Courts and Judges

Another Blow to Women’s Equality at Work: The Trump Administration Is Trying to Weaken a Key Workplace Discrimination Protection

PUBLISHED 8/6/2026 by

The Trump administration is attempting to weaken one of the nation’s most important workplace discrimination protections—a legal standard that has, for decades, allowed workers to challenge hiring and promotion policies that unfairly exclude qualified people, even when those policies appear neutral on their face.

A new opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued in June, argues these longstanding interpretations of Title VII’s “disparate-impact” standard are unconstitutional, and contends certain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance improperly allows employers to be held liable based on discriminatory effects rather than intent. The opinion is meant to guide executive branch enforcement.

Civil rights advocates are pushing back, arguing the new OLC opinion misstates decades of Supreme Court precedent and congressional action.

Below is a joint explainer—issued by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), Democracy Forward, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Equal Rights Advocates, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF—originally published as “The Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinion on the ‘Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII’: What You Need to Know.”

The organizations argue that the opinion does not change federal law. Instead, they emphasize that only Congress can amend Title VII and that courts—not the executive branch—determine how the law is interpreted. Employers, they say, remain legally obligated to comply with existing anti-discrimination protections.

“Across America, workers are struggling to find living-wage jobs to support themselves and their families. Too often, qualified workers are blocked from getting hired and promoted due to employer policies that screen out applicants based on factors unrelated to whether the applicant could do the job, from unnecessary college degree requirements and credit checks to commute-radius limitations and AI resume reviews. The Trump-Vance administration is making this problem worse.

“For decades, under Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and other legal authority, workers have been able to challenge exclusionary policies like these using a legal tool known as “disparate-impact liability.” That tool has resulted in employers adopting more thoughtful, rigorous standards in evaluating their own selection criteria and advancing their business objectives. The administration is now attacking this tool, encouraging employers to ignore the harms caused by their own policies while denying workers the ability to question whether those policies are justified and fair.

“In its latest move, the Trump-Vance administration’s Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released an opinion claiming that longstanding U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on disparate-impact liability under Title VII is unconstitutional. The OLC opinion is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. Only Congress and the courts have authority to change the law or its impact.”

Todd Blanche Has a Path to Confirmation—Even as Epstein Files Scrutiny Deepens

PUBLISHED 7/29/2026 by | UPDATED 8/7/2026 at 8:01 A.M. PT

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche now appears to have the votes to win Senate confirmation after Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana announced Friday morning that he will support President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney to permanently lead the Justice Department.

Cassidy’s announcement came just hours after Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she would oppose Blanche, joining Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and briefly putting his confirmation in serious jeopardy. With Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) absent, Blanche could afford to lose only two Republican votes if Democrats remain united against him. Cassidy’s support appears to give Blanche exactly the margin he needs, barring another Republican defection.

Murkowski said Friday that she did not have confidence Blanche would serve as a check on the Trump administration, pointing to the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, its increasing politicization and the controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” proposed to compensate Trump allies and Jan. 6 defendants.

Cassidy’s decision comes after Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) also agreed to support Blanche following written assurances from the Justice Department that the anti-weaponization fund had been eliminated and that sweeping tax protections included in a settlement involving Trump and his family were limited.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on Blanche’s nomination Wednesday, setting up a path toward a final confirmation vote as senators prepare to leave Washington for the August recess. As of Friday morning, the Senate’s published schedule did not specify a time for the Blanche vote.

A Single Abortion Clinic Closing Rarely Makes Headlines. What Happens When None Are Left?

PUBLISHED 7/8/2026 by

Picture a map of the United States. It’s 2022, and in southern states like Texas and Tennessee, there are clusters of black dots that represent independent clinic closures. These are abortion care black holes: communities where it’s no longer possible to get an abortion at a nearby clinic.

Fast forward to present. It’s 2026, four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and black dots have multiplied in states across the country. It no longer matters if the state is red or blue, governed by conservatives or progressives. None are immune to the increasing weight of political pressure, financial strain and operational difficulty that are forcing independent clinics to close or stop providing abortion care.

Each of these black dots is a community suffering a healthcare crisis, and they are proliferating across the United States at a rapid rate.

Independent clinics are often the only places to get clinical abortion care, unbiased information and support for pregnancy options. They are where people go to feel safe and respected, whether they are getting an abortion, continuing a pregnancy or getting gender-affirming care. In small towns and rural spaces, these clinics are often the only safe place for many people, especially those who are LGBTQIA+. If clinics close, there is often nowhere else to go.

And once abortion clinics close, it’s not as simple as reopening when they can, if they can. Even if a specific restriction is lifted, severe financial constraints, continued political hostility, threats of violence and legal uncertainty still stand.

Looking to Black and Indigenous Foremothers to Resist Erasure

PUBLISHED 7/2/2026 by

Free Black women and Indigenous women are the foremothers of generations of African Americans. Yet they remain largely absent from the official story of American freedom. Their lives, contributions and descendants have been systematically erased—from colonial records and legal classifications to public memory itself.

That erasure began in the earliest colonial records. The 1620 Virginia census recorded “four Indians in the service of several planters,” alongside 15 Negro men and 17 Negro women, reducing people to categories that obscured their identities, families and histories. Over the centuries, laws, court decisions and public institutions repeatedly reinforced that disappearance.

The best celebration of 250 years of American freedom—after the fireworks and celebrations by a newly blue-painted Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool are over—could be a visit to a cool, air-conditioned archive. In the quiet, anyone can search the records for the full story, of the enslaved and freeborn, Indian and African. Anyone can defy censorship and erasure with an open mind and a pencil, no fees required. 

With Latest Immigration Decisions, the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Rewrites Immigration Law, One Word at a Time

PUBLISHED 6/26/2026 by

Just days after World Refugee Day, the Supreme Court issued two immigration decisions that dramatically narrow protections for asylum seekers and Temporary Protected Status holders: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe.

Although the cases address different legal questions, they share a troubling approach: The conservative majority isolates individual words from their statutory context to expand presidential authority while limiting humanitarian protections Congress intended to provide.

In one decision, the Court allows the Trump administration to revive a policy that turns away asylum seekers at the border before they can present their claims. In the other, it shields the administration’s termination of TPS for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and thousands of Syrians from meaningful judicial review.

Powerful dissents from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan argue that the majority ignored both the broader legal framework and the real-world consequences of its rulings.

These opinions are about far more than technical questions of statutory interpretation. By reading immigration law out of context, the Court is reshaping who can seek protection in the United States—and how much power the executive branch has to decide their fate.

Trump’s Executive Order to Restrict Vote by Mail Is a Five-Alarm Fire

PUBLISHED 6/23/2026 by

Republican voters regularly use mail-in voting. Nearly one in five registered Republicans vote by mail. One in four Democrats does too.

Data on who votes by mail suggests that many Americans trust and rely on it.

Trump himself uses mail voting. He has defended casting his own ballots by mail, saying he did it “because I’m president” and “I had a lot of different things” to do.

Trump has repeatedly tried to restrict Americans’ ability to vote by mail. His latest effort, following several failed attempts, began with an executive order he signed on March 31: “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order seeks to shift authority over federal elections from the states—which the Constitution grants primary responsibility for administering elections—to the federal government.

There are, of course, lawsuits challenging this executive order. The challenges to this executive order may well determine how and when you vote this November. So I asked my Brennan Center colleague Wendy Weiser, one of the lawyers in the League of Women Voters case, to share her perspective.

For the People: The Case for a Cabinet-Level Department of Democracy

PUBLISHED 6/18/2026 by

For 250 years, women and marginalized communities have fought to expand democracy, yet the institutions of government still were not designed with their full participation in mind. That is why I propose a Department of Democracy: an independent, permanent institution dedicated to protecting voting rights, safeguarding civic participation and holding government accountable to the people it serves.

Just as the federal government maintains departments devoted to national defense and economic stability, it should establish a Department of Democracy with the authority to enforce voting rights protections, monitor threats to democratic participation and ensure every citizen has meaningful access to the ballot box. The goal is not to navigate a flawed system, but to redesign and strengthen democracy so it reflects the people who have always sustained it.

Through a Department of Democracy, we can build a durable safeguard against democratic erosion and create a government that is more representative, responsive and accountable for the next 250 years.

(This is part of a new miniseries FEMINIST 250: Democracy’s Feminist Future, a special Ms. series examining the next chapter of American democracy through a feminist lens. As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, the series explores how women and marginalized communities have shaped democratic progress, what lessons history offers for the challenges ahead, and how a more inclusive, representative and equitable democracy can be built for the next 250 years.)

Carré Otis Has Opened a Door for Survivors of Abuse in the Modeling Industry. Will Others Walk Through It?

PUBLISHED 6/16/2026 by

A new legal door opened earlier this month in the fight for survivor justice. But it’s not in the United States, where survivors and advocates continue to press for transparency and investigations into Jeffrey Epstein’s larger network and the modeling industry’s potential role in it. It’s in France.

Carré Otis, a U.S.-based former supermodel and board member of the Model Alliance, filed a criminal complaint in French court alleging rape of a minor and human trafficking by Gérald Marie, a former giant of the modeling industry who led Elite Model Management’s European operations from 1985 to 2010.

The complaint alleges that Otis was 17 when Elite sent her to Paris in 1986 and housed her in Gérald Marie’s apartment, where she “mistakenly believ[ed] that he wanted to support her modeling career.” While living there, Otis alleges that Marie raped her on multiple occasions and later arranged for her to be “provided to other wealthy men across Europe.” The complaint also says Otis was never paid for her modeling work.

Marie has denied Otis’ allegations, and because of France’s statute of limitations, cannot be criminally prosecuted for these particular allegations.

Still, Otis’ recent filing could prove consequential well beyond her own case.

Trump and Hegseth’s Anti-Trans Military Policy Is Based on Unconstitutional Animus, D.C. Circuit Rules

PUBLISHED 6/8/2026 by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held on a 2-1 vote last week that unconstitutional “animus-filled reasons” motivated the Trump administration’s policy barring transgender people from the military.

“Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line—’who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’—we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth Policy,” Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote in a portion of his opinion joined by Judge Judith Rogers.