Resources for Pride Month

This article critically assesses a recent study on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) prepared by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC).

Examines the Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. case on whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII.

On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (“the Act”). One of the goals of the Act was to broaden protections against crimes motivated by hatred for a person’s group membership (her perceived race, national origin, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or religion). This Article undertakes an endorsement of the Act in three Parts.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not, consistent with the Due Process Clause, deny same-sex couples the right to marry. To allow otherwise, said the Court, would “harm and humiliate the children of same sex marriage.” Thus, it was hoped that marriage equality would provide greater security for the children of same-sex couples. And the need for such protections are increasingly important given that, with advances in assisted reproduction techniques, it is easier than ever for same-sex couples to become parents.

In the wake of Obergefell, the United States now has a large class of married, same-sex couples whose relationships began at a time when marriage was unavailable to them. The law must therefore wrestle with the question whether any portion of a pre-Obergefell relationship should count toward the length of the ensuing marriage — an important question given the number of marital benefits tied directly to this calculation.

This article explores employment protections against discriminatory practices for LGBT Americans. Factors such as jurisdiction, employment type, and geography all play a role in whether or not protections are extended to LGBT individuals.

This article analyzes the usefulness of threatened and actual sanctions to protect the human rights of LGBTQ+ people in several African countries.

This Note attempts to articulate the tests developed to define sex in prior cases, noting examples of both hard-line "chromosome-determinative" rules and more multi-factored standards liberalizing legal gender concepts. Utilizing the "rules vs. standards" debate, this Note then proposes a hybrid approach to gender assignment,

This article analyzes Gore, et al., v. Lee, et al., a case challenging Tennessee's birth control policy which explicitly prohibits trans people born in Tennessee from correcting their gender marker to accurately reflect their gender identity.