Monday, June 17, 2024

Robin R. Runge on "Safe Leave from Work Post-Dobbs"

Robin R. Runge published Safe Leave from Work Post-Dobbs in Volume 28 of the Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal.  The abstract is excerpted here: 

Given the increasing restrictions on how and where a person who becomes pregnant may seek abortion care, and the large number of workers who experience reproductive coercion including birth control interference, and/or pregnancy related abuse, who may need to seek abortion related services, it is important to examine their rights as workers to take leave from work to seek these services without fear of job loss.


Domestic violence impacts a high percentage of working women and people who become pregnant every year. Pregnancy-related abuse, reproductive coercion, birth control sabotage, and interference with abortion-related decisionmaking are common forms of gender-based violence and harassment that may lead a survivor to seek abortion-related medical care. Without access to leave from work for this purpose, many victims of domestic and sexual violence may not seek the services necessary to ensure their health and their safety. Survivors should be able to take job guaranteed time off from work, ideally paid, to seek medical care for a dangerous pregnancy and/or seek other pregnancy related health care including abortion care, which may require travel to another state if their state prohibits abortions, without fear of job loss.


This essay examines how state laws providing leave from work to victims of gender-based violence and harassment may be utilized to obtain necessary medical services, including abortion care, to address pregnancy-related abuse and reproductive coercion, birth control sabotage, and interference with abortion-related decision-making that is increasingly necessary post-Dobbs.

June 17, 2024 in Abortion, Equal Employment, Family, Violence Against Women, Workplace | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, June 13, 2024

SCOTUS Unanimously Upholds FDA Rule on Abortion Pill on Grounds of Standing

In an unanimous opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the lower court's invalidation of the FDA's current rules on the permissibility of the abortion pill, mifepristone.  The opinion is based solely on standing, finding that the pro-life physicians did not have standing to seek an opinion on the pill because they did not use, prescribe, or manufacture the pill. Instead, they sought to address others' personal use -- a fatal flaw for standing.

A concurrence by Justice Thomas goes deeper into associational third-party standing. There is a brief paragraph of particular interest to Remedies scholars, where Thomas discusses redressability and cites, Grupo Mexicano, Uzuegbunam, and universal injunctions.

The case is: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Oath, 602 U.S. ___ (June 13, 2024).

One favorite line:  "An Article III Court is not a legislative assembly, a town square, or a faculty lounge."


June 13, 2024 in Abortion, Healthcare, Reproductive Rights, SCOTUS | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 10, 2024

Elizabeth Tobin-Tyler on "Abortion Rights and the Child Welfare System: How Dobbs Exacerbates Existing Racial Inequities and Further Traumatizes Black Families"

Elizabeth Tobin-Tyler published Abortion Rights and the Child Welfare System: How Dobbs Exacerbates Existing Racial Inequities and Further Traumatizes Black Families in Volume 51 of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. The conclusion is excerpted below: 


The Dobbs decision has profound implications for women, children, families and communities in states that have banned or severely restricted access. In states with large Black populations that have banned abortion and a long legacy of racial injustice and parsimonious safety nets for low-income families, the consequences will be most dire. With abortion outlawed, state lawmakers and child welfare system agency administrators have to decide if they will act to support family health and well-being or continue punitive policies that tear families apart based on poverty and deprivation. So far, state policymakers seem to be either ignoring the post-Dobbs consequences for families altogether or proposing policy solutions that will only exacerbate existing injustices — such as expanding the foster care system as proposed by the Mississippi House Speaker. With the Supreme Court and federal and state policymakers undermining reproductive and racial justice, advocates will be more vital than ever in helping to mitigate the harms, particularly to Black families, that are coming.



