tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/equal-protection-clause-93211/articlesEqual Protection Clause – The Conversation2024-03-13T18:03:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2257352024-03-13T18:03:30Z2024-03-13T18:03:30ZJudge nixes some of Georgia’s charges against Trump and his allies − but that won’t necessarily derail the case<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581713/original/file-20240313-16-atpi0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C21%2C4804%2C3210&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump continues to face criminal charges in Georgia, even though some have been dismissed by a judge.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2024TrumpInsurrectionAmendment/d86f97b40fdc4d09ba8a4815b47d50f7/photo">AP Photo/Steve Helber</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A Fulton County judge <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24478988/trump_specialdemurrers_31324.pdf">has tossed out six of the 41 state charges</a> against Donald Trump and his allies in Georgia’s expansive election interference case against the former president and others.</em></p>
<p><em>Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a ruling on March 13, 2024, that focused on charges related to allegations that Trump and other defendants tried to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/13/us/donald-trump-charges-quashed-georgia-mcafee.html">get state officials to break the law</a> and decertify the 2020 election results.</em></p>
<p><em>The ruling doesn’t mean that the entire case is derailed, explains Georgia election and legal scholar <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AI_UyLUAAAAJ&hl=en">Anthony Michael Kreis</a>. It’s a focused and technical ruling that says Georgia District Attorney Fani T. Willis has not specified which exact law the defendants are allegedly violating in some instances.</em> </p>
<p><em>It also doesn’t have anything to do with the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/13/fani-willis-disqualification-impact-trump-georgia-case/">defense effort to disqualify Willis</a> from the Trump case because of her romantic relationship with another prosecutor. An Atlanta-area judge is expected to soon rule on this issue.</em> </p>
<p><em>Politics and society editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Kreis to better understand what’s behind this ruling and its implications for Georgia’s case against Trump and his allies.</em> </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a black robe sits behind a desk, flanked by the U.S. flag and the Georgia state flag." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581701/original/file-20240313-22-fhr3r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has been hearing motions in the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump for election interference in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/judge-scott-mcafee-presides-during-a-hearing-in-the-case-of-news-photo/2001155374">Alyssa Pointer-Pool/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>What just happened with this ruling?</strong></p>
<p>Essentially what we have here is a response to a legal motion on behalf of a number of defendants, including Trump. In that motion, Trump and his co-defendants say that the state did not give enough detailed particulars about the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-state-georgia-appears-set-file-charges-against-donald-trump-court-document-2023-08-14/">crimes that the defendants have been charged</a> with and thus should be thrown out. </p>
<p>The set of charges revolve around the concept of a violation of an oath. That sprang up as a result of Trump’s <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/highlights-of-trump-s-call-with-the-georgia-secretary-of-state-1/b67c0d9dbde1a697/full.pdf">phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger</a>, with Trump asking him to “find” 11,780 votes that would have given Trump a win in Georgia. The charges also related to some of the defendants’ testimony before the state General Assembly, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-giuliani-georgia-election-indictment-fulton-county-203b1e69cbff227a0bf8cc59a6bb645f">asking the Georgia Legislature to overturn</a> the election and appoint their own electors. </p>
<p>The charges were based on a theory that these defendants unlawfully asked state officials to violate their oath and their duty to the constitutions of the United States and the state of Georgia. What wasn’t clear is what provisions they allegedly tried to induce state officials to violate. </p>
<p>In his ruling, the judge is saying that the state needs to go back to the grand jury and provide details of exactly what aspects of the Constitution these defendants allegedly tried to get state officials to violate, so the defendants have the ability to defend against these charges. </p>
<p><strong>Is the judge saying there is not enough evidence to proceed with this case?</strong></p>
<p>No. He’s saying that the state has not sufficiently explained how the evidence relates to an oath. For example, we know <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-giuliani-georgia-election-indictment-fulton-county-203b1e69cbff227a0bf8cc59a6bb645f">Rudy Giuliani went to the Georgia General Assembly</a> with <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-john-eastmans-2020-election-charges">John Eastman and provided false information</a> in order to encourage these state officials to overturn the election. The theory is that violated both the federal and state constitutions. </p>
<p>But a prosecutor could make that claim in a number of different ways. Did they violate the Georgia Constitution’s right to vote; did they violate the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">equal protection clause</a> in the U.S. Constitution? Is it the right to vote that is spelled out in <a href="https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/state_constitution.pdf">Georgia’s state Constitution</a>? Or is there some other provision of federal or state law they violated? It’s just not clear. </p>
<p>The evidence supporting the charges is there. What is not there is the precise theory of the crime and the exact elements that support those indictments. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A close-up of a man in a suit and tie." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/581702/original/file-20240313-18-9apse0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a key figure in the case against former President Donald Trump and his alleged efforts to influence the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/brad-raffensperger-georgias-secretary-of-state-attends-the-news-photo/2028789353">Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Did this decision surprise you?</strong></p>
<p>No. This charge is kind of a unique charge. It is not something that people have really heard of in this context, particularly when it comes to state legislators and presidential electors. We are in an area of legal theory that is unique and without precedent. The judge is saying because we are in this new sphere of legal theory, the state really needs to be specific about what it is they are trying to prove here and what the nature of the criminality is. </p>
<p>The charge of violating an oath is just not something we see in the state of Georgia. <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4152370-read-trump-indictment-georgia/">The charges have been drafted</a> in a very novel way, but they are responding to an unprecedented situation. We are in this kind of wild west of making law. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, but what it does require is a little greater attention to specifics. And the prosecutors have just not done that yet.</p>
<p><strong>Could this delay the trial against Trump and his allies in Georgia?</strong></p>
<p>Maybe. We will have to see. Willis can bring a new, more detailed indictment that is more in line with the state oath. I think if Willis brings another indictment on these charges, there probably won’t be a delay. </p>
<p>If she appeals this decision, rather than just seeking a new indictment, that might slow things down a little. </p>
<p><strong>Is this a sign that the case is being derailed?</strong> </p>
<p>No. The entire indictment, except the violation of oaths of office, still stands. This makes work for the district attorney but is not a fatal detail. Willis can go back to constitutional law experts in her working group and hone in on the theory of a constitutional violation. And she will have another bite at the apple.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225735/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Michael Kreis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Georgia election law scholar explains what’s behind the ruling and what it means for the state’s prosecution of Trump.Anthony Michael Kreis, Assistant Professor of Law, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092732023-07-07T12:26:54Z2023-07-07T12:26:54ZAffirmative action lasted over 50 years: 3 essential reads explaining how it ended<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536124/original/file-20230706-22749-n7njvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=172%2C112%2C5581%2C3718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Harvard students protesting on July 1, 2023, after the Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/harvard-students-joined-in-a-rally-protesting-the-supreme-news-photo/1448852658?adppopup=true">Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever since U.S. President Lyndon Johnson enacted affirmative action in 1965, white conservatives have challenged the use of race in college admissions. </p>
