The long-awaited 11th cir op in the trans rts case of Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John’s Cnty is out. As some predicted, the news is not good for trans rts, w/ a maj holding en banc that the school's "sex assigned at birth" RR policy is valid under the constitution & Title IX. A 🧵: Much could be said about the problems with the 11th Cir's reasoning in this case, but I want to focus here on what I view as the most significant flaws in the Ct’s constitutional analysis. (To be clear, my discussion here does not exhaust the problems even w/ the const analysis!)

1/X Relying on Geduldig v. Aiello, Defs in the 4th Cir case of Kadel v. Folwell argue that their discrim against "sex changes and modifications" is not facial discrim. In an amicus brief filed today on behalf of myself and other con law scholars, I argue that this is erroneous: 2/X For those not familiar with Geduldig, it is the 1974 case that (in)famously held that pregnancy discrimination is not facially and categorically sex discrimination: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

1/22 I’ve now had the opportunity to digest the Court’s decision in Fulton, and wanted to offer a few thoughts on the decision. While (as has been reported) the decision was narrow in its holding, it was deep in important dicta. A 🧵on the key takeaways: 2/22 First, Fulton makes clear that there are 5 (or 6) votes on the Court for overruling Smith. This means that gov't entities should be prepared that they may be subject to meaningful FE scrutiny when their laws (even neutral generally applicable laws) burden religious exercise.

1/25 The final version of my piece on disability identity, Claiming Disability is out today: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Many thanks to the editors at @BU_Law who did an incredible job of the editorial process. Below, a 🧵on the piece: 2/25 Many people who qualify as disabled under federal civil rights law do not self-identify as disabled. Indeed, only a small fraction of those who qualify as disabled under the ADAAA self-identify in this way.

1/24 A thread on yesterday’s decision in Bostock. The takeaways: (1) The majority's textualist reasoning was correct and a major win for LGBTQ employees; (2) While important issues for trans employees remain open, those issues are likely to be resolved in trans employees’ favor; 2/24 (3) Bostock has substantial implications for many other areas of LGBTQ equality law, including the Trump administration’s revocation of trans healthcare protections; (4) The opinion’s discussion of but-for causation is critical reading for all anti-discrimination lawyers;

1/17 Understanding the *real* issue in today’s race discrimination case before the Supreme Court: a thread. 2/17 Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Comcast v. NAAAOM, a race discrimination case under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

1/16 I got a number of thought-provoking responses to my thread on textualism, originalism and the LGBT Title VII cases that I thought were worth responding to with a new thread. Thanks @BRSoucek @limerickless @espinsegall @marty_lederman @wizopindy @KineticDarkroom @sbendc_ 2/16 First, a response to those who suggested the textualist analysis in the Title VII LGBT cases is not as straightforward as I suggest: I respectfully disagree. #textualism #LGBT #TitleVII

1/17 A thread: Why LGBT employees win in the Title VII cases if a textualist methodology is applied (and even most originalist ones too). #textualism #originalism #LGBT #TitleVII 2/17 Many people seem to assume that the application of textualism and originalism necessarily leads to politically conservative results, and thus would lead to a loss in the LGBT Title VII cases. This is not true.