June 10, 2024 in Abortion, Family, Race | Permalink | Comments (0)

Abrams & Potts on "The Rhetoric of Abortion in Amicus Briefs"

I have published The Rhetoric of Abortion in Amicus Briefs with the University of Missouri Law Review. The work is in Volume 89 at page 399. Here is the abstract: 

The amicus briefs filed in landmark abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court serve as a barometer revealing how various constituencies talk about abortion, women, fetuses, physicians, rights, and harms over time. This article conducts an interdisciplinary legal-linguistic study of the amicus briefs that were filed in the milestone abortion cases of Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. As the first large-scale study of all amicus briefs submitted in these key cases, this article identifies the roles of amicus briefs, analyzes their rhetorical strategies, and describes how their authors engage with the Court. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the study reveals how the discursive construction of the pregnant person, fetus, physician, and abortion as a right have evolved over fifty years and shows why these shifts matter. In so doing, this study offers historical perspectives into evolving arguments in abortion litigation, contemporaneous insights into the status of polarized abortion politics, and future implications for amicus activity and abortion advocacy.

June 10, 2024 in Abortion, Constitutional, Courts, Gender, Healthcare, Pregnancy, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 3, 2024

Elizabeth Haub School of Law Announces Women, Gender & the Law Emerging Scholar Award: Call for Submissions

Elisabeth Haub School of Law's has released a Call for Submission in its annual Women, Gender & the Law Emerging Scholar Award. The announcement is here.  

Women, Gender & the Law Emerging Scholar Award: Call for Submissions


The Elisabeth Haub School of Law is pleased to announce the competition for its annual Women, Gender & the Law Emerging Scholar Award.  This paper competition is open to all having with five (5) or fewer years of full-time law teaching experience as of July 1, 2024. The deadline for submissions is July 1, 2024.


The purpose of the award is to encourage and recognize excellent legal scholarship related to gender and the law.  The work chosen for the Women, Gender & the Law Emerging Scholar Award should make a substantial contribution to legal literature and reflect original research and/or major developments in previously reported research.


Papers will be reviewed on a blind basis by a committee comprised of members of the Haub Law faculty with expertise in this area.  The winner of the competition will be invited to present the paper to selected students and faculty at Haub Law (located in White Plains, NY) during the 2024-2025 academic year, with reasonable travel expenses from within the continental U.S. paid, or via Zoom, as circumstances permit and by mutual agreement.




All persons who have held full-time teaching positions for five (5) or fewer full academic years as of July 1, 2024 are eligible for consideration. One does not have to be on the tenure-track or tenured to be eligible. Time as a VAP or Fellow does not "count against" the five (5) year clock.


There is no subject-matter limitation for submissions, as long as the paper relates in some way to gender and the law.


Jointly authored papers are accepted as long as each author independently meets the eligibility requirements.




There is no publication commitment associated with the competition. 


Papers are eligible regardless of whether they were published prior to submission date, are scheduled to be published after the submission date, or are not yet under submission.


Each applicant is limited to one (1) entry.


Papers considered in prior years' competitions are eligible for resubmission.


There are no page-length or word-count limitations.


All publications (including scholarly articles, book chapters, legal briefs and other writings) are eligible for consideration.




We will accept submissions for the Emerging Scholar Award from June 1, 2024, through July 1, 2024. The winner will be announced by August 30, 2024.


To participate, please email your work, redacted as necessary to preserve anonymity (for the blind judging process), as a portable data file (PDF) to Judy Jaeger, Senior Staff Associate, at [email protected] with the subject line "Emerging Scholar Award."


Please include in the body of the email your name, institutional affiliation and confirmation that you meet the eligibility requirements.


Unredacted or late papers will not be considered.


June 3, 2024 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ari Ezra Waldman on "Gender Data in the Automated Administrative State"

Ari Ezra Waldman has published "Gender Data in the Automated Administrative State" in volume 123 of the Columbia Law Review. The abstract is here: 

In myriad areas of public life—from voting to professional licensure—the state collects, shares, and uses sex and gender data in complex algorithmic systems that mete out benefits, verify identity, and secure spaces. But in doing so, the state often erases transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming individuals, subjecting them to the harms of exclusion. These harms are not simply features of technology design, as others have ably written. This erasure and discrimination are the products of law.

This Article demonstrates how the law, both on the books and on the ground, mandates, incentivizes, and fosters a particular kind of automated administrative state that binarizes gender data and harms gender-nonconforming individuals as a result. It traces the law’s critical role in creating pathways for binary gender data, from legal mandates to official forms, through their sharing via intergovernmental agreements, and finally to their use in automated systems procured by agencies and legitimized by procedural privacy law compliance. At each point, the law mandates and fosters automated governance that prioritizes efficiency rather than inclusivity, thereby erasing gender-diverse populations and causing dignitary, expressive, and practical harms.

