Search results

"Marriage Equality, Public Accommodations Laws, and Religious Exercise" published on by Oxford University Press.

"Litigating Transgender Employment Rights in the United States" published on by Oxford University Press.

This book examines the transgender community's struggle for equality over the last decade, comparing the Obama and Trump administrations' stance on transgender rights policies. Transgender rights claims have assumed an important place on the nation's policymaking agenda as society has increasingly become aware that transgender individuals are subject to discrimination because they do not conform to the norms of the gender identity they were assigned at birth. With Congress virtually absent from the policymaking process, the executive branch and the federal courts have been chiefly responsible for determining the parameters of transgender rights policies. The study contrasts the Obama administration's efforts to expand equal rights for the transgender community, especially in employment, education, and military service, with the Trump administration's determination to rescind the Obama-era initiatives. In their efforts to do so, Trump administration officials have urged the courts to reverse decisions extending the benefit of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees to the transgender community, arguing that gender identity is outside the scope of these protections. Although most federal courts have been inclined to accept the Obama administration's perspective on transgender rights, ultimately, this will be a matter for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. The book is appropriate for students, scholars, and interested general readers.

In this book, Susan Gluck Mezey examines LGBT policymaking over the last several decades, highlighting advances in LGBT rights as well as formidable challenges that still confront the LGBT community. With an emphasis on courts, she traces developments in the struggles for LGBT rights in the United States and abroad.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy. Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's ""disabling interpretations"" in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and

This book makes a unique contribution to the study of gay rights politics by assessing the laws and policies governing the rights of gay children and gay families. The focus of the analysis will be on decision-making by state and lower federal courts_the very courts where the bulk of these questions are likely to be resolved

The executive branch and federal courts and, occasionally Congress, have played key roles in transgender policymaking, but state governments have been particularly important actors in recent years. This article examines the prominent role of state governments in defining the scope of equal rights protections for the nation's transgender community. Some states have expanded transgender rights, whereas others have limited them, with a number of states also preempting local governments' ability to enact protective measures. State attorneys general have also filed suit challenging the federal government's efforts to guarantee transgender rights. In general, transgender policymaking demonstrates continuity with patterns highlighted in recent federalism scholarship. Consistent with policymaking in other areas in a polarized era, state transgender policymaking is characterized by "variable speed federalism," whereby certain states move more quickly than others in advancing transgender rights. Additionally, in a development particularly applicable to morality policy, advances in transgender rights in certain states and jurisdictions have sparked backlash in other states and produced emotionally charged interactions leaving little room for bargaining and compromise.

Abstract
When gay rights advocates asserted demands for equality in the courts, they found that the likelihood of a favorable outcome was tied to the standard of judicial review—known as the level of scrutiny—the courts applied to the law. "Scrutiny"is a shorthand term that describes the extent to which courts defer to majoritarian decision makers, primarily legislative bodies. The courts' determination of the appropriate level of scrutiny—crucial to the outcome of the case—depends on the class of people challenging the law, with the courts assigning a higher level of scrutiny to laws affecting groups with insufficient clout to prevent legislation that infringes on their rights. Despite the importance of scrutiny in equal rights jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), did not establish the proper level of scrutiny for laws restricting same-sex marriage. Although the lower courts overwhelmingly struck state bans on same-sex marriage in the cases following Windsor, they did so without guidance from the Supreme Court on the matter of scrutiny. This study presents key district court rulings in the post-Windsor litigation, showing that the Supreme Court's failure to articulate its position on scrutiny provided opportunities for the lower courts to provide their own interpretation of the doctrine. Using the traditional standards for determining the level of scrutiny to apply, most concluded that it was appropriate to apply heightened scrutiny to claims based on sexual orientation. Thus, in addition to its implications for the future of marriage equality, the study also raises broader questions about the continued viability of this decades-old doctrine and the resolution of this doctrinal uncertainty.