Tessera
Folgen

Jason Pierceson

@jpier.bsky.social

Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois Springfield. Author of Before Bostock, LGBTQ Americans in the U.S. Political System, and Sexual Minorities and Politics.

3 Posts457 Follower539 Folgt
Sherrilyn Ifill@sifill.bsky.social · 3w ago

Judges are expected to write opinions not only for the sake of precedent, but b/c written opinions act as judicial guardrails. They help keep judges from making arbitrary or insufficiently considered opinions because they have to provide some coherent explanation for their conclusion.

Alex Aronson@alexaronson.bsky.social · 3w ago

Amy Coney Barrett just told Congress that it would be inappropriate to explain the reasoning behind the Court’s unreasoned shadow docket orders. As if unreasoned judicial orders are a thing. They are not. The reasoning is the whole point.

Chris Geidner@chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 4w ago

There were hints in the footnotes that this was coming ... but ... wow. Grant going at Lagoa on multiple fronts is something to see. "We share the dissent’s view that the federal courts do not police curriculum. But we do police the First Amendment."

A few words about the dissent. Our decision today does not authorize “viewpoint discrimination under exceptions created, interpreted, and enforced by the judiciary.” Dissenting Op. at 32. To the contrary, it simply reserves space for the same kinds of curricular and disciplinary decisions that universities have always made. Nor do we make any judgment about the value of the ideas Florida seeks to ban—it is not our place to do so. “As in every case, our single duty is to determine the issues presented in accord with the Constitution and the law.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 445 (1971); see also Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 506–07 (2023). For its part, the dissent does not so much as attempt to reconcile its view with the Supreme Court’s repeated invocations of academic freedom. Perhaps it finds them inconvenient, or even incorrect (though it offers no analysis of why that would be so). But the only way to uphold this law is to disregard those precedents, and as lower court judges we do not have that option. The dissent also attempts to clothe itself in originalism without offering any originalist inquiry. For one, it makes a show of the lack of pre-twentieth-century discussion of “academicfreedom,” but that is easy enough to explain—if one considers the matter. See Dissenting Op. at 9–10. To start, the First Amendment was not incorporated against the States until 1868, and the federal government was not in the business of chartering universities, so there was no reason to consider its specific impact on state universities until much later. Jurisprudential factors were at play, too. The First Amendment had “no general bite in 1900 because of the American judiciary’s extremely cramped view of the amendment’s scope.” William W. Van Alstyne, Academic Freedom and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court of the United States: An Unhurried Historical Review, 53 Law. & Contemp. Probs. 79, 82 (1990). That was not, the reader will note, an originalist era. On top of that, the Supreme Court’s view of public employment at the time left no room at all for freedom of speech—a government employer had total control over an employee’s speech, both in and out of the workplace. Id. at 83–84. Then-Judge Holmes offered the most memorable (if troubling) description of this view: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman. . . . The servant cannot complain, as he takes the employment on the terms which are offered him.” McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 29 N.E. 517, 517–18 (Mass. 1892). Though the dissent endorses this long-retired view of public employee speech, its place in the law is thankfully gone.We share the dissent’s view that the federal courts do not police curriculum. But we do police the First Amendment. And if the history of that Amendment tells us anything, it is that the government cannot forbid what it perceives as heresy. As between USCA11 Case: 22-13992 Document: 156-1 Date Filed: 07/07/2026 Page: 50 of 85 22-13992 Opinion of the Court 51 allowing a state to tamp down discussion of disfavored viewpoints on the one hand, and allowing free debate about those topics on the other, which do we think is more consistent with the founding generation’s commitment to the freedom of speech? The question answers itself.
Western Political Science Association@wpsa.bsky.social · 6mo ago

One of the most read articles published in @pgi-wpsa.bsky.social in the last year: After Bostock: conservative judges, LGBTQ rights, and the conservative movement, by Jason Pierceson www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

After Bostock: conservative judges, LGBTQ rights, and the conservative movement

After the groundbreaking LGBTQ rights decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), federal judges across the ideological spectrum used the decision to protect the rights of transgender plaintiffs....

tandfonline.com

Josh Chafetz@joshchafetz.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Just a reminder that in Shelby County, Roberts told us not to worry about the loss of VRA preclearance, because we’d still have VRA sec. 2 suits. That was, of course, disingenuous nonsense even at the time. Now, with Brnovich and Calllais, it’s all the more so.

Jamison Foser@jamisonfoser.bsky.social · 3mo ago

If Democrats do not immediately expand and rebalance the Supreme Court at their first opportunity, nothing else they do to rebuild democracy will survive and MAGA rule will remain entrenched.

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Second (and last) #SCOTUS ruling is the big one, Louisiana v. Callais. For a 6-3 majority (Rs v. Ds), Justice Alito purports to narrow the ability of states to draw majority-minority districts as a remedy for race-based vote dilution, but, per Kagan's dissent, comes pretty close to gutting the VRA:

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3mo ago

"I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent."

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Second (and last) #SCOTUS ruling is the big one, Louisiana v. Callais. For a 6-3 majority (Rs v. Ds), Justice Alito purports to narrow the ability of states to draw majority-minority districts as a remedy for race-based vote dilution, but, per Kagan's dissent, comes pretty close to gutting the VRA:

Josh Chafetz@joshchafetz.bsky.social · 3mo ago

2/ It's awfully, awfully, awfully hard to find anything that anyone might plausibly label "libertarianism" in there, as opposed to simply being a cheerleader of the racist authoritarianism of the Trump Administration.

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò@olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social · 4mo ago

My most liberal idpol radlib take is that I think it's pretty bad that right wing forces are actively intervening on behalf of the Klan with the full weight of the state legal apparatus

Phil Williams@philinvestigates.com · 4mo ago

The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said. I have so many questions! apnews.com/article/sout...

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Jamal is too nice to say "utter hypocrisy," but that's what this is. Today's #SCOTUS treats *all* coercive relief against the executive branch as imposing irreparable harm on the government. For that proposition, they cite a 2014 opinion by ... Chief Justice Roberts. Its absence here is deafening.

Jamal Greene@jamalgreene.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Most striking to me about these memos is the radically different assessment of the harm imposed by the president not being able to pursue his initiatives. Over the last 15 mos., that harm has in numerous cases been treated as almost per se serious and irreparable. Here, it gets no analysis at all.

jamelle@jamellebouie.net · 4mo ago

this goes for so much of the right wing ecosystem. the same guys who scream “DEI hire” would sink to the ocean if they weren’t kept afloat by their far right sugar daddies

Max Kennerly@maxkennerly.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Funny thing about American mass media is how woke content is broadly popular, routinely pays for itself, and sometimes goes blockbuster, whereas right-wing content is a narrow niche that rarely reaches breakeven, never goes blockbuster, and usually requires immense subsidies for it to exist at all.

Erin Reed@erininthemorning.com · 5mo ago

1. Horrifying ruling out of the 4th Circuit. An all-Republican 4th Circuit panel has just ruled that states can compel trans adults to "appreciate their sex" by enacting care bans. It even directly says that trans adult care bans are legal in the ruling. Subscribe to support our journalism.

4th Circuit Rules That States Can Compel Trans Adults To "Appreciate Their Sex" Via Care Bans

They ruled that states "encouraging citizens to appreciate their sex" through care bans is a constitutional goal, affirming West Virginia's Medicaid ban for trans adults.

erininthemorning.com

Don Moynihan@donmoyn.bsky.social · 6mo ago

If the current moment has taught us anything, it is about the uselessness of libertarianism. The image sums it up perfectly. The Gadsden flag was all out during the Obama era. How often do you see it now? Most of the principled libertarians were happy to trad their principles for Trumpism.

Radley Balko@radleybalko.bsky.social · 6mo ago

I feel like I'm losing my goddamnned mind. This op-ed was written by Kathrine Mangu-Ward. Katherine is editor-in-chief of Reason magazine. Reason fired @shikhadalmia.bsky.social for being too anti-Trump.

Don Moynihan@donmoyn.bsky.social · 6mo ago

“Libertarians are like house cats, they’re convinced of their fierce independence while dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.” It is mostly a philosophy for people who like to scold others, but cannot be bothered building a damn thing.

jamelle@jamellebouie.net · 6mo ago

it reveals pretty plainly that "merit-based hiring" means "you belong to the correct class and hold the right set of identities"

capitolhunters@capitolhunters.bsky.social · 6mo ago

Odd how when people like Bari Weiss go on about 'merit-based hiring', what they mean is hiring nice-looking white boys from elite schools regardless of their experience. Here's CBS's new Ukraine correspondent. Graduated college less than a year ago. Yale Rugby. Only job: 7 months freelancing. 1/

Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a smol hooman and a lorg floof@evanbernick.bsky.social · 7mo ago

A wild thing about stays is that, yes, this is usually how it works. No explanation need be given for rendering ineffectual a district judge's extensively reasoned opinion finding that absent an injunction, lawless things will likely happen.

dell cameron@dell.bsky.social · 7mo ago

8th circuit gives ICE go ahead to use force against peaceful demonstrators, a decision which will immediately lead to injury.

Victor Ray@victorerikray.bsky.social · 7mo ago

Politico: "We've got the world's most credulous reporter here to tell you that a university sponsored by billionaires whose anti-trans faculty are at the cutting edge of 18th-century race science wasn't a hard-right project." Jesus Christ.

The second question: Was UATX a hard-right project from the start? Based on my reporting, I don’t think it was. I was struck by the sincerity of the commitment to free speech and open inquiry from so many of the people with whom I spoke. A few were Trump supporters, but many more were best identified as anti-woke moderates or liberals. The university’s saga has a strong sense of historical contingency — that it could have gone quite differently had some high-leverage moments gone otherwise. A notable example is the episode surrounding Dan’s alleged violation and expulsion, which several former staffers and faculty suggested was exploited by the Straussians as evidence of dysfunction in their successful second coup attempt.