Katie Eyer
LightNews LightNews
banner
katieeyer.bsky.social
Katie Eyer
@katieeyer.bsky.social
8.5K followers 460 following 220 posts
Rutgers Law Prof writing about equality law, statutes, and the constitution. Academic writing at: http://ssrn.com/author=879928
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
katieeyer.bsky.social
Katie Eyer @katieeyer.bsky.social · Nov 24
I see I have many new followers here, so let me take a moment to introduce myself. I am a scholar and litigator who works on LGBTQ rights, disability justice and other anti-discrimination issues. I've just migrated fully from X (done with you Elon Musk) and will be posting here more often.
Reposted by Katie Eyer
kredburn.bsky.social
Out today in HLR, my piece Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny. What happened, what it means for trans rights and sex equality more broadly: harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...
Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny - Harvard Law Review
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a state law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care.
harvardlawreview.org
November 11, 2025 at 1:36 AM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
kredburn.bsky.social
to be clear: the government's claim - validated by the Court - is that it would *irreparably harm* the president to not misgender trans people
mjsdc.bsky.social Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 4d
NEW: On the shadow docket, the Supreme Court lets Trump resume misgendering trans Americans on their passports, claiming "the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment." All three liberals dissent. www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
This case concerns an Executive Branch policy requiring all new passports to display an individual’s biological sex at birth. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from enforcing the policy, and the First Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. The Government then filed this stay application. Applying our familiar stay fac- tors at this preliminary stage, we grant the application. Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by de- clining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress ex- pressly required it to follow. See 22 U. S. C. §211a.
November 6, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
theregreview.bsky.social
In a recent article, @katieeyer.bsky.social of @law.rutgers.edu argues that, after Loper Bright, a textual reading of Title IX’s ban on discrimination “on the basis of sex” leaves agencies and courts no room to exclude LGBTQ students from its protection. www.theregreview.org/2025/10/29/h...
October 29, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
leeschlesinger.bsky.social
No Kings, Philadelphia
No Kings Philadelphia
October 18, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
marisakabas.bsky.social
Frogs of New York
October 18, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
emilynussbaum.bsky.social
Northfield, MN NO KINGS!!
October 18, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
david.noll.org
No Kings New York
Flags waving in a crowd of people on the street Times Square full of marchers An inflatable frog with a sign that says "do I look the enemy within?" Signing reading no eres rey guey
October 18, 2025 at 6:23 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
Had the pleasure of attending today’s No Kings rally with my 85 year old mom and 51 year old sister. The family that protests together?
Woman in a chicken costume holds a Protect Trans Youth sign above her head
October 18, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
nicolefoy.bsky.social
Hi, I'm the ProPublica reporter who's been tracking an unusual stat: U.S. citizens grabbed by immigration agents.

I did it because the government isn’t.

This is what I found.
White words on a black background read: 50+ Immigration agents have the authority to detain whom they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally. We found more than 50 Americans who were held after agents questioned their citizenship. They were almost all Latino. ~130 Agents also can arrest citizens who allegedly interfered with or assaulted officers. We compiled cases of about 130 Americans, including a dozen elected officials, accused of assaulting or impeding officers. ~20 Among the citizens detained are nearly 20 children, including two with cancer.
October 18, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
laurajedeed.bsky.social
No Kings won't gain us any ground, it's true. But No Kings helps us hold the line — a line that is very much at risk

There can be no mass movement if the masses succumb to fear and despair
Why You Should Go To A Protest Tomorrow
No Kings Day: October 18th
www.bannedinyourstate.com
October 17, 2025 at 10:50 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
Honored to have been voted a Distinguished Prof by my faculty today. It still has to go to the University but this is the vote that means the most to me! Sincere gratitude to anyone who wrote on my behalf (we don't find out who our letter writers were, so this is the best I can do to say ty!)
October 17, 2025 at 11:38 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
parkermolloy.com
I wrote about trans visibility in a time of rising transphobia for @theverge.com www.theverge.com/cs/features/...
How trans visibility became a trap
People who have documented their lives online are discovering the dark side of digital permanence.
www.theverge.com
October 14, 2025 at 1:39 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
joshchafetz.bsky.social
Very nice piece from my colleague @stevevladeck.bsky.social in today's Times on the illegality of Trump's troop deployments to American cities. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/o...
Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants
www.nytimes.com
October 7, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
democracynow.org
"About 52% of the patients that I’m operating on are [gunshot wounds], and the other half are explosive injuries."
“Single Shots to the Head”: U.S. Veteran, Volunteer Surgeon Sees “Extermination of a People” in Gaza
As Israel continues its full-fledged military ground invasion of Gaza City, Democracy Now! speaks with Kathleen Gallagher, a U.S. military veteran and general surgeon currently volunteering in Gaza, who describes the scene on the ground from Nasser Hosp...
www.democracynow.org
September 21, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
esqueer.net
Heritage Foundation has released an absolutely insane policy proposal to label all trans people as domestic terrorists. It uses completely made up instances of terrorism and made up statistics but facts don't matter to them.

They want us all eradicated.
Page 1: Flyer from The Heritage Foundation Oversight Project titled “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism (TIVE): Background and FAQs on Need for an FBI Domestic Terrorism Designation.” The page defines “Transgender Ideology” and “TIVE,” outlining beliefs allegedly associated with them. It claims such ideology justifies violence against opponents or frames opposition as violence. The text references the alleged assassination of Charlie Kirk, urging the FBI to classify TIVE as domestic terrorism. Page 2: Continuation of flyer with a section titled “Recent Instances of TIVE-Motivated Acts of Domestic Terrorism.” Lists multiple violent events from 2018 to 2025, attributing them to transgender ideology. Includes mugshots of two alleged attackers. Followed by a “Frequently Asked Questions and Key Terms” section, addressing whether transgender people are terrorists, comparing TIVE with “Nihilistic Violent Extremism,” and discussing FBI designations. Page 3: Flyer continues with questions about Antifa and FBI terrorism classifications. States that Antifa and TIVE are separate categories. Lists ways the FBI classifies domestic terrorism and identifies typical characteristics of “TIVEs,” such as targeting Christians, mental illness, and online radicalization. Includes images: a “Trans Antifa” logo, a pink-blue-white-striped slogan image reading “Protect Their Right to Exist,” a photo of Audrey Hale with a firearm, and a close-up of a magazine with the words “Where is your God?” Page 4: Section titled “Terminology Used by TIVE.” Defines terms including cisgender, deadnaming, Gillick competence, misgendering, “Right to Exist,” “Trans genocide,” and a phrase “You either have a live boy or dead girl, you choose.” Each is presented as terminology used in or associated with TIVE. Page layout is text-heavy, no additional graphics.
September 19, 2025 at 1:19 AM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: The Supreme Court — over the objection of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — allows the Trump administration’s racial profiling of people working certain types of jobs in its immigration raids during litigation.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - No. 25A169 - KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. U. PEDRO VASQUEZ PERDOMO, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [September 8, 2025] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25-cv-5605, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. In early June, the Government launched immigration enforcement raids across Los Angeles and its surrounding counties. During the raids, teams of armed and masked agents pulled up to car washes, tow yards, farms, and parks and began seizing individuals on sight, often before asking a single question. A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate. Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of 2 NOEM v. VASQUEZ PERDOMO SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court's order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent. * * The Fourth Amendment protects every individual's constitutional right to be "free from arbitrary interference by law officers." Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S., at 878. After to-day, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation's constitutional guarantees, I dissent.
September 8, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
sbagen.bsky.social
This is a terrific thread.
dhnexon.bsky.social Dan Nexon @dhnexon.bsky.social · Aug 30
🧵 Authoritarianism, Democratization, and Coalition Politics.

