U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Trinity Lutheran finally had its day in the Supreme Court and things seem to have gone well. The Missouri church is challenging its exclusion from a state program that provides grants for resurfacing playgrounds with recycled tire material -- except if, like Trinity Lutheran's, those playgrounds are part of churches. That violates its right to free exercise and equal protection, the church argues.

After a year and a half of waiting, the church finally made its case during oral arguments today and many of the justices seemed to be leaning its way.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that we've been impatiently awaiting oral arguments and, ultimately, a decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. The case is one of the most interesting of the term, both for its factual background (kindergartens! recycled tires!) and its constitutional questions (the extent to which churches may be denied access to otherwise generally available public programs).

After a long delay, the case is finally set for oral arguments this upcoming Wednesday. But now, given a last minute policy change by the governor of Missouri, the case could be moot.

New York State allows companies to offer price discounts to customers who pay in cash. But the state forbids imposing surcharges on credit card users. For retailers, this is more than just a question of semantics. Surcharges discourage credit card use more than discounts encourage cash, thus helping business avoid the two to three percent swipe fee companies like Visa or MasterCard apply every time a customer pays with plastic.

A coalition of New York businesses, led by a hair salon from outside of Binghamton, sued, claiming that the law violated their First Amendment rights. Yesterday, they won a narrow victory in the Supreme Court, with the Court ruling that New York's law implicates free speech rights and must be analyzed under those standards.

Texas's standards for evaluating mentally disabled death row inmates are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

Until Tuesday, when asked to determine if an inmate was too mentally disabled to execute, Texas relied on a medical definition from 1992, since superseded, and a set of nonclinical factors known as the "Lennie standard." That's Lennie as in Lennie Small, the sweet-natured but simple-minded character from Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

Well, this is awkward. Just as Neil Gorsuch faced a barrage of hard hitting questions for the third day in a row, the Supreme Court overruled him on a controversial opinion from 2008. Senator Dick Durbin took the judge to task over that ruling, where the judge rejected a challenge by the parents of an autistic boy who claimed that his school had failed to provide him the educational services required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Since the student was making some progress toward his goals, the school had met its legal responsibilities, Gorsuch concluded.

But today, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that more than just de minimis progress was required. Gorsuch learned of the ruling during a brief break, allowing him to address it during his testimony.

Courts must be allowed to consider evidence that jurors relied on racial bias or animus in convicting a defendant, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The ruling creates an important exception to the so-called "no-impeachment rule," a rule of evidence that bars post-verdict testimony about juror deliberations. When those deliberations, due to juror bias, may have violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, courts must be allowed to consider such evidence, the Court explained in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Kennedy.

One of the Supreme Court's most anticipated cases of the term just got a last minute cancellation. That case, Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., involved the rights of transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Oral arguments were scheduled for later this month, but the case was upended just two weeks ago, when the Trump administration rescinded federal protections for those students.

Now, the Supreme Court has taken a last minute pass on the dispute. In a one-sentence summary disposition, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's ruling in favor of Gavin Grimm, the transgender student, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the new administration's shifting stance on transgender student rights.

President Trump reversed federal protections for transgender students last week, abandoning an Obama-era policy that read Title IX as protecting transgender students' right to use the bathroom that comports with their gender identity.

That now-renounced policy was at the center of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a high-profile Supreme Court case scheduled for arguments later this month. Now, with significant questions about how the Court will move forward, both sides are urging the Court to hear the case despite the administration's changes, though one wants the justices to move a bit more slowly.

The Supreme Court ruled today that 11 majority-minority voting districts in Virginia must be reexamined for potential racial bias. The districts at issue were all redrawn following the 2010 census, with the goal of establishing a 55 percent black voting age population, or BVAP, in each.

Black voters in Virginia sued, alleging that the new districts concentrated minority votes into fewer districts, making Virginia's remaining districts whiter and more conservative. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on whether race had been impermissibly used in fashioning the 11 districts, but did rule that the lower court must review the districts once again -- providing at least a temporary victory to the challengers.

Do registered sex offenders have a First Amendment right to sign up for Facebook or follow the president on Twitter? That was the question before the Supreme Court yesterday. The Court heard oral arguments in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina, involving a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for any sex offender on the state's registry to access social media.

During oral arguments, the justices, who remain social media shy themselves, acknowledged the greater role such websites play in the public sphere and seemed incline the strike down, or at least narrow, North Carolina's social media restrictions.