Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 10, 2014 31 Comments
Joan Biskupic writing for Reuters reports on the fear in the legal community that has caused large law firms to refuse to take on clients who support keeping the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage, U.S. law firms flock to gay-marriage proponents, shun other side (h/t @AdamLiptak):
As U.S. lawsuits seeking gay-marriage rights move toward a likely showdown at the Supreme Court next year, major law firms are rushing to get involved — but only on the side of the proponents. A Reuters review of more than 100 court filings during the past year shows that at least 30 of the country's largest firms are representing challengers to state laws banning same-sex marriage. Not a single member of the Am Law 200, a commonly used ranking of the largest U.S. firms by revenue, is defending gay marriage prohibitions. These numbers and interviews with lawyers on both sides suggest that the legal industry has reached its Mozilla moment. The software company's CEO, Brendan Eich, resigned in April after being denounced by gay marriage supporters for a donation he had made in support of California's since-overturned gay marriage ban. Now in a similar vein, attorneys at major law firms are getting the message that if they want to litigate against gay marriage they should do so elsewhere.
None of this will come as a surprise to Legal Insurrection readers. We wrote in April 2011, how the large law firm of King & Spalding withdrew its representation of the House of Representatives on the DOMA litigation after the Human Rights Campaign started contacting King & Spalding clients unrelated to the litigation,  and threats were made to hold protests at clients' offices.  King & Spalding did not, however, simultaneously drop its representation of radical Islamic Gitmo detainees who promote societies that treat women and gays as subhuman. I wrote at the time that there was A Hostile Environment For Pro-Traditional Marriage Views At King & Spalding, such that the expression of any contrary view was a potential career ender.  We now know how true that can be, as the Brendan Eich case demonstrated.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on May 06, 2014 8 Comments
We noted yesterday the Supreme Court's ruling in a case allowing for sectarian prayer at town council meetings. In a 5-4 decision, the court narrowly reversed a lower court ruling that prohibited the use of Christian-specific prayer on the grounds it "conveyed the message that [the town of] Greece was endorsing Christianity." Ultimately, the Supreme Court held legislative prayer in the context of an invocation prior to the conducting of regular legislative business did not violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. It did so by drawing on several cases form the past that essentially concluded the exact same thing, citing hundreds years of the existence of prayer in legislative bodies throughout the nation. More persuasive than this "tradition" argument, though possibly more constitutionally problematic in the long run, was the court's recognition of what would occur as a result of courts inquiring into the specific content of a prayer. [Emphasis Added]
To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the court that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact... Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.
Because the plaintiffs in this case only wanted the Christian-specific aspect of the prayer removed from the town council, the above line of reasoning was invoked to buoy the more basic "tradition" argument also employed by the majority. But what about a constitutional challenge seeking a ban of prayer altogether? That would alleviate the need to inquire into the content of the prayer, thus freeing courts and governments from entangling themselves in the process of picking and choosing deities and faiths to pray to.
Outside the courts, people are already gravitating towards this method of religious restriction in the public sphere. As reported by the Daily Caller, one East Carolina University Professor recently instructed his students specifically not to mention God in their graduation ceremony speeches.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 28, 2014 33 Comments
Yesterday, Chris Wallace featured two panelists to debate the outcome of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action and the use of race in the admissions process. The case upheld a Michigan voter referendum banning the use of race or gender based Affirmative Action programs in the public university admissions process, among other things. One panelist was a successful litigant from a prior Affirmative Action Supreme Court case, Jennifer Gratz. Gratz is also the CEO of XIV Foundation, an organization "dedicated to the principle that equal treatment is the essence of civil rights and that all people are entitled to civil rights." The other panelist was civil rights attorney, Shanta Driver. As I watched the debate unfold, one thing I could not help but notice was the use of the word "equality," in each opposing side's rationale for their position. Gratz, who advocated for upholding the Michigan referendum to end race preferences cited "equal treatment under law," regardless of race. Likewise Driver, advocated for the continuation of federally protected race preferences in the admissions, also citing the need for equality. In fact, Driver went so far as to compare this decision by the Supreme Court as a revival of Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court case that brought about the concept of "separate but equal" segregation.

Posted by Rusty Weiss on April 04, 2014 5 Comments

Fresh off a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a ruling which struck down overall limits on campaign contributions, the hypocrisy of the Democrat party in New York has been on full display. Sean Eldridge, a congressional candidate in New York's 19th...

