Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In a Title VII action claiming that a city discriminated against white firefighter candidates for a promotion by discarding their test results based on a statistical racial disparity, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where the city's action in discarding the tests violated Title VII, because a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity is far from a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results.

Read Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428

Appellate Information

Argued April 22, 2009

Decided June 29, 2009

Judges

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Justice Scalia, concurring.

Justice Alito, concurring.

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting.

Counsel

For Petitioners:

Karen Lee Torre, Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis LLC, New Haven, CT

For Respondents:  

Christopher J. Meade, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC

Richard A. Roberts, Nuzzo & Roberts, L.L.C., One Town Center, Cheshire, CT

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.

Read Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding

Appellate Information

Argued April 21, 2009

Decided June 25, 2009

Judges

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Matthew W. Wright, Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC, Phoenix, AZ

For Respondent:

Adam B. Wolf, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA

In a motion by state legislators to purge the District Court's contempt order holding that the state was providing inadequate English Language-Learner instruction in the school district at issue, the denial of the motion is reversed, where the lower courts did not engage in the proper analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), because they did not analyze whether changed circumstances warranted reexamination of the original judgment.

Read Horne v. Flores, No. 08-289

Appellate Information

Argued April 20, 2009

Decided June 25, 2009

Justices

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Breyer, J., delivered a dissenting opinion.

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Eric J. Bistrow, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix, AZ

Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA

Respondents:

Kimberly Anne Demarchi, Lewis & Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ

Sri Srinivasan, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Washington, DC

Timothy M. Hogan, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix, AZ

In an action seeking relief under the "bailout" provision in Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which allows a "political subdivision" to be released from the preclearance requirements if certain conditions are met, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the Act must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions, including Plaintiff district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements.

Read Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. 1. v. Holder, No. 08-322

Appellate Information

Certiorari to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Argued April 29, 2009

Decided June 22, 2009

Judges

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Counsel

Attorneys for Appellant:

Gregory S. Coleman, Yetter, Warden & Coleman L.L.P., Austin, TX

Attorneys for Appellees:  

Debo P. Adegbile, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, New York, NY

Renea Hicks, Law Office of Max Renea Hicks, Austin, TX

Elena Kagan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Washington, DC
   
Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC

Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX

In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action claiming a wrongful demotion, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action.

Read the full decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 08-441.

See the case docket.

Appellate Information:

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Argued on March 31, 2009
Decided on June 18, 2009

Judges:

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

Counsel:

For Petitioner - Eric Schnapper, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA

For Respondent - Frank B. Harty, Nyemaster Goode P.C., Des Moines, IA

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff's claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing.

Read the full decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, No. 08-6.

See the case docket. 

Appellate Information:

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Filed on June 18, 2009

Judges:

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Part II.

Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined as to Part I. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Counsel:

For Petitioner - Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals, Anchorage, AK

For Respondent - Peter J. Neufeld, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY.