Access the full file below.

.

In a video from 2007 that featured a discussion on the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions, Pamela Karlan scoffed at the Court's decision for referring to mothers as "the mother" and abortionists as "abortionists." Karlan also scoffed at unborn children being referred to as "unborn children," rather than her preferred word -- "fetuses."

Pamela Karlan has used her perch as a liberal academic to push a radical, anti-life agenda.

Watch below:

Pam Karlan revealed in her Public Financial Disclosure Report (Form 278e) that during her detail to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division that she will continue to receive her "normal salary" from Stanford University (minus a summer stipend):[1]

How big is Pam Karlan's salary? Big.

Pamela Karlan disclosed in her financial disclosure that Stanford University had paid her $1,191,239 in salary during the disclosure’s reporting period – a period that includes the first month of Karlan’s detail to the DOJ.[2]

Given that the reporting period includes the preceding calendar year to the due date of the report[3] (the due date is 30 days after February 9,2021, which is one day after[4] Karlan’s appointment date of February 8. 2021), the American Accountability Foundation calculates Pamela Karlan’s annual salary from Stanford University (which may include a summer stipend that she is not receiving while on detail to the DOJ) to be approximately $1 million per year.

While average Americans are struggling with soaring inflation, Pamela Karlan is enjoying a law professor's salary far above the norm -- a salary that likely puts her among the highest paid people serving in the federal government.

Sources: [1] Pamela Karlan Form 278e, Page 7 (Obtained by Reuters, Last Revised 11/17/2021) [2] Pamela Karlan Form 278e, Page 3 (Obtained by Reuters, Last Revised 11/17/2021) [3] OGE, Public Financial Disclosure Guide, 2.01 Reporting Periods [4] OGE, Public Financial Disclosure Guide, 1.01 Types of Reports and Filing Deadlines

During the Arizona Senate’s audit of the 2020 presidential election, Karlan authored a letter[1] to Republican Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, and in it wrote that the DOJ was concerned that any attempt to canvass voters (e.g., knock on their door and ask them to verify their registration) could “have a significant intimidating effect on qualified voters.”

“This description of the proposed work of the audit raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters,” Karlan wrote, and further stated that her concern was also based on past “similar investigative efforts around the country.”

Ultimately, Karlan’s warning to state officials worked – shortly after Karlan sent her letter to Arizona, Arizona Senate President Fann announced in a reply to Karlan[2] that plans to canvass voters had been suspended.

Karlan’s letter to Fann came only days after a left-wing advocacy organization, the Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ), wrote to the Civil Rights Division[3] outlining concerns regarding the audit. In fact, BCJ specifically requested that DOJ intervene. Karlan’s letter largely regurgitated the BCJ’s concerns, citing many of the same sources that BCJ did.

“We are also concerned that, under the senate’s audit procedures, the auditors are preparing to cause imminent violations of laws prohibiting voter intimidation. Voter intimidation is prohibited under at least three federal statutes.” - Brennan Center for Justice Letter to the DOJ, April 29, 2021.

“This description of the proposed work of the audit raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters. The Department enforces a number of federal statutes that prohibit intimidation of persons for voting or attempting to vote. For example, Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act provides that “No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote...” – Pamela Karlan letter to Arizona Senate, May 5, 2021.

Given that Karlan's letter to Arizona came so soon after the Brennan Center for Justice made their ask of DOJ, it raises the question -- is Pamela Karlan using her DOJ perch to benefit Soros-funded, progressive voting rights organizations that oppose increased election integrity efforts?

Sources:

[1] Karlan: DOJ Letter to AZ

[2] NPR, "In Response To Justice Dept., Arizona Senate Says Plan To Canvass Voters Is On Hold," May 7, 2021

[3] BCJ: Letter to DOJ

"George Soros - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010" by World Economic Forum is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

The Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ) described the 2020 presidential election[1] as “the most secure election in American history,” and characterized attempts to investigate the 2020 election results as election interference itself. Meanwhile, the BCJ made note of[2] allegations that the 2016 presidential election was tainted by Russian interference and said in 2017 that “there is plenty of reason to be concerned about voting system secur­ity going forward.”

