Week 1: Introduction and theory (Jan. 26)

Read:

• Introduction to Martha Chamallas, Feminist Legal Theory (ICON)

• Cynthia Enloe, “Feminist Curiosity” (on ICON)

• Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Excerpt on ICON.

• Catherine McKinnon, “Sexuality.” Excerpt on ICON. (we'll only discuss up to 480 right before the essay begins to talk about pornography) 

• Marilyn Frye, Lesbian Sex.

• Excerpt from Jessica Clarke, They, Them, and Theirs, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 894 (2019) (read just the text–not notes–in the Intro and Parts I and II).

• Excerpt from Kenji Yoshino, The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 353 (2000) (read just the text–not notes–in the Intro and Parts II, III, and IV).

As you read, consider these questions:

What is the author's thesis?

What issue connected with sex, gender, and sexuality are they focused on?

What approach to the issue to they provide?

Does their framework or approach allow you to view a legal issue you've read about in a new light? If so, how?

Week 2: Sexual education and sexting (Feb. 2)

Email (marcia-mccormick@uiowa.edu) initial thoughts on a topic by the start of class

Read

• Sex Education in Schools, XX Geo. J. Gender & L. 467 (Alemansour et al. eds., 2019).

• Skim new grade-by-grade standards starting on p 18 of National Sex Education Standards (2d ed.2020).

• MILLER v MITCHELL (2010) (visually cleaner pdf copy on ICON)

• Strasburger et. al., Teenagers, Sexting, and the Law, Pediatrics, May 2019, at 1.

• Comstock Law: “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use” (1873)

• Jennifer S. Hirsch & Shamus Khan, Researchers Found What Consent Looks Like Isn’t Always Straightforward on College Campuses, Teen Vogue (Jan. 3, 2020)

• Maggie Jones, What Teenagers Are Learning from Online Porn, N.Y. Times Mag. (Feb. 7, 2018).

As you read, consider the following questions:

Why is sex education treated differently (and is it) from other categories of learning, like math, science, or reading?

How is sex ed linked to notions of autonomy for children, teenagers, and adults?

For something like sexting, what are the respective interests of the teens involved, their parents, the school?

What are some consequences of a lack of comprehensive sex ed in schools? Are those consequences surprising? Would they be to lawmakers in your state?

Week 3: Sexuality & the Body Politic; Sterilization, Contraception & Abortion (pre-Dobbs) (Feb. 9)

Read:

• The Lawes Resolutions of Women’s Rights (1632) (handout on ICON)

• In re Goodell (1875)

• Boutilier v. INS (1967) (on ICON)

As you read these cases, think about the rules they set for how sex, gender, and sexuality determine whether a person can be part of civil society and what roles they may play.

Reproductive autonomy is one prerequisite to full participation in civil society.

Read

• Buck v. Bell (1927)

• Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) (click “case”)

• Aaronette White (2017), “Tubes Tied: Truly Child-Free at Last,” in Radical Reproductive Justice (ICON).

• Walker v Pierce 560 F.2d 609 (4th Cir. 1977)

• “Survivors of Racist Sterilization Dissed by NC Senate” (2012)

• Dorothy E. Roberts, Punishing Drug Addicts Who Have Babies, in Critical Race Feminism 167-75 (ICON).

• In re Lee Ann Grady (N.J. 1981) (on ICON)

• National Council on Disability, “The Family Law System: Custody and Visitation”

• Katie O’Connell, “We Need to Talk about Disability as a Reproductive Justice Issue.” In Radical Reproductive Justice (2017): 302-305. ICON.

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (ICON)

• Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) (ICON)

• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) (ICON)

• Write-Up of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020)

• Roe v. Wade (1973) (ICON)

• Harris v. McRae (1980) (ICON)

• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (ICON)

As you read these cases and other materials, think about reproductive justice as a frame: the ability to have, to not have, or to plan when to have children. And consider the following questions:

How do the early cases on sterilization build up to the Court’s decision in Roe?

After a right is recognized, what limitations do later courts add?

How do race, class, and disability affect reproductive autonomy? Who gets to have autonomy, and who is denied it?

How do courts view the reproductive issues before them in connection with participation in civil society?

