Judicial opinions often present themselves as the product of neutral legal analysis, but the reasoning embedded in landmark decisions can encode gender and racial bias while maintaining an appearance of objectivity. This program examines how courts employ enthymematic reasoning, arguments built on unstated premises that audiences are invited to accept as self-evident, to naturalize value judgments that produce profoundly unequal outcomes. It identifies the specific rhetorical structures attorneys must learn to recognize: the selective use of historical tradition to define constitutional rights, the framing of moral controversy as a basis for diminishing legal protection, and the categorical isolation of rights that disproportionately affect women from the broader framework of bodily autonomy and privacy. Attendees will also examine how facially neutral laws interact with disparate impact, and how judicial rhetoric can obscure gender and racial inequity beneath formal claims of equal treatment. The program equips attorneys to read opinions critically, identify unstated premises that embed bias into legal reasoning, and craft advocacy strategies that expose and challenge those assumptions.
Susan Tanner
