
Unbending the Moral Arc: Dismantling the 'Capacious' 14th Amendment Protection of LGBT Rights
"The Supreme Court is now unbending the moral arc of the universe by resetting the clock on privacy and liberty rights back to 1965." Thomas Prol discusses the Supreme Court's decision in "Dobbs."
July 14, 2022 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
LGBT Pride Month closed out this June with the unwelcome news that at least two U.S. Supreme Court Justices appear to be making good on their promise to unwind the LGBT community's nearly four decades of progress toward achieving full equality. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), the Court not only overruled two long-standing precedents that held that a woman has a Constitutional right to have an abortion under certain circumstances, but the majority went a step further by dismantling the legal underpinning of the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process "liberty" and "right to privacy" analyses from which LGBT rights have been sourced in the Court's prior rulings.
The respect for precedent that informs stare decisis is a big deal at the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Library of Congress, the Court has issued 234 rulings that overruled prior precedents since it first assembled in 1790. Cong. Rsch. Serv., "Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation," https://constitution.congress.gov. However, the simultaneous abrogation of two or more decisions at once, as Dobbs commanded with both Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), has occurred only 24 times in that period. Id. (Indeed, Planned Parenthood itself overruled two then-recent SCOTUS decisions from 1983 and 1986.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All

Judges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger

What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump

The Future of Arbitrability Disputes in Light of the Supreme Court's Ruling in 'Coinbase'
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1LA-Area Law Firms Offer Support as Region Reckons With Raging Wildfires
- 2Supreme Court Denies Oil Giants' Appeal to End State Climate Suits
- 3What Lawyers Might Not Know About Taking Cases to Trial
- 4Helping Low-Income City Residents Resolve Their Quiet Title Cases
- 5Special Series Part 6: If the Budget Guardrails Are Unconstitutional, What Happens Next?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250