If you think Josh Hawley and his ilk give a shit about 7th grade girls cross-country, please read this ⬇️ to better understand how we got from North Carolina's failed bathroom ban in 2016 to WV v. BPJ today

Madison Pauly@msjpauly.bsky.social · 3mo ago

A mystery donor in Nebraska is spending $1.6 million on a ballot initiative banning trans girls from girls' sports—duplicating an existing state law. Uihlein is spending $800k on the same in Maine. What do these two states have in common? Close Senate races. www.motherjones.com/politics/202...

The upcoming midterm elections are going to be contested amid a broken Voting Rights Act, "rigorously" invalidated campaign-finance laws, and federal election commissioners who can be fired for no reason. The only people who voted for this absurd legal regime are the unelected justices on the Court

Josh Chafetz@joshchafetz.bsky.social · last mo.

I will once again remind folks that a very sizable chunk of what looks like Congress not doing anything to push back against the president is in fact a consequence of the Court disabling/destroying all the ways Congress has tried to push back.

Serena Williams has been harassed and mocked for her strength and size, with questions about whether she was a "real woman." I hope the young girls that dominate and maybe don't conform to gender norms can be as strong so we don't lose the next Serena Williams to sex-testing "for her benefit"

19thnews@19thnews.org · last mo.

Over nearly 30 years of professional tennis, Williams revolutionized the women’s game with her powerful style, empowered a new generation of Black children to pursue the sport and helped redefine motherhood in elite athletics. Her return, she said, is for her daughters.

Time to bring back the nude parades! Sure they just so happen to only be for women, but it is for their protection. Here, let Justice Kavanaugh explain.... www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/m...

The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes (Published 2016)

nytimes.com

Molly Knight@mollyknight.bsky.social · last mo.

Are these states planning to employ child genital inspectors or what?

WV v. BPJ: 7th grade girl wants to run cross-country with friends (record says she's mid). No risk of injuring others, no stolen 5th place plaques. District Court called it a solution w/o a problem. WV couldn't show any other instance in the state. Now RBR AND heightened scrutiny satisfied because..

Fuck Em

ALT: Fuck Em

static.klipy.com

Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · last mo.

Kavanaugh doesn't decide whether rational basis review or heightened scrutiny applies, because (he says) the state laws satisfy both. This gives him an opportunity to gut heightened scrutiny for anti-trans laws by applying it in a weirdly deferential way. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

DON'T ASSUME A JUSTICE'S STANCE BASED ON PREVIOUS OPINIONS, STATEMENTS, DICTA, TWEETS, BLOGS, SKYWRITINGS, SLAM POETRY‼️ Gorsuch proved this in the gender-affirming care cases and it's why Kavanaugh's writing in Dobbs on the right to travel MEANS LITERALLY NOTHING should it come to the Court

It Means Nothing Real Housewives Of Beverly Hills

ALT: It Means Nothing Real Housewives Of Beverly Hills

static.klipy.com

Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · last mo.

In a concurrence, Gorsuch tries to distinguish Title IX from Title VII to explain why Bostock's reasoning doesn't control here. I am unconvinced for the reasons Sotomayor lays out in dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Remember the trans attacks began because they needed something to foment the extreme conservative base after Obergefell, not because there was any actual demand for it or harm they wanted to address. This was stated publicly in several articles where they admit they "threw everything at the wall"

ElieNYC@elienyc.bsky.social · last mo.

This is always how this case was going to go. After Skrmetti last year, the Court has already decided that trans people get no rights and the state can discriminate against them as they please.

One clarification: It's 6-3 on equal protection (the big question); it's actually unanimous on Title IX, but on *very* different grounds.

Trans fam: your lives are precious no matter what the fuck these people say translifeline.org/hotline/

Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin@ecmclaughlin.bsky.social · last mo.

First SCOTUS opinion is as bad as it gets: West Virginia law banning trans kids from playing sports consistent with their gender identity is constitutional, according to the fucking fascist six. All three liberal justices dissent.

Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, agrees that the trans plaintiff's Title IX claim fails, but accuses the majority of reaching an overly broad conclusion about Title IX's tolerance of anti-trans discrimination. The three fully dissent on equal protection. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

I would've bet any amount of money Coach Kavanaugh would write this opinion "protecting" girls sports, so perhaps the only surprise is for those optimists out there who maybe thought the ruling wouldn't address the Title IX & 14A claims

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · last mo.

First (but *not* last) #SCOTUS ruling is the two transgender discrimination cases. For the usual 6-3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh *upholds* state bans on transgender athletes in public sports under *both* Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

As always - must read, super important stuff from Steve - & absolutely essential context/table setting for what is likely to happen today.

