Articles for tag: AntidiskriminierungDiskriminierunggender equalityGleichheittransgender rights

From Erosion to Evisceration

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Skrmetti. As Ryan Thoreson has argued on this blog, the Court’s opinion rolls back existing understandings of sex discrimination in ways that will likely play out in future cases. Building on that insight, I examine how the Court narrows what counts as sex discrimination and strips the concept of stereotypes of its constitutional force. The most troubling aspects of the decision, however, appear in concurrences written by the ultraconservative members of the Court, which confine the reach of equal protection to formal legal classifications alone.

Somewhere Over The Rainbow

On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her Opinion in Commission v. Hungary, a landmark ECJ case on Hungary’s “anti-LGBTIQ” law. While the law is overtly discriminatory, the Commission framed its case around internal market rules, Charter rights, and Article 2 TEU values. While this might seem curious, I argue this reflects a strategic “camouflaging” of non-discrimination claims to better protect LGBTIQ rights within the limits of current EU anti-discrimination and equality law.

Die Gewerbsmäßigkeit als Arme-Leute-Strafrecht

Wer von der wachsenden Armut in Deutschland betroffen ist, dem droht im Falle eines Strafverfahrens eine Ungleichbehandlung. Das Regelbeispiel der Gewerbsmäßigkeit als besonders schwerer Fall einer Straftat führt dazu, dass ein zentrales Versprechen des Rechtsstaats gebrochen wird. Es gibt keine Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz, wenn Armut straferhöhend wirkt.

Der Wert der Gleichheit

Die größte Gefahr des autoritären Populismus für die liberale Demokratie besteht darin, dass er die politische Gleichheit aller Bürger*innen zu verneinen versucht. Häufig wird die liberale Demokratie mit ihren Institutionen und Verfahren gleichgesetzt. Was die liberale Demokratie im Kern auszeichnet – dass sie ihren Bürger*innen den Status als freie und gleiche Mitglieder des politischen Gemeinwesens gewährt – gerät so manchmal in Vergessenheit. Dabei ist es gerade dieses demokratische Grundprinzip, das autoritäre Populist*innen in Deutschland und darüber hinaus heute angreifen.

Wen es trifft

Diesen Sonntag finden die Landtagswahlen in Thüringen und Sachsen statt. Stärkste Kraft könnte in beiden Ländern eine autoritär-populistische Partei werden, die gegen Menschenwürde und Demokratieprinzip verstößt und die rechtliche Gleichheit der Staatsangehörigen in Frage stellt. Welche Szenarien der Diskriminierung könnten auf Thüringen und Deutschland zukommen, wenn die AfD in Regierungsverantwortung versuchen würde, diese politischen Bestrebungen umzusetzen?

Growing the Living Tree

On 21 June 2024, the High Court of Namibia in Friedel Laurentius Dausab vs. The Minister of Justice unanimously held that laws criminalizing same-sex relationships are unconstitutional and invalid. The judgment significantly advances anti-discrimination law jurisprudence in Namibia, particularly in relation to the grounds of sexual orientation and the interpretation of constitutional equality provisions.

Women’s Rights and the Russian Constitution

Since the beginning of Russia’ aggression against Ukraine, the government’s rhetoric has become more conservative and nationalistic. In 2022-2023, Russia witnessed the introduction of a slew of oppressive legislation directly violating human rights. Against the backdrop of Putin’s focus on the fight against the ‘enemies’ and Russia’s isolation due to ‘fighting for the right cause’ women once again became the target of regulation with a steady and consistent assault on their human rights, particularly reproductive rights. Moreover, as women actively participate in anti-war protests, the authorities have been treating women more harshly during arrest, trial and sentencing as various reports show. Nevertheless, women continue to fight for their rights and freedoms in courts and on the streets, hoping for change.

When Discrimination is Not Enough

The Supreme Court, India’s apex constitutional court, recently delivered its disappointing decision in Supriyo Chakraborty v Union India (Supriyo), rejecting marriage equality in Indian law. The much-awaited decision was heard by a constitution bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court and dealt with far-reaching questions of both Indian constitutional law and family law. The decision is characteristic of the Indian Supreme Court’s ongoing phase of great deference to the executive and legislative branches but also marks a sharp and worrying break from the court’s otherwise progressive jurisprudence on issues of gender and sexuality.

Harvard’s Diversity Chicken Comes Home to Roost

The US Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admission is a potential blessing. Diversity was always a problematic justification for race-based admissions programs. Diversity's origins are anti-Semitic. More likely, however, the decision will be a curse. The United States Supreme Court has made the pathway for disadvantaged minorities more difficult.

Marriage Equality at the Doors of the Indian Supreme Court

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India recently heard over 20 petitions seeking marriage equality. The significance of a positive declaration cannot be overstated. It would make India only the second country in Asia to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages. As India becomes the world’s most populous country this year, a favorable decision would also mean that an estimated 17.7% of the world’s population would come under a marriage equality regime which is more than the cumulative population of the 34 countries that currently recognize such marriages (17% of the global population).