Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Here is what FWS says. The reasoning is:
- the Act prohibits associations from discriminating
- there's an exception for an association limited to people who "share a protected characteristic"
- so if "sex" includes GRC holders, women's groups must include trans women with GRCs, which is bad

Thus, as well as the inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians such an
approach would carry with it, it would also have practical implications for lesbians across
several areas of their lives (as described by Ms Monaghan KC in her written case for the
second interveners). Of particular significance is the impact it would have for lesbian
clubs and associations governed by Part 7 of the EA 2010, including relatively small
associations (they must have at least 25 members and admission must be regulated by the
association’s rules and involve a process of selection). Part 7 of the EA 2010 prohibits
discrimination, harassment and victimisation against applicants for membership,
members and their guests, of clubs and associations: sections 101 and 102 of the EA 2010.
However, Schedule 16 paragraph 1 allows an association to restrict membership, access
to benefits, services and facilities, and access to guests to “persons who share a protected
characteristic”. In other words, clubs and associations can restrict membership and access
to women or to same sex attracted people without contravening sections 101 and 102 of
the EA 2010. But there is no exception permitting the exclusion of trans women
(biological men) with a GRC (so legally female). Accordingly, if a GRC changes a
person’s sex for the purposes of the EA 2010, a women-only club or a club reserved for
lesbians would have to admit trans women with a GRC (legal females who are
biologically male and attracted to women). Evidence referred to by the second interveners
suggests that this is having a chilling effect on lesbians who are no longer using lesbianonly spaces because of the presence of trans women (ie biological men who live in the
female gender).

229. Similarly, Schedule 16 paragraph 1 EA 2010 allows for an association to restrict
membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (which would otherwise be
unlawful discrimination in contravention of section 101(1)(b)). However, if sex means
certificated sex, this exception from the sex discrimination provisions for single
characteristic associations would not permit such associations with 25 members or more
(see section 107(2) of the EA 2010 discussed above) to be limited to biological women.
This is because, as we have said, a certificated sex definition of the protected
characteristic of sex would include trans women with a GRC.
230. Nor would single-sex charities be able to use the exception in section 193, which
allows them to restrict the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected
characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. So far as material, section 193
provides:
“(1) A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting
the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected
characteristic if— (a) the person acts in pursuance of a
charitable instrument, and (b) the provision of the benefits is
within subsection (2).
(2) The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is—
(a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or (b)
for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a
disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.”
231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and
charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations.
A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any
women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for
women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breastfeeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed
at the needs of biological females. To require…

December 3, 2025 at 2:13 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

This is from a week and a half ago (November 7) though tbf I can't remember the last time he suggested it as part of a politically plausible deficit cutting package

November 19, 2025 at 3:03 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

I can think of another reason why use of Twitter might correlate with lesser aversion to Nazi symbolism

Matt Yglesias tweet: "It's fascinating how much more solid the anti-Platner consensus is on Bluesky than on the progressive twitter.

We found the audience for Hillary's line that breaking up the big banks won't end systematic racism."

October 28, 2025 at 5:31 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Not the most important part of this Harvard Crimson article about Vermeule but it seems worth noting that LITERALLY THE SAME DAY OBERGEFELL CAME DOWN President Obama gave a major speech in a church focusing on divine grace and then literally sang "Amazing Grace"

October 9, 2025 at 12:28 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

New insights into the history of sexual orientation and the law from Roy Moore's nonprofit

October 6, 2025 at 2:57 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

I had forgotten this, but one of several reasons the chance of a grant here is quite low is that the Sixth Circuit held that Davis failed to preserve her challenge to Obergefell. Not even the only vehicle problem this one has

August 8, 2025 at 7:45 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

This from the Ernest Mandel case is not great, for example (though one wonders whether the Supreme Court would really stand by the quoted language from a 70-year-old case about the Communist Party)

August 7, 2025 at 3:26 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Grupo Mexicano is fairly slippery on this imo, I think reflecting the awkwardness of trying to understand this from a post-Erie standpoint. I don't think it is obvious that the Grupo Mexicano Court would have distinguished federal questions and my guess is that they would not have

We turn, then, to the merits question whether the District Court had authority to issue the preliminary injunction in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.3 The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred on the federal courts jurisdiction over “all suits . . . in equity.” 1 Stat. 78. We have long held that “[t]he ‘jurisdiction’ thus conferred . . . is an authority to administer in equity suits the principles of the system of judicial remedies which had been devised and was being administered by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries.” Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. W. I. Southern, Inc., 306 U.S. 563, 568 (1939). See also, e.g., Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U.S. 368, 382, n. 26 (1949); Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 105 (1945); Gordon v. Washington, 295 U.S. 30, 36 (1935). “Substantially, then, the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is the jurisdiction in equity exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act, 1789 (1 Stat. 73).” A. Dobie, Handbook of Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure 660 (1928). “[T]he substantive prerequisites for obtaining an equitable remedy as well as the general availability of injunctive relief are not altered by [Rule 65] and depend on traditional principles of equity jurisdiction.” 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2941, p. 31 (2d ed. 1995). We must ask, therefore, whether the relief respondents requested here was traditionally accorded by courts of equity.

