Sotomayor dissent: Removal of "race-sensitive" preferences equals "stacking the deck" and "forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles"...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Playing along is not a victory, any more so than it was in June 2012....
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...
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...
Not that there's anything wrong with it (?)....
Update -- The death of the ballot initiative movement as Court gives de facto veto power to government officials who want to lose a case....
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...
[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...
7-2 decision practically invites Arizona to try again using proper administrative procedures...
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...
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. ...
Today at 10 a.m. is the argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, also known as the California Proposition 8 case. Tomorrow is argument in the Defense of Marriage Act case. It's hard to believe that this day has arrived. We have been covering Prop 8 almost since...
That's the statement Elena Kagan made back in 2009 when she was going through confirmation proceedings to become Solicitor General (emphasis added): 1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by...
A couple of days ago I charitably described Andrew Cohen's embarrassingly gushing celebration of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her new book in The Atlantic as "treacly drool." It is not alone, accompanied now by a full court liberal press (NPR, CBS News, the New York...
