Ensuring the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
The Wharton School
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
The decision is a victory for free speech, an important signal to government officials in the social media era, and a refreshing holding that the President is not above constitutional constraint
Some argue that both anti-BDS and public accommodations laws protect against discrimination, and so the First Amendment should treat them the same. But the laws are nothing alike.
The Constitution protects all speakers equally. Until it doesn’t – as the Supreme Court just made clear in Janus v. AFSCME.
The Constitution gives the president broad powers to pardon people and direct Justice Department investigations — but it does not give him the power to undermine the democratic safeguards enshrined there.
In some cases, the public perception of a case — not its actual holding — is what is most important.