Are you a business owner with bathrooms who doesn’t want to do this? If so, please feel free to reach out.
Here’s the text, btw, for anyone who has only seen the reporting on the bill but not the bill itself: capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill…
Let me also just note that the definition of “restroom” is, uh, rather broad:
I looked into it. It's unconstitutional. It's not commercial speech; it compels endorsement of a controversial, disputed viewpoint; and there is virtually no chance that the government can prove that it addresses a "real not purely hypothetical" problem.
Relatedly, if you could get the companies that you patronize to stop supporting these fucking people (looking at you @ATT), that’d be swell. wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/…
It had a fiscal note: capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Fisc…. They just imposed the cost on private business, so their conclusion was “Not Significant—IDGAF.”
No, you foolish pissant, the law viciously *targets* trans people and compels private businesses that don't hate them to warn their customers about that fact (among other compelled speech)—something that should "really bother" anyone who's not an asshole.
I will waste exactly one more tweet on you before muting you, even though you are not asking in good faith, but to answer: Requiring *only businesses that don’t discriminate* (as opposed to all businesses) to post a policy alone fails narrow tailoring on underinclusivity grounds.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniel A. Horwitz

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danielahorwitz

20 May
Ok folks, let’s talk about constitutional litigation for a second, since some of you are pretty confused about it.

lawandcrime.com/high-profile/t…
To begin, while the vast majority of laws are presumed (and are) constitutional, that presumption flips—dramatically—in certain contexts. Generally speaking, compelling people to say things that they don’t want to say is one of those contexts.
It’s that flipped presumption—where the Government has to meet the burden of proving that a law is constitutional—that leads to cases like this: tennessean.com/story/news/201…
Read 22 tweets
19 May
How would you feel if your jurisdiction passed a law compelling you to post your policy on misunderstanding the compelled speech doctrine?
Of course I have an answer to this extremely easy question, which was lower in the thread, but if you want more than that you can pay my retainer.
Good thing for plaintiffs that the relevant standard isn't "whether @AaronWorthing sees a viewpoint being compelled," then.
Read 4 tweets
7 May
This tweet belongs in a museum.
Make sure you get the “Twitter for iPhone” part in, it completes the triple crown.
Relatedly, for anyone who missed it earlier this week, I injured myself laughing at this clip:
Read 4 tweets
6 May
It’s my understanding that this is the final text of the new Chancery “super court.” Unless I’m missing something, this is not that big a deal? It’s largely purposeless, sure, but this is a pretty modest change, particularly compared with what was initially proposed.
The folks who pushed this are going to be *shocked* to learn that the problem with their laughably unconstitutional shit was not, in fact, the county where suit is filed.
Relatedly (and I don’t have a great way to verify this), I would be pretty surprised to learn that more than a handful qualifying cases are filed each year. So I guess the 5-10 of us who file these kinds of cases regularly will get our own little special panel thing.
Read 4 tweets
5 May
I have thought about this for years, and I am finally at the point where I’m completely convinced: There should be full and automatic fee shifting to prevailing parties in all litigation between private litigants.
Many. And their recoveries would have been larger and faster if big corporations and insurance companies had to worry about paying my fees.
Additional, related note: It would also make financial sense to represent individuals with low-damages cases against large corporations and insurance companies if you could win a fee-shift. Right now, it makes no financial sense at all.
Read 31 tweets
29 Apr
This thread is (unsurprisingly) valuable and correct and good, and you should read it. I’m just chiming in to note that:

(1) Intros are not just for briefs! They are valuable in complaints, too.

(2) Readers often don’t read stuff in a single sitting, so the intro helps orient.
I get lots of love for my intros (see, e.g., ), so to the extent they’re useful to anyone, I’ll link some of my favorites below. Also note: Most courts don’t ask for intros or require them. To quote Judge Sutton: “But the rules don’t prohibit them, either.”
My view on intros has always been that in addition to providing a road map for what follows, they should quickly introduce and then hammer home your strongest argument right upfront. Here’s the intro from the Ludye Wallace case, for instance: horwitz.law/wp-content/upl….
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(