<p>Their arguments against such policies are typically based on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">use of the equal protection clause</a> of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination against American citizens on the basis of their race, religion or sexuality.</p>
<p>According to this conservative thinking, race-based solutions are discriminatory by their very definition and, as such, are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>The question, then, is how does an institution try to offer a modern-day remedy to atone for long-standing patterns of racial discrimination?</p>
<p>Over the years, The Conversation U.S. has published numerous stories exploring affirmative action – and what diversity on college campuses means with race-neutral admission policies. Here is a selection from our archive.</p>
<h2>1. An ambitious start to level the playing field</h2>
<p>During his 1965 commencement address at Howard University, Johnson explained how he intended to make right the wrongs of the past.</p>
<p>“Freedom is not enough,” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcfAuodA2x8">he declared in his speech</a>, “To Fulfill These Rights.” “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”</p>
<p>One of Johnson’s solutions, as affirmative action scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/travis-knoll-1377873">Travis Knoll</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-is-poised-to-dismantle-an-integral-part-of-lbjs-great-society-affirmative-action-201247">pointed out</a>, was affirmative action.</p>
<p>Unlike the conservative majority on today’s Supreme Court, “Johnson understood that the U.S. could not serve as a moral leader around the world if it did not acknowledge its past of racial injustices and try to make amends,” Knoll contended. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-is-poised-to-dismantle-an-integral-part-of-lbjs-great-society-affirmative-action-201247">Supreme Court is poised to dismantle an integral part of LBJ's Great Society – affirmative action</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Court’s mixed history on affirmative action</h2>
<p>The battle over affirmative action heated up during the 1970s when a legal challenge reached the U.S. Supreme Court in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)#:%7E:text=Primary%20tabs-,Regents%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California%20v.,Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964">Regents of the University of California v. Bakke</a>.</p>
<p>In that 1978 case, Associate Justice Lewis Powell wrote that while race can still be one of several factors in the admissions process, a separate admissions process for minority students was unconstitutional.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Five men and four women are wearing black robes as they pose for a portrait." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Current members of the Supreme Court, from left in front row: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan; and from left in back row: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/united-states-supreme-court-associate-justice-sonia-news-photo/1431388794?phrase=us%20supreme%20clarence%20thomas&adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since then, the Supreme Court has issued different rulings on whether race could be used in college admissions.</p>
<p>As University of Pennsylvania race and equity legal scholar <a href="https://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/shrop/">Kenneth Shropshire</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-2003-supreme-court-decision-upholding-affirmative-action-planted-the-seeds-of-its-overturning-as-justices-then-and-now-thought-racism-an-easily-solved-problem-208807">wrote</a>, the court had subtly established an affirmative action expiration date in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision.</p>
<p>In that case, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” </p>
<p>But Shropshire explained that that O'Connor’s deadline was one of desire and not reality. </p>
<p>“The vestiges of past discrimination and the unfortunate existence of ongoing discrimination continue,” Shropshire wrote. “No deadline has made these wrongs and their impact disappear.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-2003-supreme-court-decision-upholding-affirmative-action-planted-the-seeds-of-its-overturning-as-justices-then-and-now-thought-racism-an-easily-solved-problem-208807">A 2003 Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action planted the seeds of its overturning, as justices then and now thought racism an easily solved problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Selective colleges will become less diverse</h2>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SE2WERAAAAAJ&hl=en">Natasha Warikoo</a>, a sociology professor at Tufts University and author of “<a href="https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=is-affirmative-action-fair-the-myth-of-equity-in-college-admissions--9781509549368">Is Affirmative Action Fair?: The Myth of Equity in College Admissions</a>,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/affirmative-action-bans-make-selective-colleges-less-diverse-a-national-ban-will-do-the-same-189214">shared insights</a> on how the racial and ethnic makeup of student bodies at selective colleges and universities will change now that the Supreme Court has decided to outlaw affirmative action.</p>
<p>As she pointed out, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-might-states-ban-affirmative-action/">nine states already have bans</a> on affirmative action, and studies of college enrollment in those states suggest that enrollment of <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720904433">Black, Hispanic and Native American undergraduate</a> students will decline in the long term.</p>
<p>“Ending affirmative action will make it harder to increase the percentage of professionals and leaders from minority backgrounds,” she explained. “This is because, as research has shown, affirmative action has increased the number of Black college graduates and, in turn, increased the number of Black professionals with advanced degrees.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/affirmative-action-bans-make-selective-colleges-less-diverse-a-national-ban-will-do-the-same-189214">Affirmative action bans make selective colleges less diverse – a national ban will do the same</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Supreme Court’s decision to ban affirmative action programs reverses nearly 50 years of its own decisions that ruled diversity was of vital national importance.Howard Manly, Race + Equity Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2034692023-06-13T12:05:46Z2023-06-13T12:05:46ZProsecuting a former president is not an easy decision. A criminal law professor explains why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531234/original/file-20230611-183676-esj5ai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1151%2C231%2C3531%2C2878&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump speaks out against his federal indictment on June 10, 2023, during a speech in Georgia. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-u-s-president-donald-trump-delivers-remarks-during-news-photo/1497494349?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The question of whether to indict a former U.S. president is a difficult one.</p>
<p>And yet, a state prosecutor has charged Donald Trump with violating <a href="https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf">New York business laws</a>. And a federal prosecutor has charged Trump with violating <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/651859907/gov-uscourts-flsd-648653-3-0#">national security laws</a> as well.</p>
<p>On one hand, the U.S. judiciary system is based on a basic principle of English law that dates back to the early 1200s, that no one is above the law. As medieval jurist <a href="https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/executive-power.html">Henry de Bracton</a> explained in “On the Laws and Customs of England,” the law makes the king, and thus, the king must be subject to the law. </p>
<p>“The king should be under no man, but under God and the law,” de Bracton wrote.</p>
<p>In his brief public statement, Special Counsel Jack Smith paraphrased that concept in announcing his decision to indict Trump on charges of violating national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.</p>
<p>“We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement">Smith said</a>. “Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle. … And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world.”</p>
<p>But a strong case can be made for a prosecutor to exercise discretion and not charge a former president. </p>
<p>Part of that argument is based on the perception such a decision would have among some of the American public, that the criminal justice system had been weaponized to punish political rivals. </p>
<p>In fact, Trump, as well as some of his supporters, has used that perception in an attempt to convince his political base that both indictments are politically motivated. One of Trump’s congressional supporters, Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, has even <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/jim-jordan-on-why-the-select-subcommittee-on-the-weaponization-of-the-federal">convened hearings on the weaponization</a> of the FBI, among other federal agencies. </p>
<p>House Speaker Kevin McCarthy spoke for many of Trump’s supporters when he told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kevin-mccarthy-blasts-biden-doj-trump-indictment-dark-day-america">Fox News Digital</a>: “This is going to disrupt this nation because it goes to the core of equal justice for all, which is not being seen today. And we’re not going to stand for it.” </p>
<p>It’s reasonable that regular citizens might fear prosecutors would abuse their power by filing unmerited, politically motivated charges against their political opponents. Some foundational legal principles can shed light on when such prosecutions are or aren’t reasonable. </p>
<p>When I teach first-year criminal law at Harvard, one of my goals is to help the class understand that criminal law is based on what communities deem to be morally wrong behavior.</p>
<p>In the state case as well as the federal one, both prosecutors believe that Trump’s behavior surpassed that threshold.</p>
<h2>Justice system needs credibility</h2>
<p>When considering charging a former president with crimes, two extreme positions should be rejected at the onset.</p>
<p>First, some argue that equality under the law means just that. If a former president commits a crime, he should be charged.</p>
<p>This position ignores the reality that the costs associated with charging a former president – particularly one who is a current candidate for president – can be high. </p>
<p>Our criminal justice system relies on the citizenry believing in its legitimacy. Widespread belief that the prosecution of a former president is being used as a political tool undermines that legitimacy. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A white man with a beard looks very serious." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531049/original/file-20230609-22-cxytde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a 37-count indictment against former President Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/prosecutor-jack-smith-of-the-us-waits-for-the-start-of-the-news-photo/1229563865?adppopup=true">Peter Dejong /AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, others like McCarthy argue that a former president should not be charged with any crime, as doing so will exact permanent injury on the credibility of American democratic traditions.</p>
<p>This argument overstates the likely consequences as well. </p>
<p>In recent years, two democracies, France and Israel, have indicted a former or sitting leader, and both of <a href="https://theconversation.com/prosecuting-a-president-is-divisive-and-sometimes-destabilizing-heres-why-many-countries-do-it-anyway-188565">those democracies</a> are still functioning.</p>
<p>In France, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/03/01/972453743/former-french-president-sarkozy-found-guilty-of-corruption-sentenced-to-jail">former president Nicholas Sarkozy</a> was charged and convicted in 2021 on corruption counts. And in Israel, sitting prime minister <a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-netanyahu-corruption-trial-courts-4e18ed8f34e65707bd47e37696da4705">Benjamin Netanyahu</a> was charged with bribery, among other counts. </p>
<p>Like France and Israel, the United States’ democratic traditions are strong enough to endure the prosecution of a a former president or a presidential candidate.</p>
<h2>When to charge a former president</h2>
<p>Legal theorists have divided the criminal law into two categories. </p>
<p>Known in Latin as “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malum_in_se">malum in se</a>,” the first category is used to define conduct that is considered naturally evil as determined by the sense of a civilized community. </p>
<p>Such conduct includes, murder, larceny and assault. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black man dressed in a business suit gestures with his hand as he stands near an American flag." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/519943/original/file-20230407-20-q8fiqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg makes a point following the arraignment of former President Donald Trump on April 4, 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/manhattan-district-attorney-alvin-bragg-speaks-during-a-news-photo/1250778327?adppopup=true">Kena Betancur/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The other category is known in Latin as “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malum_prohibitum">malum prohibitum</a>” and involves conduct that is a crime only because the law makes it so. </p>
<p>In plain terms, the malum in se is illegal because the conduct, on its face, is immoral. </p>
<p>In contrast, malum prohibitum is immoral only because a law has deemed it illegal.</p>
<p>For example, a premeditated murder is immoral on its face.</p>
<p>Failing to proceed with caution at a yellow light is not immoral per se; it’s wrong because lawmakers have written a code that says it’s wrong.</p>
<h2>What sort of crime?</h2>
<p>Prosecutors should only indict former presidents or presidential candidates for crimes believed to be immoral.</p>
<p>In this way, an entire class of nonserious crimes are excluded from
consideration. For example, Americans will never have a Democratic prosecutor charging a Republican former president with jaywalking. Likewise, a Republican prosecutor will not charge a Democratic presidential candidate with littering. </p>
<p>While the exclusion of very many crimes by prosecutors is a helpful start in determining whether to prosecute or not, the difficult analytical work comes when deciding which categories certain crimes fall in.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle aged white man dressed in a business suit is surrounded by court officers as he walks into a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/531236/original/file-20230611-142378-e1925m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former President Donald Trump arrives for an arraignment hearing on April 04, 2023, in New York City.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-president-donald-trump-arrives-for-an-arraignment-news-photo/1480100066?adppopup=true">Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Is it evil to violate a state’s business record laws? </p>
<p>Is it immoral to violate national security laws?</p>
<p>Are they more like a traffic violation or a premeditated homicide?</p>
<p>What if the former president violated the business record laws for the purpose of violating some other law, which raises the conduct from a misdemeanor to a felony? </p>
<p>In his public statements shortly after indicting Trump, <a href="https://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/">Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg</a> explained that New York is the financial capital of the world and that the state has a significant interest in enforcing its business records laws. </p>
<p>Bragg further explained that failure to police business records laws could have an impact on consumers – real, everyday people who rely on fair business practices, which, in turn, is the basis for fair markets, fair interest rates and fair prices for a range of goods and services.</p>
<h2>No one is above the law</h2>
<p>In the end, the decision to criminally charge a former president turns on a tricky question.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">Equal protection under law</a> is a value that Americans should hold dear. But when it comes to a former president, competing values must be considered. </p>
<p>Is the alleged crime so egregious that the benefit of holding a former president equal before the law outweighs the cost associated with the appearance of a partisan, weaponized prosecution?</p>
<p>So far, Smith and Bragg are the only state and federal prosecutors to answer that question by seeking an indictment.</p>
<p>“We today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law,” Bragg said. “No amount of money … and power changes that enduring American principle.”</p>
<p>Likewise, Jack Smith urged those interested in the case to read the indictment before making charges that his investigation was politically motivated. </p>
<p>“Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States, and they must be enforced,” <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/special-counsel-jack-smith-delivers-statement">Smith said</a>. “Violations of those laws put our country at risk.”</p>
