The reason for this recommendation is that court centered strategies run into reasoning like this piece of obtuse cruelty from the US Supreme Court

I've posted a draft article on the Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision on SSRN. I argue that this harmful decision represents the worst sort of legal formalism, but does not predetermine the results in other transgender rights cases or eviscerate sex discrimination law. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Two more important notes on Skrmetti's limits. It does not mean that legislatures can simply frame rules enforcing sex stereotypes at a higher level of generality, i.e., requiring men and women to do jobs "consistent with their sexes," to avoid heightened scrutiny. It's limited to health care. 1/2

More in the weeds: Skrmetti does not endorse the "circular" reasoning of the Sixth Circuit that in order to constitute a sex classification, a law must also constitute stereotyping, invidious discrimination, or unfair treatment. Justice Sotomayor explains this in her dissent: 12/x

Skrmetti only holds that Tennessee’s law does not classify based on sex. Other laws and executive actions may still be invalid if they are motivated by sex stereotyping or transphobia, under Arlington Heights and Romer v. Evans. 9/x

Skrmetti does not reverse federal cases holding that transgender people are a suspect class. Only three justices--Alito, Thomas, and Barrett—reached the question of whether trans people are a suspect class. The Roberts opinion does not reach it: 8/x

Skrmetti does not even overrule decisions holding that Bostock applies to Equal Protection—instead, it distinguishes Bostock on the ground that Tennessee’s law classifies based on *“medical use” for gender dysphoria,* which the Court thinks is different than sex or being transgender, and *age.* 5/x

For context and critique of today's Skrmetti opinion, check out my article in the Chicago Law Review, Scrutinizing Sex. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Good news from Montana--a state court has struck down a gender affirming care ban, calling the ban what it is: an ideological attack on transgender people. Many state constitutions offer more protection against gender discrimination than the federal one.

www.aclumontana.org/sites/defaul...

Here is another excellent complaint challenging the Trump administration's cruel and counterproductive new policies targeting transgender people. assets.aclu.org/live/uploads...

www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Commu...

Serious question. Does anyone actually subscribe to "gender ideology" as it is defined by the Trump Administration in this EO? Please link to specific sources if you think so.

I wrote an article providing legal context on the ideology behind the term "biological sex." I'm so very sorry it is relevant again. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I am honored that my article is appearing in such good company in this new issue of the University of Chicago Law Review--check out these important pieces on secret settlements, religion, and bankruptcy: lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv....

My article Scrutinizing Sex is out in the Chicago Law Review today. I argue that the Roberts Court's equal protection jurisprudence, including cases on both race and sex, requires a decision for the transgender plaintiffs in Skrmetti. lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

The Supreme Court will hear US v. Skrmetti on Wednesday, an important case not just for transgender rights, but for gender equality for everyone. The equal protection jurisprudence of the Roberts Court requires a decision for trans kids. For details: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....