In making this argument, the Article challenges the conventional account in the legal literature of automated governance as devoid of discretion, as reliant on technical expertise, and as the result of law stepping out of the way. It concludes with principles for reforming the state’s approach to sex and gender data from the ground up, focusing on privacy law principles of necessity, inclusivity, and antisubordination.

June 3, 2024 in Gender, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0)

Greer Donley and Caroline Kelly on "Abortion Disorientation"

Greer Donley and Caroline Kelly have posted a draft of their work-in-progress, titled Abortion Disorientation, on SSRN. This work-in-progress will be published in Volume 74 of the Duke Law Journal. Here is the draft's abstract: 

The word “abortion” pervades public discourse in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But do we know what it means? Not only do law and medicine define it differently; state legislatures have codified wildly different definitions of abortion across jurisdictions. Our analysis exposes inherent ambiguities at the boundaries of the term, particularly as abortion intersects with other categories that we often think of as distinct: pregnancy loss, ectopic pregnancy, and other forms of medically necessary care. By juxtaposing statutory text next to real people’s experiences of being denied care in states with abortion bans, we reveal how those ambiguities have led to tragic results. Our analysis tracks how legislatures have responded to the tragedies of their own making by changing the definition of abortion to exclude certain types of care. Fifteen abortion-hostile legislatures have changed the definition of abortion since Dobbs, thirteen of which have added at least one definitional exclusion, most commonly for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, molar pregnancy, or fertility treatment. States that have expanded abortion rights, on the other hand, have moved in the opposite direction, broadening their abortion definitions as they expand reproductive rights. Our analysis concludes that antiabortion legislatures are running a fool’s errand: that it is impossible to fully distinguish abortion from other types of reproductive healthcare. The lines drawn are inherently vague, incoherent, and impossible to rectify. The Dobbs framework, which moved the complicated experience of pregnancy from the medical to the legal domain, is functionally unworkable, strengthening calls to overturn the decision.

A full version of the draft article is available here

June 3, 2024 in Abortion, Legislation, Pregnancy, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

New Women Law Deans

Updated 5-28-24

Once again, Gender & the Law Blog's annual list of New Women Law Deans. We will update as announcements are made.

Women are 15 of 29 (52%) new law deans in 2024. 

Aviva Abramovsky, Idaho (previously Dean, Buffalo)

Marcilynn Burke, Tulane (Dean, Oregon)

Anna Carpenter, Oklahoma (Utah, Prof. & Special Advisor to President)

Brietta Clark, Loyola LA (Interim Dean, Loyola LA)

Camille Davidson, Mitchell Hamline, President & Dean (Dean, Southern Illinois)

Jelani Jefferson Exum, St. John's (Dean, Detroit Mercy)

Twinette Johnson, St. Louis (Dean, District Columbia)

Julia Hill, Wyoming (Vice Dean, Alabama)

Johanna Kalb, U San Francisco (Dean, Idaho)

Leslie Kendrick, Virginia (Prof., Virginia)

Stephanie Lindquist, Washington U, St. Louis (Prof., Arizona State)

Alicia Ouellette, Lewis & Clark (President & Dean, Albany)

LaVonda Reed, Baltimore (Dean, Georgia State).

Jenny Roberts, Hofstra (Prof. & Clinic Director, American)

Franita Tolson, USC (Interim Dean, USC)


Marcilynnburke_600   Anna Carpenter    Lavonda.reed_-4117056254-e1711371849757    USC_GSL_Dean_Franita_Tolson_Headshot_20230503_132-350x500-1    Camille M. Davidson    JohannaHill-web    Jelani Jefferson    Stefanie Lindquist    Brietta Clark    Kendrick_leslie    Jenny RobertsDean Twinette Johnson Alicia Ouellette   

May 28, 2024 in Education, Law schools, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

20 Best Women in Law Blogs and Websites 2024

Check out the 20 Best Women in Law Blogs and Websites, 2024

Including us here at the Gender & the Law Prof Blog!