August 5, 2025 at 3:36 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

This in particular is an outrageous mischaracterization of the law. "Departmentalism" in the sense that the executive branch has the right to rely on its own legal interpretations has a long pedigree. "Departmentalism" in the sense that the president can defy a court order is not!

The final recourse in the system — a controversial and rarely used fallback — is what is described in constitutional theory as “departmentalism”: The president may ignore a judicial order that, on the president’s independent interpretation of the law, exceeds the scope of judicial power, as when a District Court were to purport to bar the president from granting a pardon or vetoing a bill. As my Harvard colleague Jack Goldsmith recently wrote, the theory has “a long pedigree in American history.”

“The basic theory of departmentalism is that while the Supreme Court has the authority to exercise its Article III ‘judicial Power’ in cases or controversies before it,” Mr. Goldsmith wrote, “the President’s Article II duty to ‘take care that the law be faithfully executed’ gives him an independent power to determine what ‘the law,’ including the Constitution, means, for purposes of exercising executive power.”

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, described that possibility as one of the main checks on the judiciary created by the constitutional system of divided powers.

The general merits of departmentalism are much debated. It is strong medicine that risks doing more harm than good overall, and that by its nature requires controversial judgments by the executive.

But whatever its usual merits, the case for it here is different and unusually strong. When a lower court’s order attempting to limit the executive is also an act of mutiny against the Supreme Court, the issue is not conflict between branches, but the legitimate hierarchy of authority within the judicial branch.

By ignoring such an order, the president, far from defying the judiciary as such, would be supporting the authority of the Supreme Court — the only court created by the Constitution itself.

July 31, 2025 at 12:59 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

The agreement does not define "single-sex" but is Columbia agreeing to offer trans-exclusionary single-sex housing here?

July 24, 2025 at 2:44 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Interesting juxtaposition here

July 24, 2025 at 2:39 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

The arguments are boring standard 2010 conservative fare but this claim in particular is a serious distortion of the law. Non-consummation (in the UK) or impotence (the parallel ground in the US) does not make a marriage void, only voidable, and voidability grounds are waivable

July 23, 2025 at 12:06 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

The bullshitting explanation almost has to be right mathematically but what exactly is the actual proposal here

July 23, 2025 at 10:51 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Justice Alito almost invites the potential Don't Say Gay consequence of today's ruling. If the opt out means that unworkably many students opt out, that's the school board's own fault--shouldn't have bothered to do LGBTQ-inclusive education at all!

The Board also suggests that permitting opt outs from the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would be especially unworkable because, when it permitted such opt outs in the past, they resulted in “unsustainably high numbers of absent students.” Id., at 12. But again, the Board’s concern is self-inflicted. The Board is doubtless aware of the presence in Montgomery County of substantial religious communities whose members hold traditional views on marriage, sex, and gender. When it comes to instruction that would burden the religious exercise of parents, the Board cannot escape its obligations under the Free Exercise Clause by crafting a curriculum that is so burdensome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out. There is no de maximis exception to the Free Exercise Clause.

June 27, 2025 at 10:30 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

ceasefire?

June 23, 2025 at 10:45 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Getting some cool new followers

June 17, 2025 at 7:20 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Reuters has read its Baude & Paulsen (obviously the substance here is also important)

June 15, 2025 at 4:17 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Apparently an archaic word whose meaning is disputed (I also failed to get that כ is the prepositional prefix "like" and the word has no relation to כלב)

June 13, 2025 at 3:01 PM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

I guess he's an antisemite after all

9. What’s your bagel order?

As someone who grew up in Morningside Heights, I have to go back to Absolute Bagels. Poppy seed bagel, scallion cream cheese. Some pulp Tropicana on the side. And this is going to lose me some votes, but to be honest with you: toasted.

June 10, 2025 at 11:49 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

Now feat. alt text

Zohran Mamdani NYT interview:
4. What’s one issue in politics that you’ve changed your mind about?
The role of the private market in housing construction.

How so?
I clearly recognize now that there is a very important role to be played, and one that city government must facilitate through the increasing of density around mass transit hubs, the ending of the requirement to build parking lots, as well as the need to up-zone neighborhoods that have historically not contributed to affordable housing production — namely, wealthier neighborhoods.

I think all these things, in tandem with a muscular role for the public sector. But that is a changing opinion over time that I’ve been in office.

June 10, 2025 at 11:45 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

This is a good answer www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/n...

June 10, 2025 at 11:44 AM

Indiscreet Function

@homotopic.bsky.social

But worth noting too that SBC on socially conservative flashpoint issues does not always align with the mainstream of the conservative movement--there's this detail in the article about opposition to IVF, which most conservatives have run away from