![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
What’s on the gay (legal) agenda? This study addresses this question by examining the press releases of national LGBT legal advocacy organizations in response to both new opportunities, after decisions such as U.S. v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and significant challenges such as the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and his subsequent conservative judicial appointments. Using original data from more than 2,800 press releases filed by the largest LGBT legal advocacy organizations from 2010 to 2019, we analyze the LGBT legal agenda and explore how it evolved throughout this period in reaction to changes in the legal opportunity structure. We find that LGBT legal advocacy organizations are strategic and adapt their agendas to shifts in their legal opportunities to achieve social movement goals. Specifically, we find that after marriage equality was achieved, significant shifts in the legal opportunity structure, including conservative countermobilization and new cultural and legal frames, placed transgender rights at the top of the LGBT legal agenda. These findings shed light on the politics of LGBT legal advocacy organizations, provide insight into LGBT politics after Obergefell, and contribute to our understanding of how legal advocacy organizations respond to changing legal opportunities in social movements.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Legal authorities cited
Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993)
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 590 U.S., 207 L. Ed. 2d 218 (2020).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2071, 576 U.S. 644, 191 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2015).
Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.C. 2008).
Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004).
US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 570 U.S. 744, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808 (2013).
Notes
1. Another possible option for organized interests, especially niche movement groups focused on one issue, is to simply close down after their goal is actualized. For example, Freedom to Marry opted to shut down in the wake of Obergefell in 2016. For more generalist movement groups though, organizational maintenance concerns likely preclude this as a feasible option (Browne, Citation1977).