May 28, 2024 in Gender, Media, Women lawyers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 24, 2024

Is International Criminal Law Feminist?

Margaret M. Deguzman & Rachel Lopez, Is International Criminal Law Feminist?, Oxford Handbook on Women and International Law (forthcoming) 

The future of international criminal law as a feminist project at its essence turns on one central question: Does international criminal law advance feminist goals? To answer this question, this chapter charts the landscape of feminist critiques of international criminal law, identifying two schools of feminist thought. On one hand, there are those who believe in the enterprise of international criminal law as a method of advancing women’s rights and on the other, those who reject the enterprise believing that it undermines them.

To aid this analysis, the chapter applies a framework conceived by Robert Cover, and elaborated by Katherine Young, of redemptive and rejectionist approaches. Feminists who adopt a redemptive frame recognize the limitations of international criminal law, but ultimately see the enterprise as redeemable—that is, they believe that with the right reforms it can be a tool for advancing women’s rights. In contrast, those who adopt a rejectionist frame, believe the premises that undergird international criminal law are so fundamentally anti-woman, that the best course is to reject it wholesale and find another tool for advancing women’s rights. The goal of this chapter is to put these schools of thought in conversation and suggest ways that feminists can work together to support their core shared goal: the advancement of women’s equality.

May 24, 2024 in International, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Life and Work of the First Woman Elected Justice of the Peace, Catharine Waugh McCullough

Sandra Ryder, Clearing the Bar: Catharine Waugh McCullough and Illinois Legal Reform

Catharine Waugh McCulloch was one of the first women admitted to practice law in Illinois, and the 18th woman admitted to practice in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. After graduating from law school and passing the bar, she experienced difficulty finding a legal position in Chicago, so she opened an office in Rockford, Illinois, where she often took on destitute women clients. She initiated the shared writing among women attorneys, which became the Equity Club. She ran for Attorney General in 1888 and was active in many women's groups. After marrying a classmate from law school, the two formed a partnership in law and marriage; they wrote briefs, tried cases and published legal documents together.
McCulloch drafted a bill which changed guardianship laws, and another which raised the age of consent for girls from 14 to 16, both of which were passed into law. After an Illinois case gave women the right to vote in school elections, McCulloch recognized the significance of this ruling. Together with the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association, she and other suffragists toured the state by auto, speaking and handing out flyers and pamphlets. She drafted a bill by which Illinois women could vote in municipal and presidential elections, and every year, for 20 years, she and others went to Springfield to testify and lobby for her bill; it passed in 1913, and this Illinois suffrage law was instrumental in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. Not satisfied, McCulloch worked with the Chicago charter revision committee to have women's suffrage included; she fought to have the Illinois Constitution revised to include women's suffrage; she was successful in both efforts.
Meanwhile, in 1907, McCulloch was the first woman elected to a judicial position, Justice of the Peace, in Evanston, Illinois, and by all men. She was appointed Master in Chancery of the Cook County Superior Court for four, two-year terms. She was selected the first woman elector to the State Democratic Convention in 1916. While practicing with McCulloch & McCulloch, she had one case which used contract law to set public policy regarding wholesomeness of food; this case later was incorporated into one portion of today's Uniform Commercial Code. Since much of their practice dealt with probate and estates, the McCulloch's co-authored A Manual of the Law of Will Contests in Illinois.
With the National League of Women Voters, McCulloch fought for years, again using print media, speeches and women's groups, to have women on juries, and to make the laws concerning women uniform throughout the U.S. *3 Always committed to utilizing law to reform the legal status of women and children, McCulloch wrote plays, essays, legislative bills, speeches, pamphlets, and used the power of print media to convince the public; her plays were still being produced in the 1990s.
After their many years of legal practice and innovation, in 1940 both McCulloch and her husband were named “Senior Counselors” of the Illinois Bar Association. But her legacy is far more reaching; when any woman votes, retains custody of children or property in a divorce, or serves on a jury, it is because of the vision and relentless legal work of Catharine Waugh McCulloch and her peers.
In track and field, clearing the bar indicates that the person has exceeded expectations and is ready to face even more difficult ones. McCulloch did not just pass the bar; because women entering the legal profession was in its infancy, and due to the bulk and import of her legal contributions, McCulloch cleared the bar with room to spare.

May 24, 2024 in Judges, Law schools, Legal History | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 20, 2024

Chan Tov McNamarah on "Cis-Woman-Protective Arguments"

Chan Tov McNamarah has published "Cis-Woman-Protective Arguments" in Volume 123 of the Columbia Law Review.  Here is a summary excerpt: 

It has become common to oppose the equal citizenship of transgender persons by appealing to the welfare of cisgender women and girls. Such Cis-Woman-Protective (CWP) arguments have driven exclusionary efforts in an array of contexts, including restrooms, sports, college admissions, and antidiscrimination law coverage. Remarkably, however, this unique brand of anti-trans contentions has largely escaped being historicized, linked together, or subjected to extended analytical scrutiny as a group.

Tallied up, these problems make a strong case that, strategically, CWP arguments are ineffective and deeply flawed—even counterproductive—assuming that protecting cis women and girls is truly the goal. Building on that assessment, the Essay concludes with reasons for healthy skepticism that it actually is. Stripping away the veneer of protectionism begins to expose some less-palatable intentions and effects possibly driving the use of CWP arguments.

This Essay provides those missing pieces.

First, it situates CWP arguments within the longer history of woman-protective justifications in American law. Taking their well-known harms to women, alongside their use in lending legitimacy to discrimination against racial and religious minorities, forcefully demonstrates that the rationales’ current use against transgender persons warrants closer inspection.

Second, the Essay canvasses recent CWP arguments to document the line of thought. Reading the heretofore-uncollected allegations reveals a far-reaching cluster of contentions, whose members bear striking family resemblances to, and inherit the disfigurements of, their historical priors.

Third, casting unsparing light on the claims, the Essay demonstrates that CWP arguments overwhelmingly fail to deliver. Structurally, the arguments’ moves are questionable, at best. Substantively, most fall wide of their mark. And, instrumentally, the arguments backfire completely, since their operationalization harms the very persons they supposedly protect.

May 20, 2024 in Constitutional, Gender, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tobin-Tyler on "Abortion Rights and the Child Welfare System: How Dobbs Exacerbates Existing Racial Inequities and Further Traumatizes Black Families"

Elizabeth Tobin-Tyler has published Abortion Rights and the Child Welfare System: How Dobbs Exacerbates Existing Racial Inequities and Further Traumatizes Black Families in volume 51 of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Here is an excerpt on how to advocate for Black families post-Dobbs:

Abortion rights organizations are now working to support women living in states with bans or restrictions to obtain abortions in states where abortion is still legal and to access self-managed medication abortion. But many women will be unable to obtain an abortion when they want or need one. Given this fact, an advocacy agenda must be built around supporting mothers and children, defending them from unjust CPS intervention, and promoting access to reproductive healthcare. This agenda should be grounded in reproductive justice which accounts for and calls out racism and other forms of oppression that trample human rights and affirms that women not only have the right to decide if and when to have children, but also “to parent the children they have in safe and sustainable communities.” This includes freedom from state removal of their children due to structural racism and poverty.

Now that anti-abortion policymakers have achieved their wish, they must be held accountable for the effects of abortion bans on women, children and communities. Reproductive justice requires an intersectional approach to the myriad ways in which policy choices affect marginalized people. The voices of affected women who can speak to the reality of what abortion bans mean--including the impact of forced birth, parenting an unwanted child in poverty, experiencing CPS involvement and child removal--should be prioritized and promoted by advocates. Building coalitions with those seeking economic justice and child welfare system reform will broaden the constituency base and call attention to the ramifications of failing to enact policies that invest in families. Academic researchers and policy analysts should support community-based advocates by tracking the evidence linking abortion bans to increases in poverty and CPS caseloads.

* * * Ultimately, reform will only be possible through acknowledgement of the structural racism inherent in multiple systems, most profoundly, the child welfare system. * * * Post-Dobbs, the call to action to replace the current child welfare system with one framed by reproductive justice--which encompasses racial justice, gender justice, economic justice, and human rights--is more important than ever.