Other election-related policies supported by BCJ include abolishing the electoral college[3] and implementing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).[4]

And, of course, Pamela Karlan wrote a letter to the President of the Arizona Senate in opposition to Arizona's 2020 election integrity efforts, as discussed in this post. BCJ had urged the DOJ to intervene in Arizona.

Notably, left-wing financier George Soros has poured millions into BCJ through his Open Society Foundations, as disclosed on the Open Society Foundations’ website:

Soros's contributions to the BCJ since 2016.

Recent giving to the BCJ from Soros' Open Society Foundations totaled $4,450,000 between 2016 and 2019.

Further contribution data reveals that Soros’s Open Society Foundations have poured millions more into similar advocacy organizations with ties to Pamela Karlan, creating multiple connections between organizations Soros' finances and the senior DOJ official.

Just before joining DOJ, Karlan served as the chairman and a board member of the American Constitution Society, a self-described progressive legal organization.[5] The American Constitution Society, among many policy positions, has explored the idea of packing the Supreme Court.[6]

Soros-funded organizations Karlan previous served with, as disclosed on her Form 278e.

Below are the contributions from The Open Society Foundations to the American Constitution Society.

Soros contributions to the American Constitution Society since 2016.

Records indicate Soros has given approximately $4,821,000 to the ACS since 2016.

Another recipient of millions in funding from Soros is the Campaign Legal Center, which Karlan sat on the board of directors of prior to joining the DOJ.

Soros contributions to the Campaign Legal Center since 2016.

Records indicate Soros' Open Societies Foundations have given at least $1,035,000 to the CLC since 2016.

Soros’ efforts to impact the justice system have been extensively covered by news media, with recent coverage citing a decade-long effort to influence local district attorney (DA) elections by funneling millions in campaign contributions through a network of political organizations.[7]

According to a report by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Soros has invested “at least $40 million” over the past decade to influence DA races by backing progressive prosecutors for DA positions all over the nation.

Between funding progressive legal organizations with ties to a senior DOJ official like Pamela Karlan and funneling millions into local DA races, Soros’ initiative to remake America’s justice system has been extensively documented and can be seen from the top down and the bottom up.

More evidence has continued to come to light regarding the relationship between the Soros-backed local DAs, and the DOJ.

A recent investigative report[8] by the Washington Examiner revealed that the DOJ is funneling millions in taxpayer-backed grants to non-profit activist organizations that are closely linked to the Soros-backed DAs.

One example includes the Urban Peace Institute (UPI), which promotes soft-on-crime type policies championed by the Soros-backed DAs including the refusal to prosecute low-level crimes.

The UPI, which is reported to be closely linked to one Soros funded DA in the Los Angeles area, received $1 million in grant funding from the DOJ.

“The Los Angeles-based Urban Peace Institute, a group credited with laying the groundwork for District Attorney George Gascon's soft-on-crime reforms, was one of the groups that received a $1 million grant from the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance in 2021.” – The Washington Examiner

Sources:

[1] BCJ: 2020 Election Most Secure

[2] BCJ: Russia and the 2016 Election

[3] BCJ: Abolish the Electoral College

[4] BCJ: Equal Rights Amendment

[5] ACS: Progressive Organization

[6] ACS: Expanding the Supreme Court

[7] NY Post: Soros Remaking American Justice System

[8} Washington Examiner: DOJ Doled Out Millions

According to a Public Financial Disclosure Report obtained and published by Reuters, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pamela Karlan is still employed by Stanford University, rather than employed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

While disclosing her employment agreements and arrangements, Karlan noted that “I remain in my position [with Stanford University]. I am on detail to the Department of Justice for the duration of my government service (which ends in September 2022). I am being paid my normal salary, minus my summer stipend. My employer will continue to make its normal contributions to my retirement account,”[1] the disclosure showed:

Karlan further explained in the disclosure’s endnotes that her detail to the DOJ is “pursuant to an Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement between Stanford and the Department,”:[2]

