//  6/6/18  //  Quick Reactions

I've just published an op-ed in The Guardian pushing back on claims that Masterpiece Cakeshop undermines Justice Kennedy's legacy of protecting LGBT rights. Here's how it opens:

Legacies are fickle things. Until 10:15am on June 5, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy was widely celebrated in the LGBTQ community as a judicial hero. The author of Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v Texas (2003), Windsor v United States (2013), and Obergefell v Hodges (2015), Kennedy had played a singular role in advancing the cause of equal dignity for gay and lesbian Americans. A few hours after he issued Obergefell, which guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry, The Onion cheerfully published a not-entirely-satirical piece announcing that Kennedy had ruled in favor of “the most out-of-control, bonkers gay pride parade that anyone could possibly imagine.”

But what has he done for us lately? Nothing good, according to my social media feed, which informs me that Kennedy has “torched,” “trashed,” and “wrecked” his legacy of protecting LGBTQ rights. Supposedly he did so in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which upheld a baker’s claim that he could not be required to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

I’m not enthusiastic about the holding in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Indeed, I helped write a brief on behalf of church-state scholars advocating the opposite outcome, and there is some language in the opinion that offers cause for concern. But reactions of fury and despair are misplaced. Kennedy wrote a narrow opinion that served more to recognize and frame an important conflict than to resolve the hardest questions. Moreover, there are three features of Kennedy’s opinion that should be celebrated by progressives and members of the LGBTQ community.

Read the full op-ed here!


Impeachment and Congress's Power of the Purse

10/29/19  //  Commentary

The President does not have constitutional authority to withhold foreign aid that Congress has mandated by statute.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

Recognizing a Damages Remedy for Cross-Border Shootings

10/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Supreme Court should hold that victims of cross-border shootings have a cause of action to seek damages against law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution

Sex Discrimination Behind the Veil Is Still Sex Discrimination

10/11/19  //  Commentary

Even if an employer were to impose a purportedly neutral rule that he did not hire people attracted to the same sex, in practice, that rule would impose two discriminatory sex-based rules

Amanda Shanor

The Wharton School