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
Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman, and Nelson Tebbe
We are less sanguine than Mark Tushnet
that the "culture wars" are over and progressives
have won, as we argue in a recent
piece in Vox. Certainly, Mark is right that
there has been a decided cultural shift in the U.S. regarding same-sex marriage.
But this achievement is politically contingent. Depending on the time horizon,
LGBT rights may still be in play, as are reproductive rights, religious
accommodations, and the scope of religious disestablishment.
Consider the long term first. Mark
acknowledges that if Trump has the opportunity to make two (or more) appointments
to the Supreme Court, affirmative action and reproductive rights could be on
the table. But the same could be said for same-sex marriage—there’s no
guarantee that Obergefell would
survive a Trump Court. In fact, many other aspects of the so-called “culture
wars” could be unsettled if that happens: Employment
Division v. Smith and school prayer, for starters. Now maybe Mark is right
that political support for same-sex marriage and other rights is sufficient to ensure
that any such legal reversals are temporary. But we are less confident about
making predictions that stretch that far into the political future.
A Trump Court would also uphold the
legislative changes that are coming in the near term—and we are sure to see a
continuation of “culture war” conflict around these laws. The religious freedom
legislation being contemplated by this Congress implicates basic civil rights. Most
immediately, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have pledged to
reintroduce the First Amendment Defense Act.
Read broadly—and some sympathetic courts will read it broadly, especially after
President Trump has made further appointments to them—the legislation would
permit religious organizations, including for-profit companies, to discriminate
in myriad ways. A radical version of FADA has already been enacted in
Mississippi. Mark’s prediction that FADAs will face legal challenges has proven
correct in that case—a federal trial court struck down the Mississippi FADA in Barber v. Bryant. Yet that decision is
now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, where it is far from certain to be affirmed.
Beyond FADA, moreover, the Russell Amendment will likely return, as we point
out in our Vox piece.
Even without two appointments, the
federal FADA may well be upheld. Consider that conservatives have won all of
the major church-state decisions in the last decade, outside same-sex marriage:
Hosanna-Tabor, Hobby-Lobby, Town of Greece—and before
that, ACSTO v. Winn and Hein v.
Freedom from Religion Foundation, which both significantly restricted
standing to raise Establishment Clause challenges. (Holt v. Hobbs and O Centro
were not politically charged, because they protected members ofreligious minorities and did not involve
harms to third parties.) In these cases, the Court expanded free exercise
or narrowed disestablishment, including by closing down avenues for objecting
to state funding of the religious mission.
Even if all the achievements of the
LGBT and women’s equality movements remain in place, moreover, there are
significant opportunity costs. Remember that LGBT persons are still not explicitly protected under federal civil rights laws concerning employment, housing, or
public accommodations. How long will Americans have to wait for those kinds of
basic guarantees? If the culture wars were over and progressives had won, we
would expect a quick resolution of that unfinished business. Instead, civil
rights law will move in the opposite direction—the EEOC’s interpretation of
existing laws to protect LGBT people will be quickly reversed, presumably, as
will President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order protecting LGBT workers against
employment discrimination by federal contractors. We could add many more
examples of expected reversals on civil rights questions.
Mark may be reading the cultural
mood of the country correctly, at least in the long term—though Trump's
election illustrates the contingency of all aspects of the progressive project.
From our perspective, it looks like Americans will be battling the “culture
wars” for some time to come. In the short term, and in the long term if the
Court’s composition changes dramatically, America could look more like the religious
nation that some of Trump’s advisors and supporters envision.