Laura Portuondo

Yes, I agree it would be a step past Skrmetti and this should be subject to (and fail) heightened scrutiny. I just never cease to be amazed at the Court’s capacity to intentionally blind itself to sex discrimination.

Ah, but you see, “male breast cancer” is different from “female breast cancer” and therefore this discriminates based on “medical use” and not sex — the Supreme Court, probably

Supports my view that an unreformed Supreme Court does more to undermine the benefits of judicial review than Court reforms would.

Cooperate, play along, assist?

Whenever people complain about the number of folks relying on food stamps, it is worth reminding them that SNAP is, by too large of a degree, a subsidy for corporations that refuse to pay a living wage and their political allies who reject public policy prescriptions to reduce income inequality.

Missouri appeals court rules against attorney general, allows abortions to continue • Missouri Independent A Missouri appeals court unanimously rejected arguments by the attorney general that abortion regulations do not cause "irreparable harm."

Can we celebrate and publicize the wins, not just the new Jonathan Mitchell lawsuits or anti politicians' letters to FDA?

This is an infuriating and shameful scandal. The Roberts Court is condoning Trump’s law breaking, again, pure and simple. There is no serious path forward for democratic government without Supreme Court reform.

Pregnant women do not lack for judgmental, frightening and dubiously factual instructions about their health. Everywhere, they are told that they risk the health of their fetus by partaking in a series of banal everyday activities – be it jogging or having coffee or eating a certain cheese – that they are told will lead, by obscure mechanisms that are never quite explained, to impossible and devastating health outcomes for their children-to-be. The admonishments are multiple and often contradictory, but they all tend to agree on one thing: that it is always good for women to deprive themselves of joy and relief – and to suffer more – for the sake of their fetuses.

I wrote about the Trump administration’s false claims about Tylenol, and the moral—not scientific—burdens they place on pregnant women’s bodies. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Ending reproductive coercion by... stopping poor people from accessing to the tools needed to control their reproductive lives?

$10 Million in Contraceptives Have Been Destroyed on Orders From Trump Officials

Preventing abortions by... destroying the #1 tool to prevent abortions?

www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/h...

Text, Violence, and the Implausibility of Antiabortion Constitutionalism UC Davis Law Review Online, 2025 9 Pages Posted: Last revised: 9 Sep 2025 Evan D. Bernick Northern Illinois University - College of Law Date Written: September 09, 2025 Abstract The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. Not until 1966 did anyone claim that it compelled abortion criminalization. Now in 2025, antiabortion advocates insist that the Constitution’s original meaning has always mandated their social agenda. Those who framed, ratified, and implemented the Fourteenth Amendment just didn’t realize it. It does not. Granting embryos and fetuses constitutional personhood would not restore the law of the nineteenth century. It would create a nationwide regime of reproductive control that — to hear its proponents describe it — would be more restrictive and punitive than any which has existed in the United States. It would enlist federal judges in ongoing breaches of historical and traditional limits on coercive state action. And it would inflict new forms of violence on people whose constitutional personhood is beyond question.

Want a short piece debunking "originalist" arguments that the 14th Amendment requires abortion criminalization? I got you. Forthcoming in the UC Davis Law Review Online.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

How to Resist Trump’s Militarization of America The president’s deployment of the armed forces on American streets is an alarming escalation. Fortunately, there’s a playbook for fighting back.

My horizons broaden every time I read a piece by my amazing UHLC colleague Andrew Lanham (who is unfortunately not on here—or anywhere). Just incredibly deep and rich insights at the intersection of social movements, racial justice, and national security from a fantastic legal historian.

“apparent ethnicity” is a cool new way to say race

Congratulations!

Hey Bluesky! Little late to the joining game, but excited to be here. I'm an appellate attorney with an interest in legal scholarship, and my writing focuses on state supreme courts, state constitutions, and judicial selection.

Welcome, Jake! Happy to hear you’re still doing great work.

This is how I know I’ve made it!

I’m so excited to join this class run by the amazing @yuvrajjoshi.bsky.social, alongside such incredible scholars.

congratulations!

Congrats!!

Join an amazing group of scholars at UH incl. @chrismirasola.bsky.social @leahfowler.bsky.social @nikenberger.bsky.social @petersalib.bsky.social @lauraportuondo.bsky.social @jessiebregant.bsky.social @amangebru.bsky.social @dfroomkin.bsky.social and more with better things to do than Bluesky!

my understanding is that deregulation is universally held religious belief so your religion is not real (it is secularism)

UH Law Center is hiring this year!
- 3 entry-level, TT in crim, employment/labor, & torts
- 1 clinical in lawyering skills
- 1 tenured position in health law

Teach fantastic students with supportive colleagues! Reach out with any Qs!

no more laws <3

I guess if you can find one person with a religious belief that supports a law it is inter-denominational discrimination? Def looking forward to federal courts invalidating every abortion restriction.

Brought to you by a constitutional equality jurisprudence that deems every burden on religious conservatives animus, and every protection of women and LGBTQ+ people as optional.

Calling all aspiring law profs: Houston is hiring! Come join a great scholarly community in a vibrant city (and work with me 🤠). We are hiring in: criminal law, employment/labor law, tort law, legal research/writing, and health law.

Please reach out with any questions or interest!

The genius of a discriminatory purpose standard is that it is vague enough to permit disparate impact claims for favored litigants (white people, religious conservatives) but not disfavored ones (people of color, women).