Jackson gets it:

Ending reproductive coercion by... stopping poor people from accessing to the tools needed to control their reproductive lives?

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!

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.

...Look at this passage!

Not timely, but rereading the Catholic Charities case: Am I crazy or does this language suggest that exemptions for "houses of worship" violate the establishment clause bc not all religions have houses of worship?

This reasoning suggests that overt gender stereotyping is almost always permissible under sex equality law. It is shocking and inconsistent with precedent.

Says the state that provides tens of millions in funding to crisis pregnancy centers that actually do this.

My latest, “The Myth of Equal Protection,” is now posted (and forthcoming in UC Irvine L Rev).

Come for the overview of contradictions btw race, gender, and religious equality doctrine. Stay for the takeaways for our constitutional politics!

Comments very welcome.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Far from the most pressing post-inauguration development, but the White House website seems to have scrubbed all info about the Presidential Commission on Supreme Court reform.

Exhibit A (Moyle v. US):

For all the election doom scrollers out here, I offer my take on Dobbs, abortion rights, and the stakes of this election for both. Link: www.bu.edu/bulawreview/...

My new article "Gendered Liberty" (forthcoming
Georgetown LJ) is now up on SSRN: bit.ly/3viFNxY

It argues that constitutional law has embraced a gendered theory of liberty: one that protects the freedom to enforce gender roles and denies the freedom to challenge them.

Comments very welcome!

By my read, the successful Ohio ballot initiative (text below) provides far more robust protections than existed under Casey. Happy to see voters not only rejecting Dobbs, but also pushing for a broader vision of reproductive justice than the Court has ever been willing to contemplate:

Well, the judge says, people are actually only worried about bodily exposure to the “opposite” sex. Maybe, but claiming this privacy interest is biologically rooted is clearly specious. People are socially conditioned--incl. by sex segregated spaces!--to be modest in this way.

The judge starts with the fairly benign claim that people do not like to expose their bodies to others. But that privacy interest is undermined by all bathroom use. Urinals, for example, mean all men risk bodily exposure in men's rooms. So how is this interest relevant?