Penn State Law professor Dara Purvis rewrites history

Credit: Temple UniversityAll Rights Reserved.

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – Penn State Law professor Dara Purvis is rewriting a Supreme Court opinion as part of a national project that is calling on the country’s leading feminist legal scholars to use feminist theory to re-examine the most significant Supreme Court cases on gender.

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project is taking 24 Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1800s, and asking  the question: “What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like -- and what would their influence be -- if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective?” Combined, the 24 rewritten opinions will be published by Cambridge University Press in a collection called "Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court."

In addition to law professors, the authors are comprised of feminist legal theorists, practicing lawyers, clinicians, and legal writing professors from all backgrounds and experiences. 

 Purvis, in collaboration with Iselin Gambery of The George Washington University School of Law, is rewriting the  1973 opinion in Frontiero v. Richardson. The case was brought by Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force officer who was denied spousal benefits for her husband because of a statute that only provided benefits for military husbands if they were dependent on their spouses for more than half of their support. The court ruled 8-1 that the statute unconstitutionally discriminated against women. Purvis is a scholar of family law, contracts, feminist legal theory, and sexuality and the law. She is particularly interested in the intersection between gender stereotypes and the law. Her most recent work examines gendered impacts of the law and proposes neutralizing reforms, most recently in the context of how the law defines parenthood.

Last Updated July 22, 2015