1. I worry that the US’s briefing in the SB8 case makes this more complicated than it needs to be. The ability of the US to bring a suit against Texas in equity is a straightforward application of the principles articulated in Ex parte Young. (See rest of thread before replying) 2. Ex parte Young said that courts have the power sitting in equity to declare state laws unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution. But this power is limited by the 11A.

1. Last week we filed our CA2 brief on behalf of Andraya & Terry defending CT’s policy of allowing girls who are trans to participate in athletics without discrimination. Amicus briefs are being filed today
aclu.org/sites/default/… 2. This case was brought by ADF on behalf of four cis girls and has been used as a marketing tool for passing discriminatory sports bans in other states. But—as our briefs shows—the actual facts don’t match the overheated rhetoric. Here is a basic fact check from our brief.

1. New CA6 case recounts the harassment a transgender woman received from co-workers at City of Detroit after transitioning.
opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/2… 2. Harassing complaints falsely accusing her of violating the dress code.

1. Latest dissent by Judge Duncan revealing hypocrisy of anti-trans compelled speech arguments. Recall that Duncan wrote an opinion saying that requiring counsel not to misgender litigants would show bias. And Thapar on CA6 said prohibiting profs from doing so violates 1A 2. Now the CA5 just issued a decision saying a student raised disputed questions of fact as to whether teacher required students to copy down the pledge of allegiance to demonstrate their patriotism and retaliated against a student who refused, in violation of Barnette

After Gavin won in 2016, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay to prevent him form using the restroom. Today the Court denied cert despite the School Board warning that millions of students will be affected by decisions protecting trans kids in CA 4, 7, 11. North Carolina's bathroom bill is gone. Trans kids have been using the restrooms, and the sky hasn't fallen. Despite wild allegations, no one has ever been able to show that anyone's privacy has been harmed by letting trans kids use the restrooms in peace

1. I re-read Dred Scott in light of that New Yorker article people are tweeting about and was struck again by how--in addition to being horrifyingly racist--the methodology of the opinion is a perfect illustration of bad "original anticipated applications" originalism. 2. The opinion acknowledges that the plain text of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) is obviously broad enough to include black people as citizens, but says that the people at the time were so racist that's not what they could have intended.

This term at SCOTUS, ACLU argued most important student speech case in a generation, filed an amicus brief in support of an ADF student speaker, and filed a brief supporting a conservative org’s challenge to law requiring disclosure of donors.

https://twitter.com/jameeljaffer/status/1401629723843870724

And what evidence does the article give for change in ACLU’s actual positions on free speech?
- an internal debate about whether ACLU should bring cases on behalf of Nazis or instead file supportive amicus briefs
…

Listening to a CA6 judge (Kethledge or Thapar) asking a hypo comparing (a) requiring professors to refer to trans students in class by proper pronoun and (b) requiring a Jewish professor to refer to student as "mein fuhrer" I think this oral argument from the attorney representing Shawnee State University may be the worst oral argument I have ever heard.

Getting ready for oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. You can listen here.
c-span.org/video/?471183-… What's Fulton v City of Philadelphia about? It's not about private adoption, or about the right of birth parents to have their child adopted within the faith. It's not about providing foster care group homes or other support services for kids in need.

The memo isn’t actually “dense and legalistic” at all; the reporters just don’t understand the subject matter.

context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def…

https://twitter.com/annielinskey/status/1204218563420205057

She is saying that bankruptcy is designed to provide a process for equitably balancing different creditors’ claims, including consumer creditors, employers, and tort victims. If you let some creditors revive stake claims after reorganization you screw over all the other creditors

Your DOJ just filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying it’s fine for employers to have dress codes prohibiting women from wearing pants.

https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1162775856592412679

Only thing I would add to this great explanation is that the employer literally has a rule prohibiting women from wearing pants. DOJ says it was ok to fire Stephens for wearing a skirt because employer would also have fired a cis woman for wearing pants.

https://twitter.com/ssamcham/status/1163254902434467840

1. I think the disagreement about posting info about Trump's donors turns on a distinction between (a) using donor info to hold elected officials accountable and (b) using donor info to hold donors accountable. 2. NYT and other newspapers often write stories based on donor info to say that politician X is beholden to the interests of big donor Y. But they are not used to donor info being used to say that donor Y should be criticized for their support of politician X.

1. Judge Ho has a concurring opinion out in Wittmer v Phillips 66 that's basically an amicus brief to SCOTUS for why Title VII doesn't protect LGBT people. I have some thoughts.
scribd.com/document/39906… 2. I've read this footnote 15 times, and I still don't understand what he thinks the difference is between original legislative intent and original public meaning. It has the patina of logic, but it has no real content.

1. I’ve been tweeting about this horrific proposal, but I want to make sure people know not to panic. If you are feeling terrified and anxious here is some context.
nyti.ms/2R9W1jB?smid=n… 2. As I understand it, this is a proposal for how agencies will interpret the scope of protections from sex discrimination in Title VII, IX and other civil rights statutes. They can’t make a new law. They can just interpret existing law.

"They look like good, big, strong precedents don't they?" Me reading slip opinions