Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
@mjs_DC
May 30 • 5 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Two professors at @UTAustin, John Hatfield and @DanielBonevac, are suing for the right to penalize their students who miss class because they are obtaining an abortion out-of-state. media.aflegal.org/wp-content/upl…
Hatfield and @DanielBonevac say they "do not intend to accommodate student absences from class to obtain abortions—including illegal abortions and purely elective abortions that are not medically required." They want to penalize any student who misses class for this reason.
@DanielBonevac This case was filed with the federal court in Amarillo, Texas, where the plaintiffs have a 100% chance of drawing Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee who attempted to ban mifepristone.
@DanielBonevac Here's the declaration from UT Austin's @DanielBonevac demanding a right to penalize students who miss class for an abortion: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2470…
Image
@DanielBonevac And here's the near-identical declaration from UT Austin's John Hatfield—who, like Bonevac, also demands the right to discriminate against "transvestites," and refuses to use "they" as a singular pronoun.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2470…
Image

• • •

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!

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 @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
May 23
The Supreme Court's second decision is Alexander v. SC NAACP. By a 6–3 vote, the majority REVERSES a district court decision that had struck down a South Carolina congressional district as a racial gerrymander. Alito writes; all three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
In a solo concurrence, Clarence Thomas declares his belief that racial gerrymandering claims should be deemed non-justiciable political questions, permanently prohibiting federal courts from scrutinizing allegedly racist redistricting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
In my view, the Court has no power to decide these types of claims. Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches
In dissent, Justice Kagan writes that Alito has effectively transformed his earlier dissent in Cooper v. Harris into the law now, making it nearly impossible for federal courts to strike down racist gerrymanders. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
To be fair, we have seen all this once before—except that it was in a dissent. Just seven years ago, this Court decided another racial-gerrymandering case, strikingly similar to this one. In Cooper v. Harris, the Court rejected the State’s request for an alternative-map requirement; the dissent vehemently objected. See 581 U. S., at 318; id., at 334–337 (ALITO, J., dissenting). The Court applied normal clear-error review, deferring to all plausible trial court findings. See id., at 293. The dissent, invoking a presumption of good faith, instead deferred to all plausible arguments of the los...
Read 8 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
May 16
The Supreme Court's third and FINAL opinion of the day is in the CFPB. In a 7–2 opinion by Justice Thomas, the court UPHOLDS the CFPB's funding structure, concluding that it does NOT violate the appropriations clause.

Alito and Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Our Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc, but it specifies that its control must be exercised in a specific manner. The Appropriations Clause commands that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Art. I, §9, cl. 7. For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding on an annual basis. This annual process forces them to regularly implore Congress to fund their operations for the next year. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is different. The Bureau does not ...
Today's decision is a HUGE victory for the CFPB and a major defeat not only for the corporate lobby, but for the 5th Circuit, which embraced a theory so radically anti-historical and atextual that JUSTICE THOMAS wrote the opinion emphatically reversing it. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
In case Justice Thomas' smackdown for the 5th Circuit weren't enough, Justice Kagan wrote a concurrence—joined by Sotomayor, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT—explaining why the 5th Circuit's analysis of constitutional history and tradition was completely wrong. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
I join in full the Court’s opinion holding that the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau complies with the Appropriations Clause. As the Court details, that conclusion emerges from the Clause’s “text, the history against which that text was enacted, and congressional practice immediately following ratification.” Ante, at 6. At its inception, the Clause required only that Congress “identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes.” Ibid. The Clause otherwise granted Congress “a wide range of discretion.” Ante, at...
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Apr 1
Today's decision effectively means that abortion is now illegal in Florida beyond six weeks, before most people know they're pregnant.

BUT: The citizens of Florida will have a chance to enshrine permanent abortion protections via ballot initiative in November.
Note that the Florida constitution already provides explicit protections for the "right to privacy." For decades, the Florida Supreme Court held that this guarantee protected access to abortion. The conservative majority just overturned all those precedents.
Sorry, the six-week ban will take effect in one month, not immediately.
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 15
The Supreme Court's third and final opinion of the day is in Pulsifer v. U.S. In a 6–3 opinion, Justice Kagan reads the First Step Act's safety-valve provision narrowly, to prevent many defendants from obtaining relief. Gorsuch, Jackson, Sotomayor dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Today's decision in Pulsifer will be a grave disappointment to many, many individuals seeking relief under the First Step Act from harsh mandatory minimum sentences. It shrinks the law's safety valve by reading the word "and" to mean, in effect, "or." Unfortunate in my view.
In his dissent, Gorsuch explains how the majority effectively rewrites this provision of the First Step Act to make relief far more difficult to obtain. It really does require verbal gymnastics to get there. But six justices did. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Yes, the government’s implicit distribution theory requires a reader to delete words before the em dash. Yes, it requires a reader to reinsert them in three different places where they do not appear. But maybe, the government suggests, Congress implicitly intended for a reader to do all that. Even though what it wrote is susceptible to a far more natural construction requiring none of these gymnastics.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 5
The five-justice majority's opinion in the Trump ballot removal case has a lot of ambiguous language that leaves many questions unresolved. How you read that language, of course, determines how far you think the majority goes to dismantle the insurrection clause. It's debatable!
I tend to think the three liberals are correct that "the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office."

Reading the opinion that way, you easily see how it forecloses any enforcement of the insurrection clause.
But if you want to read the majority opinion more generously—in a way that contradicts what the three liberals claim it says—you certainly can. Such is the nature of ambiguous judicial language.

I agree with @gtconway3d that in some key ways, the opinions just don't line up.
Read 9 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 4
If you double click where it says "JJ." at the top, then copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

And if you do a control-F search for "SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part," it highlights that same line. Image
It looks like the liberals' opinion was originally styled as a partial dissent written by Justice Sotomayor, but got changed to a concurrence in the judgment authored jointly by all three liberals. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
I see that the copy-paste approach doesn't work on every computer, but the control-F approach should.
Read 4 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(