Adam Davidson

@sonofdavid.bsky.social

Assistant Professor at UChicago Law. Researching police, prisons, abolition, and the 13th amendment. Views, for better or worse, are my own. Things I wrote: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=4329951 Background by Oscar Joyo

I think it's important to point out that SCOTUS has two ways to decide this case. One of them answers a surprisingly difficult question about what the baseline is for proving that a policy that doesn't mention race is discriminatory. The second, which Leah points out, is white supremacy.

Leah Litman@leahlitman.bsky.social · 2w ago

If SCOTUS says, in this case, a race-neutral policy to enhance diversity is racial discrimination, it would mean (a) racial hierarchies that exclude Black & brown students are required because (b) schools can't try to prevent Black & brown students from being excluded. It's white supremacy.

Cis people do not understand how much trans people's rights have regressed in just 5 years. 5 years ago, there were none of these restrictions. 19 states banned legal recognition 21 states have bathroom bans 8 states ban gender marker changes on DLs 25 ban gender affirming care for trans youth

BildBildBildBild

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: state constitutions provide resources & affordances for progressive politics that have yet to be fully exploited. They're all easier to change than the federal one & many have been updated to reflect emerging problems...y'know, like a democracy should.

Jenn@jennburrill.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Huge step by Arizona to get money out of politics 💸 Arizona Supreme Court "parted ways with the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, concluding that corporate campaign contributions are not a form of protected expression under the state constitution"

Hi. There is some drama over on LawyerThreads. There’s a lawyer (who is also very active on Facebook) who is out in the world saying that the law is neutral. Just want to chime in as a career public defender and say THE LAW IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN FUCKING NEUTRAL. 🧵

there is something genuinely clarifying and useful about this kind of stuff. they are totally hoods off and proud of it, which means we should not hesitate to describe them accordingly

Post nicht verfügbar.

If you find yourself plotting political violence online, best case scenario you are talking to a Fed. Worst case scenario is you are involved in a Pooh Shiesty wearing an ankle monitor to the robbery stupid-level plot that could get people—including you—hurt for no good reason. Don’t do it.

I Travel Like Sound Dog@chadstanton.blacksky.app · 7mo ago

The feds are going to be like “look at this weird motherfucker” and throw your picture up along with the plans you made with a definite federal agent to bomb something.

Right after they finish with trans youth, their moving on to target youth with ADHD and autism to satisfy their austerity driven eugenics project. They don't even dignify us with new talking points.

​A screenshot of a mobile webpage from The Telegraph's Health section. The headline reads, "Have mental health labels like ADHD and autism gone too far? Some experts think so," followed by a subheadline stating, "As a new report reveals skyrocketing autism and ADHD rates, some experts believe self-diagnoses are overshadowing those in real need of help."

I guess I’ll join the chorus of lawyers explaining that SCOTUS didn’t strike down CO’s law yesterday, they said courts have to more closely interrogate it before upholding it. This, to be clear, is BAD for anyone who thinks CO’s ban is good and legal. But the fight in the courts is not over.

Drop Site@dropsitenews.com · 7mo ago

🗞️ Supreme Court strikes down CO conversion therapy ban SCOTUS ruled Tue. against CO's law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors, w/ an 8-1 majority finding the measure violates the 1st Am.'s free speech protections. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court & joined by liberal justices...

🗞️ Supreme Court strikes down Colorado conversion therapy ban

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday against Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors, with an 8-1 majority finding the measure violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court and joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint” and sent the case back to a lower court for further review. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, warning the decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” that threatens states’ ability to regulate medical care. The ruling is expected to render similar laws in roughly two dozen other states unenforceable.