<p><em>This article has been corrected to fix the position held by Benjamin Netanyahu.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the bedrock principles of the American legal system is that no one is above the law. When it comes to indicting a former US president, political factors must also be weighed.Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Professor of Law, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2012472023-06-06T12:31:30Z2023-06-06T12:31:30ZSupreme Court is poised to dismantle an integral part of LBJ’s Great Society – affirmative action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530134/original/file-20230605-15-3psr8n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=271%2C116%2C2319%2C1487&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Lyndon Johnson delivers the commencement address at Howard University on June 4, 1965. </span> </figcaption></figure><p>Of all the civil rights policies enacted by U.S President Lyndon Johnson, affirmative action is arguably one of the most enduring – and most challenged. </p>
<p>Johnson made it clear during a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcfAuodA2x8">commencement address</a> at <a href="http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/1965/06-04-1965.html">Howard University</a> on June 4, 1965, where he stood. </p>
<p>In his speech, “<a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/to-fulfill-these-rights/9780231183093">To Fulfill These Rights</a>,” Johnson argued that civil rights were only as secure as society and the government were willing to make them.</p>
<p>“Nothing in any country touches us more profoundly, and nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American,” Johnson said. </p>
<p>In my view as a scholar of the history of affirmative action, Johnson’s speech and the legal structure it helped produce directly contradict those who would dismantle affirmative action and besmirch diversity programs today.</p>
<p>As the Supreme Court looks ready to strike down affirmative action in college admissions, it’s my belief that unlike the court’s conservative majority, Johnson understood that the U.S. could not serve as a moral leader around the world if it did not acknowledge its past of racial injustices and try to make amends. </p>
<h2>‘Equality as a result’</h2>
<p>Johnson knew that changing laws was only part of the solution to racial disparities and systemic racism. </p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/1965/06-04-1965.html">Freedom is not enough</a>,” he declared. “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” </p>
<p>In proposing to address these injustices, Johnson laid out a phrase that would become a defense of affirmative action.</p>
<p>“We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” </p>
<p>Achieving this latter goal, Johnson explained, would be the “more profound stage of the battle for civil rights.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A white man dressed in a business suit talks with a Black woman who is smiling." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529379/original/file-20230531-21-dofez7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Lyndon Johnson chats with Howard law professor Patricia Harris after Howard’s commencement on June 4, 1965.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/washington-dc-president-johnson-chats-with-mrs-patricia-r-news-photo/514870364?adppopup=true">Bettmann/GettyImages</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Johnson rejected the idea that individual merit was the sole basis for measuring equality. </p>
<p>“Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in – by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings,” <a href="http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/1965/06-04-1965.html">Johnson said</a>. “It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.” </p>
<p>Johnson took a structural view of discrimination against Black Americans and explained that racial differences could not “be understood as isolated infirmities.”</p>
<p>“They are a seamless web,” Johnson said. “They cause each other. They result from each other. They reinforce each other.” </p>
<p>“Negro poverty is not white poverty,” Johnson said, “but rather the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice and present prejudice.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged white man stands in front of a crowd of people as he hands a pen to a Black man dressed in a business suit." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529629/original/file-20230601-27-eg58z8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Lyndon Johnson hands a pen to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. after signing the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-lyndon-b-johnson-hands-a-pen-to-civil-rights-news-photo/1749781?adppopup=true">Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Johnson also rejected comparisons to other minorities who immigrated to the U.S. and had allegedly overcome discrimination through assimilation. </p>
<p>“They did not have the heritage of centuries to overcome,” Johnson said, “and they did not have a cultural tradition which had been twisted and battered by endless years of hatred and hopelessness, nor were they excluded – these others – because of race or color – a feeling whose dark intensity is matched by no other prejudice in our society.”</p>
<h2>A constant challenge</h2>
<p>That profound battle over how to address the <a href="https://glc.yale.edu/legacies-american-slavery/what-is-a-legacy-of-slavery">legacies of slavery</a>, <a href="https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/what.htm">Jim Crow</a> and <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/racial-inequality-in-the-united-states">modern-day inequalities</a> is once again before the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Though the court is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-diverse-supreme-court-grapples-with-affirmative-action-with-its-justices-of-color-split-sharply-on-the-meaning-of-equal-protection-196554">most diverse in American history</a> – with three justices of color and four women – the conservatives, who have historically <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/159007/conservative-misdirection-affirmative-action-debate">opposed affirmative action programs</a>, hold a 6-3 majority. </p>
<p>And that majority has the power to ban the use of race when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html">the court issues a decision</a> in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. A decision is expected in June 2023.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Five men and four women are wearing black robes as they pose for a portrait." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508673/original/file-20230207-29-owvlbb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Supreme Court, from left in front row: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan; and from left in back row: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/united-states-supreme-court-associate-justice-sonia-news-photo/1431388794?phrase=us%20supreme%20clarence%20thomas&adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the time of Johnson’s speech, the U.S. faced <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/vietnam-war-protests-at-the-white-house">growing opposition</a> to its escalating war in Vietnam and <a href="https://prde.upress.virginia.edu/content/CivilRights">racial unrest</a> across the country. </p>
<p>But Johnson was determined to achieve his goal of racial equality. During his commencement address, Johnson heralded the passage of the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act">1964 Civil Rights Act</a> that he signed into law on July 2, 1964, and prohibited workplace discrimination. He also promised passage of the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act#:%7E:text=This%20act%20was%20signed%20into,as%20a%20prerequisite%20to%20voting">Voting Rights Act</a> that would ban discriminatory voting practices. Johnson signed that into law on Aug. 6, 1965. </p>
<p>And shortly after his speech, Johnson signed <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html">Executive Order 11246</a> on Sept. 24, 1965. </p>
<p>It charged the Department of Labor with taking “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed … without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” </p>
<p>For Johnson, racial justice was attainable and, once achieved, would alleviate social strife at home and advance the United States’ standing abroad. </p>
<p>Despite urging civil rights activists to “light that candle of understanding in the heart of all America,” even Johnson became disillusioned with the racial politics of forming a more perfect union.</p>
<p>In the aftermath of urban riots in Newark, New Jersey, Detroit and other U.S. cities in 1967, Johnson created the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders – better known as the <a href="https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/national-advisory-commission-civil-disorders-report">Kerner Commission</a> – to investigate the causes of the riots and suggest remedies. </p>
<p>The commission recommended billions of dollars’ worth of new government programs, including sweeping federal initiatives directed at improving educational and employment opportunities, public services and housing in Black urban neighborhoods.</p>
<p>The commission found that “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10730.html">white racism</a>” was the basic cause of the racial unrest.</p>