The consensus around here is, more or less, that the United States is currently a consolidating authoritarian regime controlled by a mix of reactionary populists and fascists.
August 30, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
In Kluge, CA7 today reinstated a public school teacher's claim for a religious accommodation to avoid calling transgender students by their chosen names. Judge Rovner's dissent cites and quotes @profjdnelson.bsky.social's article, Disestablishment at Work, www.yalelawjournal.org/article/dise...:
Judge Rovner, citing James Nelson's article, Disestablishment at Work: "(noting that misgendering stu-dents- including the refusal to address transgender students by their gendered first names and pronouns - can be particularly harmful when carried out by a teacher and in front of classmates)."
August 6, 2025 at 7:34 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
My latest essay is now up on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... In it, I explore the opportunities that state constitutions afford for recognizing a right of gender autonomy (the right to self-identify and self-express one's gender free from state intervention). Feedback welcome!
State Constitutions and the Right to Gender Autonomy
Trans scholars have long theorized a fundamental right to gender autonomy under the constitution: the right to self-determine one's gender, and to express that
papers.ssrn.com
August 1, 2025 at 1:47 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
1/X Since Skrmetti was decided & the SCT gtd review in the trans sports cases I’ve been contemplating whether I have anything useful to say here on Bsky about trans rts. Uncharacteristically for me, I'm not feeling especially optimistic about the *law* RN & that's not exactly a novel take. BUT (a 🧵)
July 25, 2025 at 5:36 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
This is a weird sad thing to post on social media but I was hoping some of you dog lovers out there could say a prayer for our poor foster dog Geno, who through a series of terrible events (involving escalating possessiveness of me & aggression to others) wound up having to be euthanized last week.
Black, brown and white bernese mountain dog on a purple blanket.
July 22, 2025 at 12:40 AM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
theregreview.bsky.social
Under anti-classification doctrine, Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care warranted closer-look review. The law drew lines based on sex and transgender status—both of which should trigger heightened scrutiny, @katieeyer.bsky.social of @law.rutgers.edu argues.
www.theregreview.org/2025/07/14/e...
July 16, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
theregreview.bsky.social
The Skrmetti decision "leaves the courts free to continue to apply closer-look review to most transgender rights contexts" but also provides cover to "refuse to see sex or gender identify classifications," @katieeyer.bsky.social of @law.rutgers.edu argues. www.theregreview.org/2025/07/14/e...
July 14, 2025 at 2:03 PM
katieeyer.bsky.social
Can't wait to read this book by the fabulous @serenamayeri.bsky.social! Serena's work is always fascinating, illuminating and original. Congrats Serena and can't wait to read! www.amazon.com/Marital-Priv...
July 8, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Reposted by Katie Eyer
kmtani.bsky.social
Important to read this decision in the context of longer-term efforts by SCOTUS to chip away at private enforcement of civil rights & social welfare laws. I'll put a bunch of relevant background reading in the thread 🧵:
mjsdc.bsky.social Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · Jun 26
In her furious dissent, Jackson writes of the Supreme Court's decision: "The project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues." She likens today's ruling to notorious decisions after the Civil War cutting back civil rights statutes. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was an exercise in grand ambition. It had to be. In the wake of the Civil War, the American South was consumed by a wave of terrorist violence designed to disenfranchise and intimidate the country’s newly freed citizens and their allies. The threat was existential—not just for the newly liberated, but for democracy itself—and required bold intervention. It was precisely because the goals of the 1871 Act were so ambitious that those most committed to the structures it targeted, including many in South Carolina, opposed the measure so vehemently. A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues. In this latest chapter, South Carolina urges our Court to adopt a narrow and ahistorical reading of the 1871 Act’s first section, which is codified today at 42 U. S. C. §1983. That venerable provision permits any citizen to obtain redress in federal court for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that
June 26, 2025 at 3:06 PM