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) describes how Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreements work. The operative words in Karlan’s disclosure are that she is “on detail” to the DOJ. OPM notes that “Non-Federal employees on detail to Federal agencies remain employees of their permanent organizations for most purposes.” Additionally, the detailee agreements may (or may not) be reimbursed by the Federal Government, according to OPM:

…Status of a Non-federal Employee on Detail

Non-Federal employees on detail to Federal agencies remain employees of their permanent organizations for most purposes. Detailees are not eligible to enroll in Federal health benefits programs, group life insurance, or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). An employee assigned by detail to a Federal agency may be assigned to an established, classified position in the Federal agency, or may be given a set of ad hoc, unclassified duties, relevant only to the specific assignment project...

...

...If the assignee is detailed to a set of unclassified duties, the assignee continues to be paid directly by the non-Federal organization at a rate of pay based on the assignee's non-Federal job. The Federal agency may agree to reimburse the non-Federal organization for all, some, or none of the costs of the assignment.

Detailees will usually have the same workweek and hours of duty as Federal employees in the agency to which they are assigned. However, if the workweek of the permanent employer is, by law or local ordinance, shorter than the Federal workweek, the employee's workweek should be adjusted as needed. Detailees are eligible to participate in alternative work schedule arrangements of the Federal agency to which they are assigned.

Detailees are covered under their permanent employer's leave system. The assignment agreement will specify how the permanent employer will be notified of leave taken and how the use of leave will be approved. The agreement will also spell out what holidays will be observed by the assignee…

Importantly, Reuters confirmed with a DOJ spokesperson that Karlan is not receiving a U.S. government salary:

…She will continue to receive her Stanford salary until her job at DOJ ends in September 2022, according to the disclosure. Karlan is not receiving a U.S. government salary, a DOJ spokesperson said…

Simply put, Pamela Karlan is an employee of Stanford University, not the US Government. Pamela Karlan is the Number 2 in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and is a supervisor, decision maker, and policy maker for DOJ, despite not being a federal government employee.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement under which Pamela Karlan is detailed raises serious conflict of interest questions – questions the American Accountability Foundation is is determined to get answers to. Is Pamela Karlan accountable to the American People? Or instead, is Pamela Karlan beholden to Stanford University and Stanford’s big-money donors?

AAF Research Note: AAF has requested a copy of Pamela Karlan's IPA Agreement through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. To date, AAF has not received a copy of this arrangement, but we anticipate that it will shine light on this unusual arrangement between the Department and Stanford University. When received, we will share the Agreement with you on this website.

Sources: [1] Pamela Karlan Form 278e, Page 7 (Obtained by Reuters, Last Revised 11/17/2021) [2] Pamela Karlan Form 278e, Page 14 (Obtained by Reuters, Last Revised 11/17/2021)

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions (previously v. Lynch) was a case argued during the October 2016 session of the US Supreme Court. At issue in the case was Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a Mexican citizen that pleaded no contest to a charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator” (Cal. Penal Code Ann. §261.5(c).) while he was living in California in 2009.[2] This conviction led to the initiation of deportation proceedings against Esquivel-Quintana. From the Supreme Court opinion:

Petitioner Juan Esquivel-Quintana is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2009, he pleaded no contest in the Superior Court of California to a statutory rape offense: “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator,” Cal. Penal Code Ann. §261.5(c) (West 2014); see also §261.5(a) (“Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor”). For purposes of that offense, California defines “minor” as “a person under the age of 18 years.” Ibid.

The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against petitioner based on that conviction. An Immigration Judge concluded that the conviction qualified as “sexual abuse of a minor,” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(A), and ordered petitioner removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissed his appeal. 26 I. & N. Dec. 469 (2015). “[F]or a statutory rape offense involving a 16- or 17-year-old victim” to qualify as “‘sexual abuse of a minor,’” it reasoned, “the statute must require a meaningful age difference between the victim and the perpetrator.” Id., at 477. In its view, the 3-year age difference required by Cal. Penal Code §261.5(c) was meaningful. Id., at 477. Accordingly, the Board concluded that petitioner’s crime of conviction was an aggravated felony, making him removable under the INA…

Pamela Karlan co-wrote a Brief for the Petitioner in support of Juan Esquivel-Quintana:[1]

Karlan and her co-authors of the Brief argued that Esquivel-Quintana’s conviction did not constitute “aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor” and therefore that Esquivel-Quintana should not be subject to removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA):[1]

…Summary of Argument

Petitioner’s conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) does not constitute the “aggravated felony” of “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the INA.

I. The question whether a state conviction constitutes an “aggravated felony” turns on whether the least culpable acts criminalized under the statute necessarily fall within the crime the INA references. And where there is no readily apparent uniform federal definition of that crime, this Court conducts the categorical approach against the “generic” definition of that crime. The generic definition of a crime, in turn, depends on the prevailing way the offense is defined under federal and state criminal laws, as well as the Model Penal Code.

A multi-jurisdictional analysis here shows that federal law, the Model Penal Code, and the laws of 43 states consider the least of the acts criminalized under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c)—consensual sex between a 21-year-old and someone almost 18—to be entirely lawful. Six of the seven remaining states deem it not sufficiently serious to be treated as “sexual abuse.” And the text and structure of the INA reinforce the soundness of excluding this conduct from the reach of the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor.” Accordingly, whatever the full generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” may be, it must exclude consensual sex between a 21-yearold and someone almost 18.

The Sixth Circuit and the BIA reached a different conclusion only by declining to use a multijurisdictional survey and instead consulting a smattering of procedural and civil sources that do not even purport to define crimes. But this Court’s precedent precludes such a freewheeling approach. Even if it did not, allowing courts and the BIA to proceed in this manner would create massive administrative difficulties and drain the categorical approach of the efficiency and predictability it is designed to guarantee…

Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with Karlan and ruled that Esquivel-Quintana’s conviction did not constitute “sexual abuse of a minor” under the INA.[2]

Following the Supreme Court decision, Juan Esquivel-Quintana had his passport and green card reinstated and returned to live with his family in Michigan in 2017, WDET reported:[3]

When Juan Esquivel-Quintana left his factory job in Mexico and headed back to the Michigan, he carried his newly issued passport and his green card.

Also tucked in his suitcase: the U.S. Supreme Court opinion bearing his name.

He was ready to show it to customs agents if they questioned him when he arrived at the Detroit airport two weeks ago.

“I was nervous,” says the 28-year-old man.

The nation’s highest court decision came in May after Esquivel-Quintana’s attorneys successfully argued that he should not have been deported four years ago because of his criminal conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse…

…

… Meanwhile, Esquivel-Quintana was deported to a border town in northeastern Mexico in 2015. He says he lived in a government-owned house for two weeks with several other men until he got a bus ticket to return to his family’s village. He got a job in a jeans factory, which is where he was when Carlin called him on May 30…

Esquivel-Quintana is seen below in a mugshot posted to the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) website.[4] The American Accountability has requested and is waiting to receive documents from the MDOC and the Sacramento County Superior Court to determine why Esquivel-Quintana had a booking photo taken by MDOC in October 2018. When we receive those documents, we will share them on this website.

Esquivel-Quintana's October 2018 MDOC record raises the question -- did the convicted sex criminal that Pamela Karlan helped to re-enter the United States again find himself on the wrong side of the law?

Sources: [1] US Supreme Court, Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, Brief for the Petitioner, December 16, 2016 (via SCOTUS Blog) [2] US Supreme Court, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, Opinion Issued on May 30, 2017 [3] WDET, “Passport, Green Card, U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Deported Man Returns to United States,” July 11, 2017

[4] MDOC, Juan Esquivel Quintana, MDOC Number: 513851

In March 2021, PDAAG Pamela Karlan authored a memo[1] to federal agency civil rights directors and general counsels about the application of the Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County – which was part-argued by Pam Karlan in front of the Supreme Court – to Title IX. The Supreme Court ruled in Bostock that employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Using a similar argument from Bostock, Karlan crafted a legal framework to outline how federal agencies should enforce Title IX with respect to LGBTQ people enrolled schools that receive Federal funding. From Karlan's memo:

…Executive Order 13988 sets out the Administration’s policy that “[a]ll persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.” Citing the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock that the prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, the Executive Order explains that Bostock’s reasoning applies with equal force to other laws that prohibit sex discrimination “so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.” The Executive Order directs agencies to review other laws that prohibit sex discrimination, including Title IX, to determine whether they prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. We conclude that Title IX does.

Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…

…

…The Bostock Court concluded that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of” sex includes discrimination because of sexual orientation and transgender status, finding that when an employer discriminates against employees for being gay or transgender, “the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1740–43. The same reasoning supports the interpretation that Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of” sex would prohibit recipients from discriminating against an individual based on that person’s sexual orientation or transgender status. This interpretation of Title IX is consistent with the Supreme Court’s longstanding directive that “if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.”…

Karlan specifically cited several court cases involving transgender students to justify her argument, including two cases that involved transgender students and bathroom usage:

…In the months following the Bostock decision, two appellate courts have reached the same conclusion, citing Bostock to support their holdings that Title IX protects transgender students from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 616 (4th Cir. 2020), as amended (Aug. 28, 2020), reh’g en banc denied, 976 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-1163 (Feb. 24, 2021); Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 968 F.3d 1286, 1305 (11th Cir. 2020), petition for reh’g en banc pending, No. 18-13592 (Aug. 28, 2020). Other circuits reached this conclusion before Bostock. See Whitaker By Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034, 1049–50 (7th Cir. 2017) (transgender boy was likely to succeed on his claim that school district violated Title IX by excluding him from the boys’ restroom); Dodds v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 845 F.3d 217, 221–22 (6th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (school district that sought to exclude transgender girl from girls’ restroom was not likely to succeed on the claim because Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex stereotyping and gender nonconformity)…

Karlan concluded the memo:

…After considering the text of Title IX, Supreme Court caselaw, and developing jurisprudence in this area, the Division has determined that the best reading of Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” is that it includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation…

…

… I hope this memorandum provides a starting point for your agencies to ensure the consistent and robust enforcement of Title IX, in furtherance of the commitment that every person should be treated with respect and dignity…

The American Accountability Foundation’s reading of Pamela Karlan’s memo is simple – Pamela Karlan provided a legal framework and justification for federal agencies to enforce the implementation of radical transgender policies at schools and universities. Further, the memo provided a shot across the bow to any school in America that dares to maintain that boys bathrooms are for boys and that girls bathrooms are for girls that those schools could risk having their federal funding cut off and could be targeted by the DOJ for litigation.

Sources:

[1] DOJ, Civil Rights Division, Memorandum: Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, March 26, 2021, By Pamela Karlan

In a case ongoing in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, transgender inmate Ashley Diamond at Coastal State Prison is suing the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC), Timothy C. Ward, over alleged mistreatment while in GDC custody in a case named Diamond v. Ward. The Department of Justice authored a Statement of Interest in this case in April 2021, which was signed by Pamela Karlan, as well as the US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia and three other DOJ staff. While it is important to note that Karlan, et al. did not take “a position on questions of fact” in the case, the Statement does take the opportunity to inject transgender ideology into prisons on behalf of the DOJ.

The Statement stated affirmatively that “prison officials violate the Constitution” if they do not house prisoners according to their gender identity or provide individualized medical care for “treatment of gender dysphoria”: [1]

…Prison officials violate the Constitution by (1) categorically refusing to assign transgender prisoners to housing that corresponds to their gender identity even if an individualized risk assessment indicates that doing so is necessary to mitigate a substantial risk of serious harm, and (2) failing to individualize the medical care of transgender prisoners for the treatment of gender dysphoria…

The Statement went on to elaborate that “categorical refusals to transfer transgender prisoners to housing that corresponds to their gender identity…violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment”:

…In recognition of the particular dangers facing transgender prisoners, the PREA standards not only require prison officials to conduct individualized risk assessments of transgender prisoners to determine their risk of being sexually victimized but specifically allow for placements in housing that corresponds to their gender identity. The failure to conduct individualized assessments that carefully consider the housing placements of transgender prisoners and take steps to mitigate their risk of sexual victimization, up to and including placement in a facility that matches their gender identity if necessary to provide reasonable safety, is contrary to evolving standards of decency. See Crawford, 796 F.3d at 260.8 For these reasons, categorical refusals to transfer transgender prisoners to housing that corresponds to their gender identity without due consideration of the risks identified by screenings and assessments violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. And a failure to ever house transgender prisoners in housing that corresponds to their gender identity suggests that the requisite screening and assessments are either not taking place or are so inadequate as to be entirely ineffective…

The Statement then claimed what the “appropriate treatments for gender dysphoria” are, including hormone therapy, hair removal, laser treatment, waxing, and surgery:

…9. Appropriate treatments for gender dysphoria may include but are not limited to: changes in gender expression and role; hormone therapy; hair removal through electrolysis,10 laser treatment, or waxing; surgery; and psychotherapy. Id. at 9-10. The Standards of Care also provide specific guidance on the administration and management of hormone therapy. According to the Standards, hormone therapy “must be individualized,” managed by medical professionals, and “the dose, route of administration, and medications used, [] are selected in accordance with the patient’s goals.” Id. at 33, 38, 41. The Standards further caution that the administration of hormones must be followed by “ongoing medical monitoring, including regular physical and laboratory examination to monitor hormone effectiveness and side effects.” Id. at 42, 46.

Courts have recognized a wide range of interventions that have been deemed by the Standards of Care and qualified professionals as medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria, depending on the individual needs of the prisoner. These treatments have included gender expression allowances such as permanent hair removal, undergarments consistent with a prisoner’s gender identity, pronouns corresponding to a prisoner’s gender identity; and surgery, based on the circumstances of the individual prisoner…

…

… Critically, prison officials are not free to pick and choose arbitrarily which medical treatments they provide to transgender inmates with gender dysphoria, particularly when doing so diminishes the effectiveness of treatment or results in pain or injury…

Pamela Karlan and her co-authors wrote on behalf of the US Government that prisons should be a free-for-all. If male prisoners that think they are transgender women want to go to women’s prisons, Pamela Karlan thinks they should be accommodated. If male prisoners that think they are transgender women want sex reassignment surgery, hormone treatment, laser hair removal and waxing…Pamela Karlan thinks taxpayers should pay for it, as failing to provide transgender inmates “with adequate medical care” “amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment.” Simply put, Pamela Karlan is advocating on behalf of the US Government for radical transgender ideology to be implemented in prisons.

Sources:

[1] Department of Justice, Diamond v. Ward, Statement of Interest filed in US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia” on April 22, 2021.

Pamela Karlan drew significant ire from conservatives in December 2019 when she testified as a witness during President Trump’s impeachment hearings. During the hearings, Karlan inappropriately invoked the name of President Trump’s minor son, Barron, to make a joke that “President Trump can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a Barron."

Is there any level that Karlan won't stoop to to score cheap points with progressive left? Watch below:

In an a panel for the American Constitution Society in 2017, Pamela Karlan told the audience that during a visit to Washington, DC she walked past the Trump Hotel. Karlan stated that while passing the hotel she “had to cross the street, of course.” Karlan was then asked “are you staying there?,” to which Karlan responded “God, no! Never!”

Clearly Karlan holds President Trump and his supporters in low regard. Are the American people really supposed to believe that Pamela Karlan is a neutral arbiter on election integrity issues at the Department of Justice? Watch below:

In an address to the American Constitution Society in 2006, Pamela Karlan went on a (self professed) "snarky" rant about "the rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful" and stated that "we have more reason than they do to love America."

Pamela Karlan has been on the forefront of woke ideology for a very long time.

Watch below: