A lot of media coverage about the Justice Department's defense of Title IX's religious exemption is misleading and confused. It has fomented a great deal of anger among progressives that is deeply misplaced. This is not the story you might think it is. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Title IX's religious exemption has existed since Title IX was passed in 1972. The Department of Justice has a duty to defend it. A Christian organization is trying to seize that duty from the DOJ, which would be very bad. DOJ is right to insist on defending the law itself.
The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities wants to take over the defense of Title IX's exemption so it can present extreme arguments in favor of sweeping religious exemptions from civil rights laws. Again: The DOJ is right to resist that effort. slate.com/news-and-polit…
There is absolutely no chance that the federal judiciary will invalidate Title IX's longstanding exemption for religious institutions. This lawsuit may represent a worthy cause, but it is a pipe dream. There is a very good reason why no major LGBTQ groups have signed on.
This is a hopeless lawsuit, and the Justice Department is trying its best to limit the damage by urging a judge not to let a Christian group step in, take over the defense, and make sweeping arguments for greater religious exemptions. That is a good thing.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern 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!


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 @mjs_DC

10 Jun
Kagan continues to ruthlessly own Kavanaugh—here she mocks him for complaining "how unfair it is" that his "view has not prevailed here." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan: Kavanaugh merely reprises the government's "flawed argument," "if at a higher volume," "putting the rabbit in the hat" by "inserting the word that will (presto!) produce [his] reading."
The "presto!" is Kagan's addition, not mine—part of her extended metaphor framing Kavanaugh as an amateur magician who inadvertently reveals his trick to the audience before performing it.
Read 9 tweets
10 Jun
The first and ONLY Supreme Court decision today is in Borden v. U.S., an ACCA case. No blockbusters! supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
By a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court holds that a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness does NOT qualify as a “violent felony” under ACCA’s elements clause.

Plurality: Kagan, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, & Gorsuch.

Thomas concurs in the judgment.

The rest dissent.
We have never before had a 5–4 decision with Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Thomas casting the five votes for the judgment.

Thomas begrudgingly concurs but reminds us that he wants to overrule Johnson v. U.S. (one of Scalia's best decisions!). supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Read 5 tweets
7 Jun
It bears repeating that Judge Benitez's ruling against California's assault weapon ban promotes the anti-vax lie that COVID vaccines are killing many people—while falsely trivializing mass shootings with an AR-15 as "infinitesimally rare." d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicy…
The portion of Benitez's opinion blithely trivializing the unique trauma of gunshot wounds from assault weapons is particularly nauseating.
Note, too, Benitez's contradictory conclusion: Mass shootings with assault weapons are "infinitesimally rare" in California, yet California's assault weapons ban is a "failed experiment which does not achieve its objectives of preventing mass shootings." d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicy…
Read 8 tweets
7 Jun
The first and ONLY Supreme Court opinion today is in Sanchez v. Mayorkas, a unanimous decision by Kagan holding that a TPS recipient who entered the U.S. unlawfully is not eligible under §1255 for LPR status merely because he has TPS. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
No blockbusters* from the Supreme Court today. Next SCOTUS opinion day is Thursday (my birthday!).

*with the caveat that every case is a blockbuster to someone!
You all better be ready to wish me happy birthday while we wait for doom on Thursday.
Read 5 tweets
7 Jun
The Supreme Court takes up one new case, FBI v. Fazaga, a dispute over FISA and the state secrets privilege. scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
Here is the full orders list: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Whoa—Sotomayor, joined by Breyer and KAVANAUGH, suggest the all-male draft may be unconstitutional, but counsel deference to Congress while it debates ending the all-male draft itself. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Read 10 tweets
6 Jun
The ACLU’s actual legal advocacy represents its institutional values; individual staffers’ tweets do not. All lawyers understand this, but some pretend not to.
The narrative that the ACLU has abandoned the First Amendment does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.
Also, the fact that @chasestrangio supported Amazon’s decision to stop selling an anti-trans book does not conflict with the ACLU’s commitment to free speech. Private businesses have a right to sell or not sell any book they choose. The ACLU has long defended corporate speech.
Read 6 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!