Supreme Court Civil Rights Law News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Presidential politicking has hit new lows following the recent ISIS attacks on Paris. Last Thursday, GOP front-runner Donald Trump told reporters that the U.S. should implement a database for tracking Muslims. The comments followed Ben Carson's earlier statements that Muslims should not be president, and both candidates' brief insistence that they saw American Muslims celebrating on 9/11. (Both have stepped back from their comments.) Others have called for Syrian refugees to be "rounded up" and deported.

But while many commentators compared the candidates' Islamophobia to fascist Germany, we recall a very different World War II tragedy: Korematsu, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever and still good law.

To travel the length of Virginia's third congressional district isn't an easy task. You'd need a boat, a plane, and a whole lot of time to follow the district from its northern corner outside Richmond, across the James River, around and over Newport News, and finally down to certain Norfolk neighborhoods.

It's a district that would drive many cartographers nuts, and that was exactly the point. The district was originally designed as the state's only majority-minority district. A 2010 redistricting by the state's Republican-controlled legislature shoved even more of the state's black voters into District 3, diluting their impact elsewhere. Now, the Supreme Court will see if the redistricting itself is illegal, having agreed to hear the appeal last Friday.

As of Friday, abortion is back before the Supreme Court for the first time in years, after the Court granted cert to review Texas's restrictive abortion law. (You remember, the one that led Wendy Davis to hold a 13-hour filibuster two years ago, then passed shortly after.) Then on Monday, it rejected a request to publicly release Planned Parenthood documents under the Freedom of Information Act -- leading to a rare dissent to the denial of cert.

Add in the Obamacare contraception cases, the Court agreed to review it two weeks ago and it's quickly becoming the Year of the Uterus in the Supreme Court. Here's what's happening in the nation's highest judicial body and how it could affect yours.

SCOTUS Hears Arguments: Can Gov't Freeze Money to Pay Lawyers?

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case of Luis v. United States, a case of first impression for SCOTUS that asks probing questions about the role of government forfeiture of personal assets.

The legal issue at the core of Luis is this: Can prosecutors freeze all of the defendant's assets even if they are unrelated to any criminal activity and even if freezing them would hinder the defendant's ability to hire counsel?

The Supreme Court sided with a Texas police officer this Monday, ruling that he had qualified immunity for shooting at, and killing, a fleeing suspect. In an unsigned, 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court agreed that state trooper Chadrin Mullenix didn't violate any clearly established constitutional rights when opened fire on a vehicle fleeing from the police, killing the driver.

The sole dissenting voice was that of Justice Sotomayor, who argued that an untrained officer, firing into the dark at oncoming traffic, certainly violated unmistakable Fourth Amendment rights.

SCOTUS Wrangles Over Highland Assault Weapon Ban

The gun case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park is apparently stuck in limbo at the Supreme Court.

Highland is the country's current poster-child case symbolizing all that must be answered about guns -- until something else comes up. Progressives see the case as an opportunity to draw an arguably wiggly line in the sand against the use of high calibre assault rifles -- a view that has steadily gained currency with the American population following the nation's recent rash of mass shootings. Gun rights activists see victory in the case as staunching the flow of what they take to be a hemorrhaging of American's rights to carry firearms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Well, here's some exciting news for your weekend. This morning the Supreme Court granted certiorari to all seven Obamacare contraception mandate appeals. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide plans that cover employee's birth control. Certain religious, non-profit employers are exempted from that requirement: they just send in a form and someone else handles employee contraception.

But, petitioners argue, even that contraception exemption forces them to participate in something that's against their religious belief. Their claims have been essentially laughed out of every appeals court to date -- except for the Eighth Circuit, which recently broke ranks and ruled in religious employers' favor. Now, everyone will get to make their argument before the highest power available.

1L Student Gets His Redistricting Case Heard by SCOTUS

Stephen Shapiro, a 1L at American University, has successfully convinced this nation's highest court to review whether or not a lower district judge's decision to dismiss his redistricting case was proper under the applicable state and federal law -- specifically the Three-Judge Court Act. If SCOTUS rules the that the dismissal was improper, courts will review the issue of partisan gerrymandering within the context of the First Amendment.

Shapiro's case is a feather in the cap of the 55-year-old law student. He has entered a world where he typically is confused as a professor, not a student; now he may sit before the nine justices before he's even earned his J.D.

This November begins with a bang in the Supreme Court. While the rest of us are still nursing our Halloween candy hangovers, the High Court is hearing two of the year's most interesting cases, Foster and Spokeo.

Foster deals with race and jury selection, specifically whether a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike all black candidates from a jury is prohibited racial discrimination. (We'll get to Spokeo tomorrow.) So, how'd things go?

SCOTUS Revisits Racism in Jury Selection

Almost three decades have passed since the nation's highest court declared that peremptory strikes on the basis of race are a violation of equal protection. In little less than a week, SCOTUS will revisit the issue of racism in jury selection again.

The Supreme Court's review of Foster v. Humphreys is the latest case to highlight what some have called a double standard of justice against blacks in American courts even with the ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.