Seriously? The all-male panel of judges issues a majority decision saying female inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy that would protect them from guards (in riot gear, hurling insults at them) ordering them to pull out their tampons, bend over,
spread their cheeks to expose anus and vagina to the guards (and to other inmates on rec time in the gym) - for no better purpose than an optional training exercise for the guards. The search lasted so long that women bled on the floor, on their clothes, on their bodies,
and yet the 2-judge-majority said this was no more intrusive than any routine "visual inspection". I'll admit it's been a long time since I was a deputy public defender and handling 8th Am and 4th Am claims on the regular. But
I'm pretty sure a panel of female judges would've been able to contribute invaluable perspective on whether those inmates had a subjectively or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated under these facts.
And a fun privacy law trivia fact: the right to privacy in civil cases got its start in 1881 (pre-Brandeis/Warren article) when a man who wasn't a relative or doctor observed a woman in childbirth. Because, you know - people expect their bodily cavities to be private.
Of course, privacy under the 4th Am and tort law invasion of privacy are different - no need to @ me. But it's astonishing to me that in centuries of case law about privacy and women's bodies, there are still so few cases where women judges have had a voice in the rulings.
