Ian Eppler  //  11/5/17  //  Topic Update

The Supreme Court should reject the argument that the First Amendment gives commercial businesses a right to discriminate, writes David Gans for Take Care.

The Trump administration’s complicity claims in the Jane Doe abortion case were properly rejected, and the Supreme Court should reject similar claims in Masterpiece Cakeshop, writes Michael Dorf for Verdict.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission could “punch a significant hole in civil rights laws nationwide” if the Supreme Court accepts the religious baker’s arguments, writes Joshua Matz in Take Care.

  • Read the amicus brief he submitted with Robert Kaplan here.

A federal judge temporarily has blocked the Trump Administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military, noting that the stated justifications for the ban “do not appear to be supported by any facts,” writesThe Economist.

  • Sarah Grant summarizes the opinion here in Lawfare.

The Colorado non-discrimination law at issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop violates the Free Exercise Clause, argue Thomas C. Berg and Douglas Laycock at Take Care. 

A federal judge blocked the Trump Administration from enforcing its military transgender ban, ruling that the policy appeared to be rooted solely in a desire to express disapproval of transgender people, rather than facts (NYTWaPoReuters)

  • Read the opinion here.
  • Lyle Denniston summarizes the opinion here.
  • Samantha Allen notes that the judge cited President Trump’s own words in enjoining the transgender ban.

Updates | The Week of January 15, 2018

1/14/18  //  Daily Update

President Trump’s nomination of Howard Nielson, Jr. to the federal bench is an attack on LGBTQ rights.

Updates | The Week of December 18, 2017

12/24/17  //  Daily Update

The Pentagon released a detailed policy for recruiting transgender troops.

Update | The Week of November 27, 2017

12/4/17  //  Daily Update

This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, a case invoking the conflict between religious beliefs and non-discrimination ordinances.

Jeffrey Stein

Columbia Law School