May 20, 2024 in Abortion, Family, Healthcare, Poverty, Pregnancy, Race | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hannah Wilson on "The Gendered Face of Climate Change: Exploring the Impact of Climate Change on Gender-Based Violence and the Role of State and Non-State Actors in Effecting Climate Justice"

Hannah Wilson published The Gendered Face of Climate Change: Exploring the Impact of Climate Change on Gender-Based Violence and the Role of State and Non-State Actors in Effecting Climate Justice in Volume 38 of the American University International Law Review. Here is the abstract: 

Climate change affects men and women differently. While some individual women may be less vulnerable to climate change than some men, the global perpetuation of discrimination, inequality, patriarchal structures, and systematic barriers contribute to an overall higher risk of women experiencing harmful effects of climate change. International human rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. However, in practice, systematic discrimination, harmful stereotypes, and social, economic and political barriers related to gender can lead to varied climate change impacts with respect to health, food security, livelihoods and human mobility, and more, which may significantly limit women’s and girls’ adaptive ability in the face of climate change. Such barriers include limited or inequitable access to financial assets and services, education, land, resources and decision-making processes, among many others. This reality is even starker for women and girls who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination; particularly those of lower socio-economic status, rural women and girls, and older women. As such, climate change perpetuates gender inequality. In turn, harmful gender stereotypes and entrenched forms of structural discrimination often significantly hinder women’s ability to meaningfully participate in climate action. Addressing climate change, including its gendered impacts, is therefore essential to the promotion and protection of the rights of women and girls.

May 20, 2024 in Healthcare, International, Science | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 17, 2024

Judicial Biography of Esther Morris, First Justice of the Peace

I came across this article in my research. It is not new, but is illuminating and is careful, impeccable research on the first woman to sit in a judicial capacity.

Marcy Karin, Esther Morris and Her Equality State: From Council Bill 70 to Life on the Bench, 46 J. Amer. L. History 300 (2004)

This article focuses on the life of Esther Hobart Morris – the first female judge in the United States and a key figure in Wyoming’s pioneer women’s suffrage legislation. It attempts to sift through the myth, clarify her achievements as a judge, advocate, and family woman, and provide a picture into the life of the “Mother of Woman Suffrage.” Morris’ life and story as Justice of the Peace is necessarily told side-by-side with the realization of woman’s enfranchisement in the Equality State.


May 17, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

New Book, Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Fair Economy

Naomi Cahn, June Carbone & Nancy Levit, Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Fair Economy (Simon & Schuster 2024)

In an era of supposed great equality, women are still falling behind in the workplace. Even with more women in the workforce than in decades past, wage gaps continue to increase. It is the most educated women who have fallen the furthest behind. Blue-collar women hold the most insecure and badly paid jobs in our economy. And even as we celebrate high-profile representation—women on the board of Fortune 500 companies and our first female vice president—women have limited recourse when they experience harassment and discrimination.

Fair Shake: Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy explains that the system that governs our economy—a winner-take-all economy—is the root cause of these myriad problems. The WTA economy self-selects for aggressive, cutthroat business tactics, which creates a feedback loop that sidelines women. The authors, three legal scholars, call this feedback loop “the triple bind”: if women don’t compete on the same terms as men, they lose; if women do compete on the same terms as men, they’re punished more harshly for their sharp elbows or actual misdeeds; and when women see that they can’t win on the same terms as men, they take themselves out of the game (if they haven’t been pushed out already). With odds like these stacked against them, it’s no wonder women feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can’t get ahead.

Fair Shake is not a “fix the woman” book; it’s a “fix the system” book. It not only diagnoses the problem of what's wrong with the modern economy, but shows how, with awareness and collective action, we can build a truly just economy for all.

May 14, 2024 in Books, Equal Employment, Workplace | Permalink | Comments (0)

Symposium Advancing Pregnant Persons' Right to Life

Boston University School of Law, Advancing Pregnant Persons' Right to Life

On February 8, 2024, scholars of law, medicine, and religion from across the world came together at Boston University School of Law to discuss the potential of promoting and protecting reproductive justice through advancing pregnant persons’ right to life. Stemming from that event are six articles and an annotated bibliography from leading legal scholars. This historic and important symposium is captured in its entirety in the video below.

