//  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!


The Constitutionality of the 5-5-5 Supreme Court Plan

5/17/19  //  Commentary

It would be constitutional to have a 15-person Supreme Court consisting of five Republican-affiliated justices, five Democratic-affiliated Justices, and five more justices unanimously selected by the first ten from judges of the federal court of appeals for a single-year term

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School

Key Context for Trump's Rhetoric About Immigrants

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

President Trump's rhetoric draw upon a familiar narrative that pathologizes immigration and immigrant reproduction as a threat while protecting and supporting the nation’s “good” mothers, families, and neighborhood

Yvonne Lindgren

UCSF Law School

Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco