08 August 2025
Litigation v. Politics
The Trump Administration appears committed to crush any and all opposition by the aggressive use of national power. Given the constitutional status of federalism within the United States, these attempts at control from Washington are provoking a wave of litigation. However, it is also important to pay attention to the political means by which states can engage in resistance. A major issue of the moment is whether the Texas Legislature will adhere to the strong demand by Donald Trump that it redraw the legislative districts; and whether Democrats within the state will succeed in their defiance. Continue reading >>
0 
23 July 2025
Another Step in the Anti-Abortion Agenda
Trump’s recently passed “One Big, Beautiful Bill” bars Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood for one year. The provision is now temporarily blocked after Planned Parenthood filed suit. But it builds on, and must be read against, the backdrop of Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a recent and disastrous Supreme Court ruling initiated by South Carolina. The case starkly illustrates the Court’s continued alignment with an anti-abortion agenda advanced through state governments and forms part of a broader assault on civil rights. Not least, its entanglement with Medicaid signals a deeper campaign against the poor and access to healthcare. Continue reading >>
0
21 July 2025
Stopping the Davids, Shielding the Goliaths
In Barbara v. Trump, an individual federal district court judge stopped the Administration’s birthright citizenship executive order nationwide. Just when the Supreme Court said this was not allowed in Trump v. CASA, a New Hampshire judge ordered universal relief, this time through a class action. There is a big difference between a nationwide injunction that benefits non-parties and a class action that benefits class members. But what they have in common is that they both empower the “little guy” to enforce the rule of law. The Supreme Court has eliminated the former and is now trying to kneecap the latter. Continue reading >>
0
18 July 2025
Progressives and the Supreme Court
The Case for Disengagement Is Misguided Continue reading >>
0
11 July 2025
Laboratories of Authoritarianism
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded. Continue reading >>
0
10 July 2025
Silencing Children’s Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum. Continue reading >>
0
09 July 2025
The Liberal Litigation Trap
The progressive legal movement faces a harsh reality: its reliance on federal courts has become a strategic liability in an era of conservative judicial dominance. Rather than continue on its current path or abandon impact litigation entirely, liberal cause lawyers should embrace “resistance through restraint” – tactically starving conservative appellate courts of cases while redirecting their energy toward democratic organizing, state-level advocacy, and defensive litigation. Continue reading >>09 July 2025
Trump’s Final Frontier?
Trump nominated Emil Bove III, a former attorney of his, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Bove nomination signals a turn away from the Federalist Society, the signature institution of the conservative legal movement. With it, the radical forces of the New Right movement are now making inroads into the inherently conservative judiciary. This is a development that could be a key step in consolidating Trump's power. Continue reading >>
0
23 June 2025
The Erosion of Equal Protection
In United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, reaching that conclusion by construing equal protection jurisprudence in regressive ways. The majority reasoned that the law not only did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status either. This post explains how the Skrmetti decision threatens to narrow the scope of constitutional equality protections in the United States, why it is dangerous for the equality claims of women and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and why it is likely to be so damaging for transgender people targeted by state and federal lawmakers in recent years. Continue reading >>
0
13 June 2025