<p>Although the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/589351779/report-updates-landmark-1968-racism-study-finds-more-poverty-more-segregation">report was a bestseller</a>, Johnson found the conclusions politically untenable and distanced himself from the commission report.</p>
<p>Torn between his need to balance Southern votes and his ambition to leave a strong civil rights legacy, Johnson proceeded along a very cautious path. </p>
<p>He did nothing about the report. </p>
<p>U.S. Sen. Edward W. Brooke, Black Massachusetts Republican, was one of the 11 members on the commission.</p>
<p>In his book “<a href="https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/bridging-the-divide/9780813539058">Bridging the Divide</a>,” Brooke explained Johnson’s reticence. </p>
<p>“In retrospect,” he wrote, “I can see that our report was too strong for him to take. It suggested that all his great achievements — his civil rights legislation, his antipoverty programs, Head Start, housing legislation, and all the rest of it – had been only a beginning. It asked him, in an election year, to endorse the idea that white America bore much of the responsibility for black rioting and rebellion.”</p>
<p>Even for a politician like Johnson, that proved too much to handle.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201247/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Travis Knoll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Lyndon Johnson’s commencement address at Howard University in 1965 offered a compelling argument on the need for affirmative action. His policies have been challenged ever since.Travis Knoll, Adjunct Professor of History, University of North Carolina – CharlotteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1495382020-11-05T20:42:57Z2020-11-05T20:42:57ZTrump’s Pennsylvania lawsuits invoke Bush v. Gore – but the Supreme Court probably won’t decide the 2020 election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367769/original/file-20201105-17-1arec82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C0%2C6000%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Judges can intervene in elections, but the Supreme Court really prefers not to.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/law-and-justice-concept-judges-gavel-scales-royalty-free-image/1139726848">Jantanee Phoolmas/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump campaign has <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/gop-pennsylvania-blocking-ballots-lawsuit-434045">filed two lawsuits in federal court over ballot counting and voting deadlines</a> in Pennsylvania, threatening to take the election to the Supreme Court. Both consciously echo the two main legal theories of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949">Bush v. Gore</a>, the infamous Supreme Court case that decided the contested 2000 presidential election. </p>
<p>But this race is not likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. </p>
<p>There are several reasons, sitting at the intersection of law and politics, why the ghosts of Florida past won’t rise again in Pennsylvania. As a <a href="https://www.memphis.edu/law/faculty-staff/steve-mulroy.php%20%20and%20election%20law%20scholar%20https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/">law professor</a> who authored a <a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/rethinking-us-election-law-9781839106699.html">book on election reform</a>, I rate success in Trump’s efforts to wrench back Biden’s lead through litigation as a real long shot, though not out of the question.</p>
<h2>Equal protection</h2>
<p>Trump’s latest Pennsylvania lawsuit draws on the “equal protection” argument cited in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949">Bush v. Gore</a>. </p>
<p>In the 2000 case, Democratic candidate Al Gore challenged Florida’s first machine-generated vote count when thousands of voters had problems marking their punch card ballots. The Florida Supreme Court allowed a statewide recount to ensure that all legal votes were counted. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People look closely at a Florida ballot in 2000" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367793/original/file-20201105-21-101lvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Election officials review a ballot with observing attorneys in Florida, Nov. 22, 2000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FLORIDARECOUNT/ba3f4b629c8b4db38afa38c5a11c4bb2/photo">AP Photo/Victor Caivano</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the standards for counting the infamous “hanging chads” – incomplete marks on those punch card ballots – varied from county to county. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this lack of uniformity violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1907909">guarantees equal weight for votes</a>. The court shut down the recount and declared Bush, the Republican candidate, the winner in Florida – and therefore of the 2000 election. </p>
<p>Republicans are trying a similar play in Pennsylvania with a legal claim <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7281321/11-3-20-Barnett-v-Lawrence-Complaint.pdf">filed on Election Day</a>. </p>
<p>In some Pennsylvania counties, election officials were contacting voters whose mail-in ballots were <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-two-political-battlegrounds-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-are-on-the-verge-of-being-rejected-148616">disqualified for technical reasons</a> to confirm their signature or fill in missing identifying information, validating their ballot so it will count. Since only some Pennsylvania counties were doing this “ballot curing” process, the Trump camp argues, the state’s lack of uniformity <a href="https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/equal-protection-after-bush-v-gore">violates the Equal Protection Clause</a>. </p>
<p>No matter what the lower courts rule, the plaintiffs will likely take this case, which makes a federal constitutional claim, to the Supreme Court. </p>
<p>The court might decline to take it for any number of reasons. One is that in Bush v. Gore, the justices actually cautioned that their decision was unique to Florida’s 2000 vote count and should <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html">not be given much weight as precedent</a>.</p>
<h2>State legislatures</h2>
<p>Trump’s other Pennsylvania legal challenge, which was <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/pennsylvania-republicans-return-to-supreme-court-to-challenge-extended-deadline-for-mail-in-ballots/">filed in state court back in September</a>, is also rooted in Bush v. Gore. It invokes an often overlooked concurring opinion in that case, which advanced an alternate theory for handing Bush a win. </p>
<p>The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority” of state legislatures to <a href="https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol35/iss4/1/">allocate Electoral College votes</a>. Under <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii">Article II of the Constitution</a>, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don’t even have to hold a presidential election if they don’t want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/">it should be respected</a>; no court, state or federal, should disturb it. </p>
<p>That “plenary authority” is not controversial. But Rehnquist’s concurrence is. In it, he argued that by ordering an emergency recount whose timing and deadlines deviated from the legislatively provided election rules, Florida’s Supreme Court was usurping the Florida legislature’s plenary authority. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A courtroom scene from 2000" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367790/original/file-20201105-24-173zzli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A witness testifies in one of the Florida cases that led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/john-ahman-a-witness-called-by-the-bush-campaign-answers-news-photo/51972394">Craig Litten/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This “Article II theory” is considered rather fringe – but Republicans are advancing it in Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>In September, the Pennsylvania courts agreed with the Democratic Party that due to COVID-19-related concerns, mail-in ballots received up to three days after the election <a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-pennsylvania-lawsuits-elections-philadelphia-0f0e6f48361df96d2d74d68ac6838709">could still be counted</a>, even if the post office neglected to affix a legible postmark. In October, the state’s Supreme Court then <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-north-carolina-absentee-ballots.html">ordered an extension of the receipt deadline for absentee ballots</a>. The GOP challenged this extension in federal court, arguing that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court was usurping the state legislature’s authority by extending the mail ballot deadline.</p>
<p>Upon appeal, the U.S. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-voting.html">Supreme Court twice declined</a> to halt the counting of these late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania. But it did order that the ballots in question <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-north-carolina-absentee-ballots.html">be segregated for a possible post-election challenge</a>. </p>
<p>It is generally accepted that federal judges should <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts">defer to a state court’s interpretation of its own state law</a>. But in <a href="https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/supreme-court-issues-flurry-of-last-minute-election-orders">separate opinions written on behalf of four conservative justices</a>, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch used Rhenquist’s opinion on Bush v. Gore to argue that state courts cannot usurp the role of state legislatures. </p>
<p>In effect, these four justices believe Pennsylvania’s top court had no grounds to extend the voting deadline. Should the Supreme Court hear this case again, Justice Amy Coney Barrett – the conservative jurist who <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54700307">recently replaced the progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> – could become the crucial fifth vote necessary to overturn the Pennsylvania decision.</p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-need-to-know">Sign up for Politics Weekly</a>.]</p>
<h2>Court victory unlikely</h2>
<p>That ruling would invalidate all affected Pennsylvania votes, as well as votes anywhere else in the country where courts or administrators changed election rules to make them more flexible. That’s thousands upon thousands of votes, potentially enough to change the election’s outcome.</p>
<p>That outcome could be catastrophic for public confidence in both the Supreme Court and the American electoral process. </p>
<p>These lawsuits could theoretically stop the election from being <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-formally-declares-the-winner-of-the-us-presidential-election-145212">certified by the Electoral College per the normal procedure</a>. But more likely, if the suits had any traction, they would be resolved quickly to meet the Electoral College’s Dec. 12 deadline. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People in Pennsylvania process votes in 2020" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367792/original/file-20201105-16-1d7wxyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pennsylvania election workers process ballots, Nov. 4, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/APTOPIXElection2020PennsylvaniaVoteCounting/54d2d6155b234fd096c55f8c2a4f088b/photo">AP Photo/Matt Slocum</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This scenario looks increasingly less likely. After winning Wisconsin and Michigan, Joe Biden has a number of credible paths to the necessary 270 Electoral College votes without Pennsylvania. If that happens, a Supreme Court ruling there wouldn’t change the outcome of the 2020 election – though it could set an important precedent for later elections.</p>
<p>If there is a Trump loss that doesn’t hinge on Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court may also decline to hear his case. As a rule, the court is reluctant to decide issues unless it has to. </p>
<p>More Trump legal challenges in North Carolina, <a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-case-in-chatham-ballot-dispute/YKBA6IYQKBB4JCSQEIJBQQT6QI/">Georgia</a> and Michigan are involving the courts in this election. But this <a href="https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118179">litigation won’t be able to reverse a decisive, multi-state Electoral College win</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Mulroy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The GOP is hoping the ghosts of Florida past will tilt the race in Trump’s favor. But Joe Biden’s apparent electoral lead in numerous key states may insulate his win from such legal challenges.Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1465582020-09-22T12:25:03Z2020-09-22T12:25:03Z3 ways a 6-3 Supreme Court would be different<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359070/original/file-20200921-18-4y35pz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C33%2C4493%2C2957&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court building as news spread of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Sept. 18 death.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020-Ginsburg-TheRage/5dfdc36cccf4402d84bb21e432d8bcbe/photo">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced this year, the Supreme Court will become something the country has not seen since the justices became a dominant force in American cultural life after World War II: a decidedly conservative court.</p>
<p>A court with a 6-3 conservative majority would be a dramatic shift from the court of recent years, which was more closely divided, with Ginsburg as the leader of the liberal wing of four justices and Chief Justice John Roberts as the frequent swing vote. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783030538507">scholar of the court</a> and the <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">politics of belief</a>, I see three things likely to change in an era of a conservative majority: The court will accept a broader range of controversial cases for consideration; the court’s interpretation of constitutional rights will shift; and the future of rights in the era of a conservative court may be in the hands of local democracy rather than the Supreme Court.</p>
<h2>A broader docket</h2>
<p>The court takes only cases the justices choose to hear. Five votes on the nine-member court make a majority, but <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1">four is the number required to take a case</a>. </p>
<p>If Roberts does not want to accept a controversial case, it now requires all four of the conservatives – Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas – to accept the case and risk the outcome. </p>
<p>If they are uncertain how Roberts will rule – <a href="https://www.idahostatejournal.com/opinion/columns/the-unpredictable-john-roberts/article_f9ce711c-70b2-541d-9d9c-2ad4777c85c7.html">as many people are</a> – then the conservatives may be not be willing to grant a hearing.</p>
<p>With six conservatives on the court, that would change. More certain of the outcome, the court would likely take up a broader range of divisive cases. These include many <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/17/supreme-court-eyes-more-gun-cases-that-could-expand-2nd-amendment.html">gun regulations</a> that have been challenged as a violation of the Second Amendment, and the <a href="https://firstliberty.org/category-media/first-liberty-in-the-news/">brewing conflicts</a> between gay rights and <a href="https://theconversation.com/christianity-at-the-supreme-court-from-majority-power-to-minority-rights-119718">religious rights</a> that the court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn">has so far sidestepped</a>. They also include <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2020/08/27/489786/state-actions-undermining-abortion-rights-2020/">new abortion regulations</a> that states will implement in anticipation of legal challenges and a favorable hearing at the court.</p>
<p>The three liberal justices would no longer be able to insist that a case be heard without participation from at least one of the six conservatives, effectively limiting many controversies from consideration at the high court.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The U.S. Supreme Court chambers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359076/original/file-20200921-22-1y53eol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The seat formerly occupied by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg is draped in black, as is the bench in front of her.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/SupremeCourtGinsburg/732652e99b9a41a39289c27e025b8c21/photo">Fred Schilling/Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A rights reformation</h2>
<p>The rise of a 6-3 conservative court would also mean the end of the expansion of rights the court has overseen during the past half-century.</p>
<p>Conservatives believe constitutional rights such as freedom of religion and speech, bearing arms, and limits on police searches are immutable. But they question the expansive claims of rights that have emerged over time, such as privacy rights and reproductive liberty. These also include <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/">LGBTQ rights</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/">voting rights</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-federation-of-independent-business-v-sebelius/">health care rights</a>, and any other rights not specifically protected in the text of the Constitution.</p>
<p>The court has grounded several expanded rights, especially the right to privacy, in the 14th Amendment’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process">due process clause</a>: “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This sounds like a matter of procedure: The government has to apply the same laws to everyone without arbitrary actions. From the conservative perspective, courts have expanded the meaning of “due process” and “liberty” <a href="https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/roe-v-wade-1973/">far beyond their legitimate borders</a>, taking decision-making away from democratic majorities.</p>
<p>Consequently, LGBTQ rights will not expand further. The <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102">line of decisions</a> that made Justice Anthony Kennedy famous for his support of gay rights, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">culminating in marriage equality in 2015</a>, will advance no further.</p>
<p>Cases that seek to outlaw capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment">cruel and unusual punishments</a>” will also cease to be successful. In 2019 the court ruled that <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bucklew-v-precythe/">excessive pain caused by a rare medical condition</a> was not grounds for halting a death sentence. That execution went forward, and further claims against the constitutionality of the death penalty will not.</p>
<p>Challenges to voting restrictions will likely also fail. This was previewed in the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/">5-4 decision in 2018</a> allowing Ohio to purge voting rolls of infrequent voters. The Bill of Rights <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531">does not protect voting as a clear right</a>, leaving voting regulations to state legislatures. The conservative court will likely allow a broader range of restrictive election regulations, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/stripping-voting-rights-from-felons-is-about-politics-not-punishment-139651">barring felons from voting</a>. It may also limit the census enumeration to citizens, effectively <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-excluding-illegal-aliens-apportionment-base-following-2020-census/">reducing the congressional power of states that have large noncitizen immigrant populations</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman waits to receive her ballot." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359078/original/file-20200921-16-o9a8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Early voting in the November election has already begun; voting rights may be restricted by a more conservative Supreme Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020/0962848422434504af3ba76dccc8b0e3/photo">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/who-is-born-a-us-citizen-127403">Birthright citizenship</a>, which many believe is protected by the 14th Amendment, will likely not be formally recognized by the court. The court has never ruled that anyone born on U.S. soil is <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/breaking-down-the-birthright-citizenship-debate">automatically a citizen</a>. The closest it came was an 1898 ruling <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649">recognizing the citizenship of children of legal residents</a>, but the court has been silent on the divisive question of children born of unauthorized residents.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/citizenship-shouldnt-be-a-birthright/2018/07/18/7d0e2998-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html">conservative understanding of the 14th Amendment</a> is that it had no intention of granting birthright citizenship to those who are in the country <a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary/videos/does-the-fourteenth-amendment-guarantee-birthright-citizenship-policybrief">without legal authorization</a>.</p>
<p>Noncitizens may also find themselves with fewer rights: Many conservatives argue that the <a href="https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/">14th Amendment</a> requires <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/704#the-privileges-or-immunities-clause-americas-lost-clause-by-akhil-reed-amar">state governments to abide by the Bill of Rights</a> only when dealing with <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/clarence-thomas-bill-of-rights-doesnt-apply-to-non-citizens-d02757866866/">U.S. citizens</a>. </p>
<p>In any case, individual rights will likely be less important than the government’s efforts to protect national security – whether fighting terrorism, conducting surveillance or dealing with emergencies. Conservatives argue that the public need for security often trumps private claims of rights. This was previewed in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-hawaii-3/">Trump v. Hawaii</a> in 2018, when the court upheld the travel ban imposed against several Muslim countries.</p>
<p>Not all rights will be restricted. Those protected by the original Bill of Rights will gain greater protections under a conservative court. Most notably this includes gun rights under the Second Amendment, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/christianity-at-the-supreme-court-from-majority-power-to-minority-rights-119718">religious rights under the First Amendment</a>. </p>
<p>Until recently, the court had viewed religious rights primarily through the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause">establishment clause</a>’s limits on government endorsement of religion. But in the past decade, that has shifted in favor of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause">free exercise clause</a>’s ban on interference with the practice of religion. </p>
<p>The court has upheld claims to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">religious rights in education</a> and <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru/">religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws</a>. That trend will continue.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man behind a counter waits on a customer." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359080/original/file-20200921-14-6bgu54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his Colorado business after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/SupremeCourtWeddingCakeCase/b0915d3e4f9b48f0afc8991849704e4f/photo">AP Photo/David Zalubowski</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A return to local democracy</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most important ramification of a 6-3 conservative court is that it will return many policies to local control. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>For example, overturning Roe v. Wade – which is likely but not certain under a 6-3 court – would leave the legality of abortion up to each state. </p>
<p>This will make state-level elected officials the guardians of individual liberties, shifting power from courts to elections. How citizens and their elected officials respond to this new emphasis is perhaps the most important thing that will determine the influence of a conservative court.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A 6-3 conservative court will hear a broader range of controversial cases, shift interpretations of individual rights and put more pressure on local democracy to make policy decisions.Morgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1465462020-09-21T14:04:13Z2020-09-21T14:04:13ZGinsburg’s legal victories for women led to landmark anti-discrimination rulings for the LGBTQ community, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358924/original/file-20200920-22-1yinx6c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C13%2C4432%2C2950&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michael Widomski, left, and David Hagedorn at the makeshift memorial for Justice Ginsburg in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 20, 2020 in Washington, DC. Ginsburg officiated their wedding in 2013.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/michael-widomski-and-david-hagedorn-embrace-after-leaving-a-news-photo/1228622387?adppopup=true">Samuel Corum/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The well-deserved tributes to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the wake of her death justifiably focus on her transformational role in ending centuries of legal discrimination against women. </p>
<p>Starting in 1971, Ginsburg won five cases before the Supreme Court based on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment</a>. Those cases led the court to end blatant discriminate against women.</p>
<p>She was not the first woman who attempted to use the 14th Amendment to achieve equality. Yet her legal theories, determination and brilliant litigation strategy won, where others before her had failed. </p>
<p>It is less known that Ginsburg’s victories on behalf of women also provided a roadmap and legal precedent for ending legal discrimination against the LGBTQ community.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting in her chambers in 2002." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358925/original/file-20200920-20-15ll5rs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her chambers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sits-in-her-news-photo/2396958?adppopup=true">David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Unequal protection</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv">14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War</a>, in 1868, to give formerly enslaved Black people and their progeny equal protection under the law. It states, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” </p>
<p>Women’s rights advocates immediately tried to use the 14th Amendment’s broad language to gain rights. At the time that the 14th Amendment was enacted, women could not own property or vote and were considered their husbands’ property. </p>
<p>They focused on the 14th Amendment’s broadly worded “privileges and immunities” clause as a way to gain some form of legal protection. Because that clause had no fixed meaning, it could be interpreted, they believed, in a way that advanced women’s rights.</p>
<p>So, in 1872, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Bradwell-v-State-of-Illinois">Myra Bradwell sued the state of Illinois</a> after being denied a license to practice law because she was a woman. Ruling against her, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Bradwell did not legally exist separately from her husband, and that the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/130">privilege and immunities clause did not require the state</a> to allow her or any other woman to pursue a professional career.</p>
<p>Similarly, in 1872, activists, including Susan B. Anthony, invoked the 14th Amendment to demand the right to vote. Anthony and several others were arrested after they voted in the November election. At <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbaaccount.html">Anthony’s trial</a>, the judge said “The 14th Amendment gives no right to a woman to vote, and the voting by Miss Anthony was in violation of the law.”</p>
<p>One woman in Missouri, Virginia Minor, sued when she was refused the right to even register to vote. She argued <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162">before the U.S. Supreme Court</a> – through her lawyer husband – that the 14th Amendment guaranteed her the right to vote as a “privilege and immunity.” </p>
<p>She lost. </p>
<h2>Credit where it’s due</h2>
<p>A century later, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s work transformed American jurisprudence for women. To do this, she also invoked the 14th Amendment. But this time, she focused on the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which was enacted to protect newly-freed enslaved people. </p>
<p>Ginsburg did not devise this strategy alone. She was inspired by the writings of the African American lawyer and civil rights activist, <a href="https://www.paulimurraycenter.com/who-is-pauli">Anna Pauline “Pauli” Murray</a>. Murray, <a href="https://now.org/about/history/finding-pauli-murray/">a co-founder of the National Organization for Women</a>, argued that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause could be used to guarantee gender equality. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Joseph and Lt. Sharron Frontiero" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359052/original/file-20200921-20-f9h8yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Joseph and Lt. Sharron Frontiero. Ginsburg successfully brought a 1973 case on behalf of Joseph, who was denied military benefits on the theory that women could not be primary economic providers for their families.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/manchester-massachusetts-air-force-lt-sharon-frontiero-news-photo/515398514?adppopup=true">Bettmann/Getty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Murray’s 1950s book, “<a href="https://ugapress.org/book/9780820350639/states-laws-on-race-and-color/">States’ Laws on Race and Color</a>,” was considered <a href="https://whyy.org/articles/the-invisible-women-of-the-civil-rights-movement/">the bible of the civil rights movement</a>. Ginsburg was so influenced by Murray’s work that she listed Murray as a co-author of her first U.S. Supreme Court gender justice brief, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/404/71">Reed v. Reed, in 1971</a>. </p>
<p>The legal strategy that Ginsburg used, however, was her own.</p>
<p>In 1971, the notion of women’s equality was absurd to most people. Ginsburg, who was at the top her her class at Harvard and Columbia law schools, <a href="https://time.com/5660188/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies/">could not get a job after she graduated</a>. </p>
<p>Predicting that a Supreme Court composed of older white men would likely dismiss demands by women that they should be treated equally, she realized gender stereotypes could be shattered only if white men argued that women should be treated equally under the law. </p>
<p>For example, in the 1973 case, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/411/677">Frontiero v. Richardson</a>, she successfully sued on behalf of the husband of a female Air Force officer, who was refused military benefits on the theory that women could not be primary economic providers for their families.</p>
<p>Similarly, in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/636/">Weinberger v. Weisenfeld</a> in 1975, she sued on behalf of a man who had been denied Social Security survivor benefits. That agency automatically assumed that men would not need survivor benefits because they earned more than their wives. </p>
<p>This was a brilliant strategy. Based on the five lawsuits that Ginsburg won, the Supreme Court articulated for the first time that the 14th Amendment was not only the vehicle for racial equality – it could also be invoked to achieve gender-based equality. </p>
<h2>Another 30 years</h2>
<p>Even after Ginsburg’s victories in the 1970s, women still did not have equal rights under the law. The equal protection women enjoyed, according to the Supreme Court, wasn’t as strong as the protection that the Constitution afforded against racial discrimination.</p>
<p>It wasn’t until over 30 years later, in 1996, when she was a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, that Ginsburg fully equalized the playing field for women. </p>
<p>In the case <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1941">United States v. Virginia Military Academy</a>, Justice Ginsburg wrote for the court’s majority that “exacting scrutiny” must be applied to any law that treats women differently than men.</p>
<p>She wrote that any law that “denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature - equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society” violated the equal protection Clause.</p>
<h2>The RBG playbook</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Justice Neil Gorsuch." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/358926/original/file-20200920-16-j46574.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in a 2020 case that expanded employment discrimination protection to LGBTQ workers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/supreme-court-associate-justice-neil-gorsuch-poses-for-a-news-photo/691165204?adppopup=true">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once it was cemented into law that the equal protection clause could overturn non-race-based discriminatory laws, other marginalized groups began using the Equal Protection Clause to gain equal rights, including the LGBTQ community. </p>
<p>Their first victory was a 1996 ruling, Romer v. Evans, overturning laws around the country <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html">that made gay sex a crime</a>.</p>
<p>A series of similar victories based on the equal protection clause followed, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative Republican appointee. Those decisions culminated in the 2015 landmark ruling <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, expanding the application of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to cover LGBTQ persons, by requiring all states to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">Justice Kennedy’s opinion</a>, which extols the virtues of marriage, states that “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage… They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants that right.”</p>
<p>In 2020, the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618">Bostock v. Clayton County</a> decision, which banned employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers, used a similar analysis. Even though it was based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, <a href="https://law.rutgers.edu/directory/view/venetis">as a legal scholar</a>, I believe the language used by Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the court’s majority opinion, comes straight out of the RBG playbook.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618">Gorsuch wrote</a>: “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. … But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands … Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>These advances were only possible because Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for applying the equal protection clause beyond its original purpose, to promote equality for women.</p>
<p>To echo Justice Gorsuch, that is something that the drafters of the 14th Amendment certainly never considered, and almost certainly never would have endorsed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146546/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penny Venetis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death sparked many tributes to her work ending sex discrimination against women. That work also paved the way for successes in the fight for equal rights for the LGBTQ community.Penny Venetis, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the International Human Rights Clinic, Rutgers University - NewarkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.