA, the @nytimes ran a story about universities working overtime to recruit men--many of whom had less glittering credentials than women applicants. Wesleyan literally created a football team to recruit more men. We ladies are ready for the meritocracy.

Transgender women have been playing women’s tennis in USTA for 50 years!

In “Judicial Regrets,” I examine why judges sometimes come to regret their rulings—and how the legal system might respond. 👩🏾‍⚖️⚖️ The newest draft develops the practical and theoretical issues that follow from taking judicial regret seriously. Feedback most welcome! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

NEW: In 2024, Tierra Walker was sick and getting sicker. She was also pregnant. She knew abortion was illegal in Texas, but thought there was an exception for women like her, whose health was at risk. Doctors told her there was no emergency. Then she died. www.propublica.org/article/texa...

In the Harvard Law Review, @kredburn.bsky.social has a new piece explaining what happened in Skrmetti, and what it means for trans rights and sex equality more broadly.

The Supreme Court had three religious freedom cases last Term. With @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, our latest comments on them, extending our analysis of religious preferentialism under the First Amendment. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

Black women in America are more than twice as likely as white women to have a stillbirth. Getting physicians to take their concerns seriously is one reason for this disparity, they say: “If you’re a Black woman, you get dismissed.” (Published Dec. 2022)

I am a true feminist because I dare to say feminism is bad.

The Court calling sex assigned at birth a "historical fact" is insidious. It feigns neutrality by not adopting the govt's "biological fact" framing, but sends the same message. It suggests that others' mistaken beliefs about trans/nonbinary people's identity are as, if not more, real than their own.

to be clear: the government's claim - validated by the Court - is that it would *irreparably harm* the president to not misgender trans people

Why not list more useless "historical facts" on IDs? How about your childhood home address? Weight at birth? Hair color at birth? The point of an ID is to identify people now, not when they were babies!

Supports my view that an unreformed Supreme Court does more to undermine the benefits of judicial review than Court reforms would.

Whenever people complain about the number of folks relying on food stamps, it is worth reminding them that SNAP is, by too large of a degree, a subsidy for corporations that refuse to pay a living wage and their political allies who reject public policy prescriptions to reduce income inequality.

Can we celebrate and publicize the wins, not just the new Jonathan Mitchell lawsuits or anti politicians' letters to FDA?

This is an infuriating and shameful scandal. The Roberts Court is condoning Trump’s law breaking, again, pure and simple. There is no serious path forward for democratic government without Supreme Court reform.

I wrote about the Trump administration’s false claims about Tylenol, and the moral—not scientific—burdens they place on pregnant women’s bodies. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Preventing abortions by... destroying the #1 tool to prevent abortions? www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/h...

Want a short piece debunking "originalist" arguments that the 14th Amendment requires abortion criminalization? I got you. Forthcoming in the UC Davis Law Review Online. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

My horizons broaden every time I read a piece by my amazing UHLC colleague Andrew Lanham (who is unfortunately not on here—or anywhere). Just incredibly deep and rich insights at the intersection of social movements, racial justice, and national security from a fantastic legal historian.

“apparent ethnicity” is a cool new way to say race

Hey Bluesky! Little late to the joining game, but excited to be here. I'm an appellate attorney with an interest in legal scholarship, and my writing focuses on state supreme courts, state constitutions, and judicial selection.

This is how I know I’ve made it! I’m so excited to join this class run by the amazing @yuvrajjoshi.bsky.social, alongside such incredible scholars.

Join an amazing group of scholars at UH incl. @chrismirasola.bsky.social @leahfowler.bsky.social @nikenberger.bsky.social @petersalib.bsky.social @lauraportuondo.bsky.social @jessiebregant.bsky.social @amangebru.bsky.social @dfroomkin.bsky.social and more with better things to do than Bluesky!

UH Law Center is hiring this year! - 3 entry-level, TT in crim, employment/labor, & torts - 1 clinical in lawyering skills - 1 tenured position in health law Teach fantastic students with supportive colleagues! Reach out with any Qs!

Brought to you by a constitutional equality jurisprudence that deems every burden on religious conservatives animus, and every protection of women and LGBTQ+ people as optional.

Calling all aspiring law profs: Houston is hiring! Come join a great scholarly community in a vibrant city (and work with me 🤠). We are hiring in: criminal law, employment/labor law, tort law, legal research/writing, and health law. Please reach out with any questions or interest!

This is an important religious liberty challenge advancing in the Kentucky state courts. There’s a growing literature discussing the arguments developed in this case and in similar litigation in Indiana. (See eg papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)

We do this in more and more places in D.C., and it works! (Unsurprisingly.)

Chiming in once again that sex-segregation is not a very good solution to privacy or safety concerns! Please just build a nicer bathroom for everyone. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

BREAKING: The Supreme Court takes up cases over Idaho and West Virginia’s anti-trans sports bans for next term, along with three other cases.

The irony of this is that making a woman call herself “Mr.” and “he/him” seems far more likely to raise children’s awareness of trans people than simply leaving this woman alone.

1. Shockingly bad decision out from the Eleventh Circuit today saying that a transgender woman has no 1A right as a public school teacher to identify herself as "Ms." or use she/her pronouns. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

BREAKING: Here is the opinion: www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...

On this dumpster-fire of a decision day, it is such a bright spot to see my work reviewed by the incisive @leahlitman.bsky.social. I'm grateful for her generous and thoughtful engagement.

This is an important point. The Court's rapidly expanding free exercise jurisprudence virtually never employs historical reasoning bc the history is bad for them.

The Supreme Court just explicitly held, for the first time since it's 1990 decision in Smith, that a neutral and generally applicable law is subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. This "exception" is a huge development that bodes very badly for the future of public education.

Some have reasonably worried that disempowering SCOTUS might threaten the authority of lower courts, which have been a final backstop on a lawless exec. But SCOTUS just used its power to eliminate this backstop itself by disempowering lower courts. IMO the case for reform has never been clearer.

President issues an executive order: “The free exercise of religion is banned.” Can the law be struck down? Or does every person have to sue to prevent it being applied to them? I am genuinely baffled.

Seems like the Supreme Court just held that it is the only federal court with meaningful remedial power?

This is the real danger with the Court’s present power. It’s not just that the Court won’t enforce important rights; it won’t let anyone else do it either.