Week 4: Non-Reproductive Sex, marriage & cohabitation (Feb. 16)

Email finalized topic (marcia-mccormick@uiowa.edu) by the start of class

Read

• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) (ICON)

• Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (ICON)

• Loving v. Virginia (1967) (ICON)

• Obergefell v Hodges (2015) (ICON)

• Jane Shachter, The Other Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 379 (2009).

• Gabriella, The ‘Fundamental’ Right to Marry

• Jackson Wright Shultz & Kristopher Shultz, Queer and Trans After Obergefell v. Hodges: An Autoethnographic Oral History, 38 Humboldt J. Soc. Rel. 46 (2016)

• Short excerpts from Pavan v. Smith (2017) and Henderson v Box  (ICON)

• Helen Alvaré, “U.S. Cohabitation Law: Still Separate and Unequal” (June 2019)

• Collier v. Fox (D. Mont. 2018)

• How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms _ The New Yorker (ICON)

As you read, consider how courts view a person’s autonomy to engage in intimate conduct and how they view state efforts to support only certain intimate relationships.

 Who and what is left out, and what are the consequences?

What is the state’s interest in who marries whom? What is the source of state power to regulate this, and what limits are there on this power?

What is the individual–your–interest in deciding whom (if anyone) to marry? What is the source of your authority? What limits your power?

Do your answers to differ if your desire is to cohabitate? If you want a polygamous arrangement? That is, do either the interests and powers of the state vary, or the interests and authority of individuals?

And what’s so great about marriage? What are the different views you see pro and con in that arrangement?

Week 5: Assault and non-in-person harassment (Feb. 23)

Read

• In re Michael M (1981) (ICON)

• Missouri v. Porter, (Mo. 2014) (ICON)

• Kansas v Limon (Kan. App. 2004) (ICON)

• The Careless Language of Sexual Violence from Roxane Gay, Bad Feminist 128-36 (2014) (ICON)

• Elonis v. US (2015) (ICON)

• Minnesota v. Casillas (2020) (ICON)

• Danielle Citron & Mary Anne Franks, Evaluating New York’s Revenge Porn Law

As you read, consider these questions:

What background assumptions about sexuality and gender are present in the cases or other readings?

How have those background assumptions been built into the law?

For the abuse that is not in-person, why does the First Amendment govern the analysis? What do the courts say isn’t protected by the First Amendment for each case? Given that, what do the courts seem to think makes an expression harmful enough to criminalize?

Where should the line be drawn?

Week 6: No Class—Outline due (Mar. 2)

Email (marcia-mccormick@uiowa.edu) your outline by the end of our scheduled class time

Week 7: Sex Work & Pornography (Mar. 9)

Read

• Roe v. Butterworth (S.D. Fla. 1997) (ICON)

• Erotic Service Provider v Gascon (9th Cir. 2018) (ICON)

• I. IndiaThusi, Radical Feminist Harms on Sex Workers, 185 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 22 (2018).

• The Nordic Model

• Browse a few entries on Tits and Sass, (note this is NSFW) a once-active “Service Journalism by and for Sex Workers” site.

• A brief history overview of rulings on pornography

• American Booksellers v Hudnut (1985) (ICON)

• Paroline v. United States (2014) (ICON)

• Julie Dahlstrom, The New Porn Wars (Florida Law Review, forthcoming 2023)

• The Feminist Case Against Pornography: A Review and Reevaluation, Inquiry 62, 6 (2019)

• What Does Feminist Porn Look Like?

As you read, consider the following questions:

What are the implications of the term “sex work,” positive and negative, intended and unintended?

What are the regulatory models for this kind of work? Which do you think is best and why?

What values (or whose values) is the Court seeking to protect in its approach to pornography? What values should animate its approach?

How does the approach to sex work intersect with the approach to pornography? Are they consistent? Are there disconnects?

Week 8: Gender Norms and stereotyping at work and school (Mar. 23)

Read 

• Diaz v. Pan Am World Airways (1971),

• Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club (1987) (ICON)

• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) (ICON)

• Prowel v. Wise Business Forms (W.D. Pa. 2007) (ICON)

• Creed v. Family Express Corp. (N.D. Ind. 2009) (ICON)

• Jespersen v Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc. (2006) (ICON)

• Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis, 98 Geo. L.J. 1079 (2010).

