Both statutory and constitutional law prohibiting discrimination forbid actions taken on the basis of certain traits. But rarely are those traits specifically defined. As a result, courts fill in these definitions and do so with consequential results. The boundaries they draw often determine whether or not a law, policy or action constitutes disparate treatment on the basis of a legally protected trait. As disparate treatment calls for a significantly heavier burden of justification than does disparate impact, the key move putting laws, policies and the acts of individuals into one category or the other happens in this definitional step. Defining disparate treatment also requires a clear understanding of what taking action “because of” or “on the basis of” a protected trait entails. While the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County took an initial stab at this mechanism question, many ambiguities remain. A clear understanding of disparate treatment requires that we answer both the definition question and the mechanism question. Yet doing so is not easy, a fact that has not been adequately appreciated. To make progress on defining disparate treatment, this Article describes four puzzles, and in so doing develops a research agenda for our times.
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
Privacy is a key issue in AI regulation, especially in a sensitive area such as healthcare. The United States (US) has taken a sectoral approach to...
Reviewing, (For the Balkinization Symposium on) Solangel Maldonado, The Architecture of Desire: How the Law Shapes Interracial Intimacy and...
Colleges and universities nationwide struggled to respond to student protests this past academic year. And this fall may prove even more challenging...
Our perceptions of what we owe each other turn somewhat on whether we consider “another” to be “an other”—a stranger and not a friend. In this essay...
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...
In recent years, several popularly elected leaders have moved to consolidate their power by eroding checks and balances. Courts are commonly the...
This book responds to a sea change in federal civil rights law. Its focus is on the recent decisions on affirmative action, almost entirely rejecting...
On Thursday afternoon, in an important lawsuit seeking to clarify which religious objectors will be taken seriously when they seek legal exemptions, a...
In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an unprecedented decision, finding that frozen embryos should be treated as children under Alabama...
The recently enacted Respect for Marriage Act is important bipartisan legislation that will protect same-sex marriage if the Supreme Court overrules...
The role of implicit racial biases in police interactions with people of color has garnered increased public attention and scholarly examination over...
“Dignity” is a rallying cry of social and political movements worldwide. It also appears in legal doctrine and scholarship. But the meaning of dignity...
Working hand-in-hand with the private sector, largely in a regulatory vacuum, policing agencies at the federal, state, and local level are acquiring...
This article argues that federal Indian law is located at the intersection of two competing paradigms: exceptionalism, under which Indian law is...
More than a year after the Supreme Court found there is no fundamental right to get an abortion, 21 states have laws in effect that ban abortion well...