With all our recent discussion on Skrmetti, and questions of scrutiny as applied to gender dysphoric individuals, the question of where women’s rights stand in this morass deserves new attention. Professor Jill Hasday has written an important book, We the Men, which is deeply relevant to these discussions. To what extent does inequality persist in the law? When Courts seek to answer this question, they often cite the great progress that has been made. Professor Hasday hypothesizes that this very celebration of progress tends to obscure the remaining issues, and may in a sense pre-empt the scrutiny required. The echoes of Skrmetti are profound, and Professor Hasday joins us for a lively discussion of these issues and many others - including that recent bugaboo, the Geduldig case, which rears its ugly head once again. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti. Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination. Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court. In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did. Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases. This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court’s term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti. This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar. Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present. It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction. Our experts add more than their take on the arguments - they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed. This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica’s Constitution. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.