Abstract
A recent shift in the constitution of the personnel on the U.S. Supreme Court has resulted in a “supermajority” of conservative justices that have significantly shifted key constitutional doctrines in a manner not seen in recent history. This shift is illustrated by at least three significant cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024). This Essay argues that taken together, these cases represent a pattern of “retrenchment” or pullback from constitutional rights and protections that have been crucial to marginalized populations.
These cases will not only significantly impact important areas of American life in a manner that will convince some that they are alienated from law’s embrace, they will also force constitutional law scholars to rethink how we teach certain powers and rights doctrines that have essentially remained constant for many years. For legal scholars inhabiting minority identity categories, then, this constitutional moment raises important questions about how, moving forward, to “enter” or represent our values and ideas within the classroom.
Relying on Critical Race Theory’s foundational research on narrative, theories challenging the social construction of merit, and the indeterminacy of judicial outcomes, the author revisits questions of the advantages and dangers of a classroom teacher sharing their personal stories. The Essay ultimately concludes that referencing one’s personal and professional experiences within the classroom as a method to explicate severe doctrinal shifts may add helpful context for students and undermine the alienation such regressive opinions can produce for teachers.