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on March 03, 2014 3 Comments
You may have heard about the upcoming Supreme Court case of Sebellius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
On November 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a case arising out of commitment of the Green family, the sole owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., to live out their deeply held religious convictions by “operating their company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.” These principles were put to the test when the federal government mandated that the Greens and their family businesses provide four specific potentially life-terminating drugs and devices through their employee health plan in conflict with their deeply held religious convictions. While the Green family has no moral objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved drugs and devices that are part of the federal mandate, providing drugs or devices that have the potential to terminate a life conflicts with their faith. Accordingly, the Greens and their family businesses filed suit in September 2012 to defend their right to religious freedom under the Constitution and federal law. Throughout, the Greens have been assisted and represented in the legal case by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.
The case is scheduled to be decided by the Supreme Court by the end of the June term. Apart from the legal work being done on Hobby Lobby’s behalf, the company has also engaged in a fairly strong public relations campaign. They’ve created a number a videos, featured on YouTube and their website, including this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4pL32qQ_3k Hobby Lobby also appears to be engaging in a very active Twitter campaign to help control the narrative — to the extent possible — about their impending case.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on November 28, 2013 4 Comments
The last time we checked on Hobby Lobby after a 60,000 citizen buycott in support of its case against Obamacare, it looked likely that US Supreme Court would take up the case. SCOTUS has now formally done just that.
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review the lawsuit filed by Hobby Lobby against the federal government over the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans. Hobby Lobby, which is owned by an Oklahoma City family with strong Christian beliefs, says a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protects the company from the mandate. The company is particularly opposed to paying for coverage that includes the morning after pill.
The court also accepted a related case from Pennsylvania involving a Mennonite family with a furniture-making business. In that case, a federal appeals court initially ruled that the owners could not challenge the mandate on religious ground because a company did not enjoy the same rights as individuals.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 30 Comments
Supreme Court Justices occasionally issue statements in connection with the Court's decision not to accept a case for review.  Sometimes the statement is in the nature of a dissent, other times just to make a point. Justice Alito has issued a blistering statement in connection with the Court's denial of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Martin v. Blessing.  Justice Alito did not disagree with the decision not to take the case in light of the fact that the issue involved appeared isolated. The issue was the practice of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in the Southern District of New York in requiring that class action counsel ensure that attorney staffing of the case reflect the racial and gender of the class.  That practice, apparently unique to Judge Baer, sparked a lengthy statement by Justice Alito warning that if the Court of Appeals does not address the situation, future Supreme Court review may be warranted. Think about it for a second.  While Judge Baer's intent undoubtedly is to bring diversity to the case, what if the class itself is non-diverse?  What if the class constituted almost entirely white males, would Judge Baer insist that only white male attorney staff a case?  I think not. Justice Alito's statement was part of an Order list issued this morning.  I have extracted Justice Alito's Statement, which is embedded at the bottom of this post.  Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):
The petition in this case challenges a highly unusualpractice followed by one District Court Judge in assessingthe adequacy of counsel in class actions. This judge insiststhat class counsel “ensure that the lawyers staffed on the case fairly reflect the class composition in terms of relevant race and gender metrics.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. The uniqueness of this practice weighs against review by this Court, but the meaning of the Court’s denial of the petition should not be misunderstood.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 06, 2013 37 Comments

The Supreme Court has another affirmative action case on its docket for next term, as explained by Jennifer Gratz (the plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger / U. Michigan), The two-faced defense of affirmative action (emphasis added): Though last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 01, 2013 28 Comments

A follow up to the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. U. Texas. John Yoo writes at National Review (emphasis mine): Some conservatives are probably taking heart that the Court, by seven to one, reversed the lower court, which had upheld UT’s explicit use of racial preferences in...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 25, 2013 38 Comments

NOTE:  Tomorrow is the last opinion day -- so we will get gay marriage and DOMA decisions.  Be here at 10 a.m. Section 4 of Voting Rights Act held invalid. Full Opinion embedded at bottom of this post. Via ScotusBlog live blog: 10:10 Amy Howe: Shelby County. The...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 24, 2013 26 Comments

[Note -- More decisions will be released Tuesday -- check back here at 10 a.m.] Full opinion embedded at bottom of post Via ScotusBlog live blog: 10:14 Amy Howe: The opoinion by Kennedy. The Fifth Circuit is vacated and remanded. 10:15 Amy Howe: The holding is because the Fifth...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 27, 2013 4 Comments

Today is oral argument in Windsor v. United States, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. We have not followed the DOMA litigation very carefully to date. We did cover the secondary boycott effort directed at the King & Spalding law firm.  There was  a truly abysmal threat to...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 26, 2013 36 Comments

The oral argument just concluded.  The audio will be posted later.  Update -- Audio is here. Transcript is here. Expect an avalanche of spin from various pundits -- as if the spin matters. I'll link to numerous sources which I deem on the low-end of spin meter. ...

Accessibility by WAH