CR-CL Podcast – Episode 2 – Perry v. Brown, Marriage Equality, and the Contraceptive Mandate

CR-CL Podcast LogoCR-CL’s Executive Editors for Online Content, Noah Kaplan and Matt Giffin, return to discuss the important topics in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.  The show begins with our weekly news round-up, This Week in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.  The show has three segments:

1) Noah interviews California Western Law Professor Ari Ezra Waldman about the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Perry v. Brown and the potential for a Supreme Court decision on the constitutional right to marriage equality.

2) Noah and Matt continue the discussion on marriage equality, comparing Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, and analyzing which case would be the best the vehicle for putting marriage equality before the Supreme Court.

3) Matt fills us in on the controversy that has erupted over the Obama administration’s health care mandate requiring religious employers to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost to their employees.  Matt discusses the conflict between reproductive choice and religious freedom, and critiques the First Amendment argument being made by critics of the mandate.

Please email questions, comments, corrections, or suggestions to  Thanks for downloading, and enjoy the show!

Episode 2 – Perry v. Brown, Marriage Equality, and the Contraceptive Mandate

 Subscribe to the Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Podcast
Add to Google Reader or Homepage                

Written by

The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL) is the nation’s leading progressive law journal. Founded in 1966 as an instrument to advance personal freedoms and human dignities, CR-CL seeks to catalyze progressive thought and dialogue through publishing innovative legal scholarship and from various perspectives and in diverse fields of study.

Latest comments
  • Justice Stevens, who authored the Citizens United dissent, is no longer on the court. That said, I’d bet Justice Kagan favors cert given her dissent in McCommish v. Bennet last year. In that case, the Court invalidated a triggering provision that allowed Arizona to provide additional funds to gubernatorial candidates, where candidates opted for public financing and faced a privately funded opponent.

    Matching funds were triggered where the privately funded candidate spent more than one million dollars. the initial sum given to publicly financed candidates. Funds available to publicly financed candidates were capped at $3 million dollars under the regime.

    • Alex, thanks for the clarification on that. I agree that Justice Kagan’s dissent in McCommish would imply that she is fine with an equalizing rationale, but that’s been rejected since Austin and I don’t think it’s on the table in this case. The biggest concern raised by the replacement of Stevens with Kagan, in my mind, is whether the Junior Justice would vote to grant cert to challenge such a young precedent.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.