The Free Exercise Right to Life
David A. CarrilloAllison G. Macbeth, & Daniel Bogard
104 B.U. Law Review Online 19 (2024)

Religion Clause Challenges to Early Abortion Bans 
Caroline Mala Corbin
104 B.U. Law Review Online 37 (2024)

Medical Authority and the Right to Life
Jessie Hill
104 B.U. Law Review Online 67 (2024)

The Right to Life as a Source of Abortion Rights: Lessons from Kansas
Richard E. Levy
104 B.U. Law Review Online 87 (2024)

Turning Away from Criminal Abortion Laws and Towards Support for Pregnant People and Families
Cynthia Soohoo
104 B.U. Law Review Online 109 (2024)

Reproductive Justice and the Thirteenth Amendment
Rebecca E. Zietlow
104 B.U. Law Review Online 143 (2024)

Annotated Bibliography: “Persons Born” and the Jurisprudence of “Life
Martha F. Davis
104 B.U. Law Review Online 161 (2024)

May 14, 2024 in Abortion, Conferences, Constitutional, Pregnancy, Religion, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0)

CFP 150th Anniversary of Minor v Happersett and Women's Second Class Citizenship

The 150th Anniversary of Minor v. Happersett: The Past and Future of Women's Rights

Washington University School of Law

September 27, 2024

Call for Papers

Abstract Submission Deadline: June 14

The Washington University School of Law and the Washington University Law Review will host a Symposium centered on the 150th anniversary of the historic St. Louis case, Minor v. Happersett, on September 27, 2024. (The 150th anniversary will align with the subsequent publishing of the Law Review's Symposium edition as Volume 6 of Issue 102 the following spring.)

In 1872, Virginia Minor challenged a St. Louis registrar's decision to block her from registering to vote. Minor argued the Fourteenth Amendment conferred upon her the right to vote as a "privilege" of American citizenship. In 1875, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Minor's assertion, ruling that voting was not a right of national citizenship. Despite the rejection of Minor's claim, this case remains an important historical moment in both American women's suffrage and the feminist movement at large.

This Symposium will bring together scholars across many fields of law, including feminist studies, voting rights and election law, and related fields. Submissions having no direct relation to the Minor case are welcome. Papers might address topics including, but not limited to, the following:

  • The history and evolution of women's rights
  • Past or present voting rights and election law
  • Ballot initiatives post-Dobbs

The Symposium will consist of approximately 3-4 panels over the course of one day, with the panels being created by the Law Review based on relatedness of subject matters across selected pieces. Participants will attend and serve on the panels, and will be asked to read up to a dozen papers (with special attention paid to the papers of others on their panel). The papers circulated for the Symposium are drafts, and the discussion on September 27 will include feedback.

The Symposium will include a dinner the night before. There is no conference fee, and Washington University will host all of the meals on the conference date. Funding will be available to assist with travel expenses-each participant is eligible for up to $1,000 to reimburse hotel and economy-class airfare expenses.

To apply, please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to [email protected] by June 14, 2024. Submissions will be vetted by a committee of students from the Law Review, supervised by faculty advisors (listed below). Selection will be based on the originality of the abstract as well as its capacity to engage with other papers in a collaborative dialogue.

Participants will also be invited to submit a paper for publication in the Washington University Law Review's Symposium edition (Issue 6 of Volume 102). The publication cycle for this edition will begin in February 2025, with publication estimated to be in the late summer of 2025. If you are interested in publishing a paper (10,000-15,000 words), please indicate your interest when you submit your abstract.

Participants will be notified of their selection by early July. Drafts for distribution at the Symposium will be due on September 6. We look forward to your submissions and participation. Questions can be directed to the organizing Law Review members and their faculty advisors via the [email protected] address.

Thank you!

