( 01 )
2011 through August 2017
Over forty articles about politics, faith, and more.
"Any number of neo-Nazis—no matter how few—is too many, and a threat to all minorities. We must oppose them effectively and with confidence."
"Bernie Sanders' long record reveals a man with the moral judgment we need in a president."
"Take Berniecrats and what we have to say seriously and engage us with respect. If you cannot do that, perhaps it is you who does not understand how politics works: Votes must be earned."
( 02 )
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center
Honors: Cum Laude
Editor-in-Chief, Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law; Student Attorney, Institute for Public Representation: Civil Rights; Student Fellow, Center for the Constitution
A.B., Columbia University: Politics & History
Honors: Political Science, Departmental Honors
Editor, The Commentariat
( 03 )
16 Geo. J. Gender & L. 323 (2015)
There Can Be No Assumption: Taking Seriously Challenges to Polygamy Bans in Light of Developments in Religious Freedom Jurisprudence
Anti-polygamy laws today are more vulnerable than they were during Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), but not constitutionally infirm.
15 Geo. J. Gender & L. 57 (2014)
Annual Review: Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Ed.)
A co-edited review of the state of the law in the area of assisted reproductive technology ("ART").
( 04 )
Significant Court Filings.
May 9, 2018
Author: Opening Brief, Lambert v. Tesla, Inc., 18-15203 (9th Cir.)
Claims arising under a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, should not be compelled to arbitration, in light of congressional intent and the incompatibility of its fundamental purposes with mandatory alternative dispute resolution.
October 30, 2017
Author: Brief Amicus Curiae for the Civil Rights Forum in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et. al., No. 16-111
The religious freedom and freedom of speech arguments made by a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding have already been advanced rejected in the context of employment discrimination. Changing course would undermine civil rights statutes designed to prevent discrimination in the workplace.