On Wednesday, September 23, I presented the annual Anthony Kennedy Lecture at the Lewis & Clark Law School. The subject of my talk was "Liberty or Equality?", and the topic was Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the recent Obergefell case, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In the first part of my lecture, I placed the Obergefell opinion in context, taking into account Justice Kennedy's place on the current Court, and his past jurisprudence. In particular, I noted that while Justice Kennedy is undoubtedly the co-called "swing Justice" on the Roberts Court, he is quite different from past swing Justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Lewis Powell. The latter were considered to be moderate pragmatists, lacking strong judicial philosophies. Not so for Justice Kennedy. From his first years on the Court, his jurisprudence has been notable for a passionate commitment to Liberty in all of its aspect, and his firm belief that protection for Liberty is intrinsically tied to protection of individual Dignity. This commitment appears in his privacy jurisprudence of course (culminating in Obergefell), but also in other areas including notably free speech -- it is no coincidence that Kennedy is the preeminent advocate of First Amendment liberties on the modern Court. Moreover, unlike his colleagues, Justice Kennedy's commitment to liberty transcends political boundaries, encompassing such "liberal" Liberty claims as abortion and the free speech rights of pornographers, and such "conservative" claims as property rights and commercial speech. It is this lack of partisanship, rather than lack of philosophy, that has placed Justice Kennedy at the center of the modern Court.
I then stirred up the pot a bit by raising some doubts about Obergefell, at least as written. I noted that the plaintiffs in the case had raised both Due Process (i.e., Liberty), and Equal Protection (i.e., Equality) claims, and the Court's formulation of the questions presented preserved both. Yet Kennedy's opinion is almost all Liberty, with a tiny dollop of Equality almost as an afterthought. I suggested that this emphasis is probably a product of Kennedy's own preferences and comfort levels. While Justice Kennedy has always been a strong advocate of Liberty claims, his relationship to Equality is more ambivalent. He unquestionably is firmly committed to nondiscrimination principles, and even (unlike his conservative colleagues) a commitment to racial integration. However, he has demonstrated -- notably in affirmative action cases -- grave discomfort with policies that classify individuals based on qualities such as race. Indeed, this discomfort ties into his commitment to Dignity, because he sees such typecasting as itself in consistent with individual Dignity. As a consequence, Liberty must have seemed the easier path to take.
Ultimately, however, I do believe this choice was a mistake, for several reasons. First, I think that jurisprudentially, Equality is the stronger argument. The Court's entire substantive due process jurisprudence, which was the basis of the Due Process holding in Obergefell, rests on somewhat shaky foundations, given its lack of textual grounding. Equal Protection, on the other hand, is a well-established, textually based doctrine. And the argument for extending heightened scrutiny to discrimination against LGBT individuals strikes me as extremely powerful, under existing precedent. Second, an Equality based holding would have been broader, granter more protections to sexual minorities than a narrow decision focused on marriage. Third, it is possible that an Equality based holding would have generated less intense opposition than a holding that redefines marriage (though this is admittedly speculative). Finally, I also believe that Justice Jackson was correct in his argument, in the Railway Express case, that in a democracy, equality-based constitutional decisions are generally preferable to liberty-based ones, because they interfere less in legislative authority.