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · last mo.

Me this morning on the biggest news out of #SCOTUS yesterday (Slaughter); how to think about the news we expect out of the Court today (including, but not limited to, birthright citizenship); and why it matters that the term doesn't actually end when the justices step of the bench later this a.m.:

Sotomayor is reading from her Slaughter dissent. (She wrote the dissent for the three liberals in that case.)

Deeply convinced by the quality of his arguments that Alito spends a ton of time on X. bsky.app/profile/barb...

Barb McQuade@barbmcquade.bsky.social · last mo.

Leave it to Alito to dissent and argue without evidence that voting by mail promotes voter fraud.

lastly, funny how it is the court that determines whether something constitutes history and tradition. a century of established practice vindicated by a century of presidents, congresses and electoral majorities? means nothing because six harvard and yale grads read some bad scholarship

ah the 401K exception. i’ll have to read the slaughter opinion but it is worth saying that insulating operational control of the executive branch from congress is an instance of how “separation of powers” starkly undermines accountability and democracy

Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · last mo.

We have Slaughter and Cook. By a 6–3 vote, SCOTUS overturns Humphrey's Executor and lets Trump fire heads of independent agencies. But by a 5–4 vote, it refuses to let him fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p... www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

There's no sugar-coating Slaughter. It's an enormously important ruling (far more important than the other three decisions #SCOTUS handed down today). It's a huge win for Trump/the executive. And it's going to have massive ramifications for the functioning of the government long after Trump is gone.

Let's be clear in reporting this. SCt expressly overrules (yet another) landmark precedent in Humphrey's Executor that has been the basis of American federal governance for nearly a century.

Anthony Michael Kreis@anthonymkreis.bsky.social · last mo.

SUPREME COURT: Slaughter and Cook. Cook: The Government has not shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its stay application. Slaughter: FTC for-cause removal violates separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

This is pretty much it.

Joe Patrice@joepatrice.bsky.social · last mo.

John Roberts in Slaughter and Cook: “it’s ok to fuck with consumers, but not my personal stock portfolio!”

Slaughter is an earthquake: SCOTUS has overturned a 90-year-old precedent that facilitated much of modern governance by granting many agencies meaningful independence from the president. Now SCOTUS crushes that independence ... for seemingly every agency except the Federal Reserve.

BREAKING: Supreme Court BLOCKS Donald Trump's bid to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. The vote is 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts writes for himself, Justice Kavanaugh and Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

BREAKING: Supreme Court sides with Trump in landmark case involving the presidential power to fire independent agency heads. The vote is 6-3. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

For location data concerns post-Dobbs: "An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, & police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the info—even though for only a limited time, & from a 3rd-party tech company."

Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · last mo.

The Supreme Court's second opinion is Chatrie v. U.S. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that a geofence warrant (described below) IS a "search" under the 4th Amendment. But it declines to say whether THIS search was "reasonable." Kagan writes. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Next up is Chatrie v. U.S. Kagan has the opinion for the court, holding that a search occurred when acquiring cell-phone data from a geofence warrant but remanding for the appeals court to decide if the search was reasonable. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Sigh of relief about the outcome in Watson v. RNC - SCOTUS says federal law doesn't prohibit states from counting ballots received after election day. Then nearly doubled over seeing that ... it was only by a bare majority of 5-4. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

With 2A gender & racial justice back in vogue at SCOTUS, Daniel Harawa & I are avail to discuss their brief Rahimi respite should @strictscrutiny.bsky.social @profmmurray.bsky.social @kateshaw.bsky.social @leahlitman.bsky.social want any help yalelawjournal.org/collection/u...

ACB in Wolford: “It is beyond me why Hawaii would claim these vile laws can justify its present day restriction” because the analogous gun laws cited were part of Black Codes passed by committees describing slavery as benign and misunderstood….sounds eerily familiar www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...

New Florida standards teach that Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

nbcnews.com

I highly recommend Eric Ruben's Law of the Gun, 107 Iowa L. Rev. 173 (2021), to understand the problems with conceiving of guns as the only (or primary) means for keeping and bearing arms for self-defense both historically and currently papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Grant@serow.bsky.social · last mo.

I'm curious about it. In the founding era, a bunch of states had second amendment equivalents in their constitutions that explicity mentioned the right to bear arms "in defense of themselves [or himself], which seems off if the guns weren't seen as self defense weapons.

A truly bonkers part of Alito’s Wolford opinion is distinguishing old laws concerned with the negative impact of shootings on private property because nobody would notice someone carrying a concealed gun…..until that gun is used, which is the entire point of Hawaii’s law 🤦‍♂️