Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow

Cortelyou C. Kenney is a Cross-Cutting Legal Projects Fellow.  Before her work at the Center, she was an associate at Wilmer Hale and a law clerk for the Honorable Roger L. Gregory (4th Circuit) and the Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum (SDNY). She is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Dartmouth College. She is fluent in Spanish. 

My Take

Storm’s A Brewing for Women at the Polls

Posted by Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow | Posted on: October 16, 2012 at 04:22 pm

This past Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about proof of citizenship at the polling place that may have sweeping implications for women voters after the current election cycle.

In 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required its voters to present documents supporting U.S. citizenship—such as a driver’s license, passport, or birth certificate—before registering to vote. The Ninth Circuit recently struck down the law, saying that it conflicted with a federal statute called the National Voter Registration Act, which Congress passed in 1993 to “streamline the registration process” by requiring all states to use a federal form for registration in federal elections.

Read more...

Reflections on Title IX on Constitution Day

Posted by | Posted on: September 17, 2012 at 05:17 pm

Today, Constitution Day, is a moment to take stock of the document that has served as the bedrock of our country for more than 220 years and the importance of constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court for women. This past Supreme Court term was a constitutional blockbuster, dealing with cases from preemption of immigration laws to the right to lie under the First Amendment. Of particular import to women was the decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

Most ACA supporters think of the decision in the health care cases as an unmitigated victory for uninsured Americans. However, on a 7-2 basis, the Court found that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which required states to expand Medicaid coverage to all adults under 133 percent of the poverty level as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funding, was unconstitutionally coercive, because a noncomplying state could lose all of its Medicaid funding. A majority of the Court remedied the violation by holding that the federal government could not condition all of a state’s Medicaid funding on the state’s expansion of eligibility, but only the additional Medicaid funding provided by the ACA. Many Supreme Court watchers posit there will be a wave of follow-up litigation to test the limits of other laws that are, like Medicaid, based on Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause to place conditions on federal funding to states.

Read more...