Hannah Keidan

Chief Diversity Editor (Law Review lead on the Symposium)

Washington University Law Review

[email protected]

Kaitlyn Salyer


Washington University Law Review

[email protected]

Susan Frelich Appleton

Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law

Washington University School of Law

[email protected]

Travis Crum

Associate Professor of Law

Washington University School of Law

[email protected]

May 14, 2024 in Call for Papers, Constitutional, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 6, 2024

Cinnamon P. Carlarne and Keith Hirokawa on "Disrupting Dominance"

Cinnamon P. Carlarne and Keith Hirokawa published "Disrupting Dominance" in the Connecticut Law Review. The abstract is here: 

Climate change poses one of the greatest threats to human health and well-being. It also poses enormous challenges to the rule of law. As climate change progresses and climate impacts intensify, it becomes increasingly urgent to consider whether and how we are drawing upon the law as a tool to advance human adaptation to climate change. Equally, we must consider whether and how the evolving rule of law around climate change responds to existing patterns of social, political, and economic inequality. These are the questions this article engages.

As a starting point, this Article centers human vulnerability as a necessary focal point for analyzing adaptation law. Humans are vulnerable to climate change. However, levels of vulnerability vary widely depending on who we are and where we live. The spaces we live and the places we call home are characterized by inequalities and precarities that shape how resilient communities are in the face of climate change. Climate change will exacerbate these inequalities absent intentional efforts to surface and disrupt dominance in climate adaptation strategies.

Disrupting Dominance advances the project of disrupting patterns of dominance and enabling more effective and equitable climate adaptation law. To achieve these goals, the Article contextualizes the extensive but disparate threats climate change poses to humans before examining the evolving but underdeveloped legal architecture for adaptation planning. Disrupting Dominance then engages the questions of what vulnerability is and why vulnerability matters in the context of climate change adaptation. Here we make our case for moving towards a model of adaptation planning that is responsive to the needs, priorities, and capacities of all members of society. Finally, this Article explores climate adaptation in context to show how different local governments vary in their commitment to disrupting dominance and centering equity in climate adaptation planning.

Disrupting Dominance offers a critical intervention in climate adaptation law. It demonstrates how dominance limits the ability of communities to flourish in the face of climate adversity and offers a more equitable and sustainable model for climate adaptation law.

May 6, 2024 in Science | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sweeny and Canon on "The Language of Love v. Beshear"

JoAnne Sweeny and Dan Canon have published The Language of Love v. Beshear: Telling a Client's Story While Creating a Civil Rights Case Narrative in volume 17 of the Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. The article was shared on SSRN here. The Introduction is excerpted here: 

We tend to think of a good lawyer as being a vigorous, focused advocate, one who thinks first and foremost of the interests, needs, and desires of their clients. But what if the client’s case will affect an entire group of people; a group who may also seek to have its collective rights vindicated? This is the dilemma of the civil rights attorney—how does an effective advocate balance the specific needs of the client with the broader, long-term needs of the group the client represents? And who should have a say in what story is told on behalf of the client? In civil rights cases, it is not just the client, but activists, organizations, academics, and the media who have a stake in the outcome. How much of a say should they have in the creation of a litigation story that will most directly impact a single client? How are those stories crafted? With careless, blunt-force litigation, or with purposefulness? And does it matter who gets to tell the story?


* * *

Focusing on the Kentucky case, Love v. Beshear, this article shows how civil rights attorneys may be constrained by their dual roles—advisors to their clients and advocates for civil rights—and how they decide what story to tell to remain true to their clients’ needs while keeping engaged with the larger civil rights issues inherent in these impact litigation cases. Moreover, once the litigation has begun, the other players—organizations, media, even the judges themselves—can change the story, highlighting what they see fit. The ultimate story of who a lawyer’s clients are ultimately may not be up to the lawyer or the client.  


It concludes: 


Obergefell built a bridge to same-sex marriage, creating solid ground for the next group of civil rights lawyers
to again expand our understanding of what relationships and “equal dignity” really mean. As the country’s understanding of same-sex couples has evolved, so has the array of stories that lawyers can tell about groups that may be insular or unfamiliar to the broader public. For example, now that transgender, bisexual, nonbinary, and polyamorous people’s stories are becoming more mainstream, their stories can be used to champion a broader understanding (and legal recognition) of fundamental rights. This continuous opening of new chapters to familiar stories is the essence of civil rights advocacy.

May 6, 2024 in Courts, Gender, Judges, Legal History, Same-sex marriage, SCOTUS | Permalink | Comments (0)