The two sources, a SCOTUSblog essay and a Reason post excerpting it, agree that the fifth edition of a constitutional law casebook reflects a revolution in 14th Amendment doctrine. The authors note that equal protection law was stable for decades, with affirmative action governed by Bakke, Grutter, Gratz, and the Fisher cases. That changed when Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard became the decisive precedent, allowing race to be used only in narrow contexts such as showing how race presented hardships a student overcame.
On sex discrimination, the casebook adds two transgender rights cases: United States v. Skrmetti, upholding a state ban on certain sex-related medical procedures for minors, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., allowing states to exclude transgender athletes from women's sports. The authors observe that the laws at issue would have been unthinkable in 2008.
Substantive due process also saw a major shift. Dobbs overruled Roe, and the casebook trims Griswold while adding Eisenstadt v. Baird. The authors describe older substantive due process cases as vestiges, and suggest the Obergefell dissents may be a signpost for the future. The two accounts are consistent, with the Reason post serving as an excerpt from the longer SCOTUSblog piece.