E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Sometimes radical violations of widely accepted principles hide
in plain sight.In a new paper
just posted on SSRN, Jeffrey Kosbie identifies one of these.Here is the abstract for his paper, “(No)
State Interests in Regulating Gender: How Suppression of Gender Nonconformity
Violates Freedom of Speech”:
Despite limited growth in legal protections for transgender
people, dress and appearance are largely treated as unprotected matters of
personal preference. In response, lawyers and scholars argue that dress and
appearance are intimately connected to the expression of identity. Nonetheless,
courts have generally deferred to the government’s proffered justifications for
these laws.
This article refocuses on the government’s alleged interests in regulating
gender nonconformity. Using a First Amendment analysis, the article reveals how
seemingly neutral government interests are used to single out conduct because
it expresses messages of gender nonconformity. This approach avoids impossible
questions about the subjective intent of the individual to express their
identity.
Drawing on social constructionist theories of gender, this article establishes
that dress, appearance, and other behavior communicate the social meaning of
gender, and should be understood as communicative under the First Amendment.
When the state singles out conduct because it expresses gender nonconformity,
the state’s interests are related to the suppression of a message. This violates
freedom of speech under the governing O’Brien doctrine. Testing the theory
against actual cases involving government employment, child custody, and
restroom access, the article recognizes legitimate government interests in
privacy, safety, and efficient workplace environments. However, the article
argues that under present doctrine on freedom of speech, the government may not
suppress gender nonconformity as the means of achieving these ends.
I won’t try to summarize Kosbie’s argument further.Go read the paper.
I work in the areas of both sex discrimination and free speech,
and I had not seen the connection Kosbie draws until I read this paper.Now I will never be able to think about this
issue the same way again.It is a major
contribution.