JLG Online

The Journal of Law and Gender previously included an online journal, which published scholarship exclusively through our website. The online journal ceased publication in 2016. Today, we continue to publish articles and other forms of writing online as Creative Content.

November 21, 2016

Canada's 2015 cabinet

Reconsidering the Remedy of Gender Quotas

by Tracy A. Thomas

When newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked by surprised reporters why he appointed women as 50% of his cabinet, he responded simply, “Because it’s 2015.”Just because. Because it’s time. In fact, he implied, it is long past time for having to justify including women as one-half of the power structure when women constitute one-half of the population . . . . It’s time for the law to endorse the equal representation of women in all power venues in order to remedy—permanently—longstanding, resistant systemic sex discrimination. And the way to achieve this goal of gender parity might be quotas. More…

February 12, 2015

Rainbow flag

Witt-Less: A History and Analysis of the U.S. Military’s Failure to Comply With The Ninth Circuit’s Due Process Standard for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

by Ari Freilich

In its May 2008 ruling in Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court in the nation to subject Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“DADT”) to a standard of “heightened scrutiny” and, more generally, to explicitly require more than deferential rational basis justification for “government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals[.]” . . . That decision, and the “Witt Standard” borne of it, should have been a watershed moment for gay rights in America because the Ninth Circuit Court afforded significantly expanded substantive due process protections to gay men and women within its jurisdiction. More…

October 12, 2014

Pro choice protest sign

The Court Treads Lightly: Why Mandatory Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Laws Demand a More Concrete Legal Analysis by Courts

by Rebecca Bucchieri

Arguments in the mandatory ultrasound debate range from positions deeply entrenched in the Constitution to those animated by ideology. These arguments have engendered a largely distorted public and legal discourse concerning the intersection of these laws with the Constitution . . . . [C]ourts must consider the constitutional issues raised by these restrictive laws, both to provide more robust analysis for lawmakers to use moving forward, as well as to ensure that the Supreme Court has sufficient material to analyze circuit splits and grant certiorari in the future. More…

May 19, 2014

Celebration 60

Panel: On The Front Lines of Law Reform

A panel was held during Harvard Law School’s “Celebration 60,” which honored the 60th anniversary of the first women graduates at HLS.

Amanda C. Goad ’05, Staff Attorney, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Linda D. Kilb ’88, Director, California Legal Services Trust Fund Support Center Program, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Lenora Lapidus ’90, Director, Women’s Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Nancy A. Ramirez ’90, Western Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Camille D. Holmes ’93, Director of Leadership and Racial Equity, National Legal Aid & Defender Association

Suzanne B. Goldberg ’90, Professor and Director, Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, Columbia Law School


November 11, 2013

Edie Windsor outside SCOTUS

Windsor, Federalism, and the Future of Marriage Litigation

by Mark Strasser

In United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Now that section 3 has been invalidated, section 2 of DOMA may also be challenged. The constitutionality of DOMA section 2 was not before the Windsor Court, so the Court could not have been expected to address its validity directly. Nonetheless, the Windsor opinion provides surprisingly little express guidance with respect to whether section 2 also violates constitutional guarantees. Further complicating any analysis of that section’s validity is that the section has not been authoritatively construed. The constitutionality of section 2 (and even its being subject to challenge) will depend greatly on its authoritative interpretation and, in addition, on a clear articulation of the constraints, if any, on the power of a state to refuse to recognize a marriage validly celebrated in a sister domicile. More…