Gregg Strauss

Family law prof @UVALaw writing on marriage, parentage, & liberal public reason.

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@lsepper Yes please

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@ProfCRobertson - Relation between neg standards (RP, custom, CL rules, and NPS) and evidence required for 12b6 and 56
- relation of that to allocation of authority between community, professions, legislators and judges

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@ProfessorAtkins If you want an explanation why we moved away from fault, I like “Gaslighter” by the Dixie Chicks

[Hi-Phi Nation @HiPhiNation]

Season 6 Trailer is out now, new episodes begin dropping a week from today. https://t.co/8nlVdPbiey

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@ProfessorAtkins Congrats!

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@mollyxbrady Laura and I are thinking of you all.

[Melissa Murray (@ProfMMurray on Threads 🧵) @ProfMMurray]

Like clockwork.

[Maggie Blackhawk @MaggieBlackhawk]

#SCOTUS could shake the foundations of Indian law this term in Brackeen, a constitutional challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act. Honored to file a brief on behalf of @The_OAH and @AHAHistorians. This is the first time either organization has filed in an Indian law case. 1/

[Dr. Marie-Amélie George @ProfMAGeorge]

The Respect for Marriage Act is a big deal, because changing the federal definition of marriage is essential if the Court overturns Obergefell. BUT, it won't solve the larger problem of marriage equality rights. 🧵

[Kay Khan @RepKayKhan]

Excited to report that my bill to end child marriage passed unanimously today in the FY23 Massachusetts Budget. The law will protect children from abuse and allow any minor (under 18) who is married to initiate divorce proceedings. MA is now the 7th state to end child marriage.

[Courtney Joslin @CourtneyGJoslin]

House passes The Respect for Marriage Act by a vote of 267-157, including 47 Rs voting yes.
https://t.co/h78f2kcbf6

[Mary Ziegler @maryrziegler]

It used to be that the "life of the mother" exception was accepted not only by the GOP but by leaders of the right-to-life movement. That's changing--this is just one sign. So what's happening? History helps with this.
Thread

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@dsc250 @evanbernick The statutory reasoning in Bostock doesn’t transfer directly to the EPC. What legal status do the categories of EP analysis have? Would they feel bound to apply discrimination on the basis of “sex”?

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@evanbernick @dsc250 Loving is easily racial discrimination. But I seriously doubt there’s a fifth vote for holding that discrimination in marriage in the basis of sex violates the EP clause. That vote won’t come from Roberts, and which history minded conservative would go for that?

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@lsolum I don't think that's the only question. Stare decisis policies make the cases distinguishable, but the rest of Dobbs' reasoning impugns all SDP cases.
The opinion casts doubt. Lots of it.
Unless they will not apply their historical test to future attempts to overrule SDP cases.

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

In Dobbs and in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has effectively declared, "We are using legal reasoning to decide this case that we will not use in future cases."

Even if you believed them, how can anyone think this is legitimate?

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@lsolum Perhaps they will conclude the five-factor analysis will result in a different conclusion, but the historical test for unenumerated rights casts doubt on any rights -- gay marriage, sexual liberty, unmarried father's rights -- that states did not historically respect.

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@lsolum "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
The fact that you add one more premise - this case involves fetal life - does not mean the other premises are not perfectly generalizable.

[Gregg Strauss @gregg_strauss]

@lawprofblawg The same one who said the Obergefell majority opinion was “an act of will, not legal judgment,” with “no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedence”?