• National Women’s Law Center, Dress Coded: Black Girls, Bodies, and Bias in D.C. Schools (2018)

• Letter of Complaint Against Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, May 2017

• Alyssa Pavlakis & Rachel Roegman, How Dress Codes Criminalize Males and Sexualize Females of Color, 100 Phi Delta Kappan 54 (2018).

As you read, consider these questions:

What rules about behavior and appearance appear in these cases? Do they have to fall into gendered categories? Racialized categories?

How do these rules affect access to work and education?

Do the frameworks that the courts use to analyze these cases promote equality and access or perpetuate systems of subordination?

Are there better frameworks or modes of analysis that could be adopted?

Week 9: No class—first draft due (Mar. 30)

Email (marcia-mccormick@uiowa.edu) your draft by the end of our scheduled class time

Week 10: Sex Discrimination at work and school (Apr. 6)

Read

• Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)

• U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

• Ulane v Eastern Airlines (1984)

• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)

• Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)

• Roberts v. Glenn Industrial Group, Inc. (2021)

• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

• GG v Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. (2020)

• Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John's Cnty. (2022)

• Nicole G. Berner & Monica Jin Joo Wilk, Symposium: The moral arc bends toward justice: Toward an intersectional legal analysis of LGBTQ rights, SCOTUSBlog (June 16, 2020).

• Masha Gessen, Chase Strangio’s Victories for Trasgender Rights, New Yorker (Oct. 12, 2020) (print edition Oct. 19, 2020, In the Eyes of the Law).

• Ann C. McGinley, The Masculinity Motivation (2018)

• Open Statement on harassment from Employment Discrimination Law Scholars

As you read, consider these questions:

These cases are often two ends of something of a spectrum. How do the courts get from the earlier cases to the recent ones?

How might sexuality be viewed as operating as a weapon in these cases? Do the courts view it that way? Do they use it that way?

Do the frameworks that the courts use to analyze these cases promote equality and access or perpetuate systems of subordination?

Are there better frameworks or modes of analysis that could be adopted?

Week 11: Dobbs, Bear Creek and more: the new frontier of exemptions (Apr. 13)

• Dobbs (Icon)

• Fulton (Icon)

• Bear Creek (Icon)

• Braidwood v. Becerra (Icon) and the relief ordered

• Texas v. EEOC (Icon)

I've tried to edit these cases to manageable lengths, but they're still pretty long (especially Dobbs). As you read these cases, think about some of the following issues: 

Note the wide range of the types of challenges being brought to bear in these cases. They include structural constitutional limitations, statutes, and interpretive methodologies.

Note how the lower courts are using Supreme Court precedent and methodologies. How might that help us predict how Dobbs and Fulton will be used or what the consequences of those cases will be?

What do you think the consequences of these cases will be? What doors have been opened for new challenges? What will the real world effects be?

Week 12: State Legislative moves: abortion, bounty laws, gender affirming care, sports, etc. (Apr. 20)

The reading for this class will be a little different. There are too many legislative developments to pick from, so I'll post some things that are just examples and some resources that you can browse.

Overviews:

• https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/

• https://www.mapresearch.org/equality-maps (for more, click on "choose an issue" and browse maps connected with sports bans, censorship, and more)

• Missouri AG emergency regulation issued April 13

Abortion

• First proposed civil bounty aiding and abetting statute (Missouri--did not pass)

• Missouri's trigger law --set up as the first in the nation to totally ban abortion (with life exception) the same day that Dobbs was decided, with alternatives for different scenarios, depending on what the Court did.

Education

• Florida's proposed ban on DEI expenditures and certain majors (see especially section 4, starting on p. 11); proposed book ban bill; proposed don't say gay expansion

Refuge approaches

• https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.25906.html; and statute (skim--the following pages are most of the changes pp 38-39, 54-56, 58-60, 73-75, 85-87, 92-93, 100-04, 110-12, 126-40, 145-47, 158-59, 164-66, 174-76, 185-87, 194-96, 205-06, 209-12, 221, 223, 231-33, 242, 244-45, 248-50, 252-53, 256-60)

• https://mn.gov/governor/news/#/detail/appId/1/id/568986

Week 13: Final opinion and commentary due (Apr. 27)

Email (marcia-mccormick@uiowa.edu) your draft by the beginning of our scheduled class time. We will meet as a class and do a lightning round for each of you to summarize your opinion and commentary briefly. I’ll bring treats!