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

The Supreme Court released three opinions today, one day before the end of the term. Following last week's headline-grabbing opinions on marriage and healthcare, the Court continued making news, issuing rulings on the Clean Air Act, electoral redistricting and, chief among the opinions, the lethal injection.

In the lethal injection case, Glossip v. Gross, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Oklahoma's lethal injection program. Death row prisoners had challenged the state's lethal injection cocktail, saying it failed to numb the pain of the lethal injection drugs, leading to a horrific death that would feel like being burnt alive. In their dissent, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg came out against the death penalty itself, arguing that capital punishment as a whole is unconstitutional.

The right to marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples, the Supreme Court ruled this morning in Obergefell v. Hodges. The historic 5-4 opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, extends the "fundamental right to marry" to gay and lesbian couples throughout the country, just eleven years after the country's first legally recognized same-sex marriages took place.

The decision, based on both due process and equal protection grounds, marks a major victory for the gay rights movement, which has seen a rapid shift from state and federal same-sex marriage bans to a judicial embrace of equal rights for same-sex couples. The opinion's release comes two days before anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the symbolic birth of the gay rights movement 46 years ago.

The Supreme Court released two important free speech decisions on Thursday, finding that the government can't limit temporary signage based on its content but can control what goes on specialty license plates. The difference? Who was speaking.

The twin cases coming up from an Arizona sign restriction and a Texas DMV decision, emphasize the Court's focus on not just the content of speech but on its speaker. The decisions taken together emphasize strictly protecting private speech while allowing greater regulation in government-sponsored speech.

We'd be shocked if abortion doesn't come before the Supreme Court next term, but it won't come in the form of North Carolina's invasive abortion ultrasound law. The High Court denied review of the Fourth Circuit's ruling invalidating the law, which required women to undergo a state-mandated ultrasound and scripted description of the fetus.

In not taking up the case, the Court leaves in place a broad split between the Fourth Circuit and the Fifth and Eighth, which have upheld similar "display and describe" laws. Is this a hint of things to come?

The Supreme Court released three new opinions this morning, slowly chipping away at the now 17 remaining cases it has to decide before the term's end two weeks from today. Chief among those three was Kerry v. Din, in which the Justices ruled that an American woman could not challenge the denial of a visa to her foreign-born husband on due process grounds.

Fauzia Din, an American citizen, had requested a visa for her husband, Kanishka Berashk, but her request was denied. The State Department refused to elaborate beyond stating that Berashk, an Afghani citizen who had been a government worker under the Taliban, had been involved in terrorist activities. Din argued that her husband's denial violated her due process rights and liberty interest in being together with her husband. The case is one of the first times the Court has taken up substantive due process in some time.

The culture wars are alive and well in the Supreme Court these days, as SCOTUS reviews everything from gay marriage, to affirmative action in higher education and abortion restrictions. It almost feels like it's the 90s again. Perhaps the Court could review the Clinton impeachment when they have a spare moment.

Having released only a single opinion this week -- the important separation of powers and Jerusalem passport case of Zivotofsky -- the Court shouldn't have too much time on its hands. Here's a preview of what might be on the Supreme Court's plate as the term winds down.

Religious discrimination in hiring and employment, prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, does not require actual knowledge of a victim's religious beliefs, the Supreme Court announced Monday. A discriminatory motive is enough, whether it's based on actual knowledge, suspicion or "merely a hunch."

Scalia, who authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 case, described it as a "really easy" verdict. The case comes after Abercrombie and Fitch, the retailer with the overpriced jeans and soft-core advertising, refused to hire Samantha Elauf because she wore a head scarf. It did not matter that Elauf hadn't announced her religion or asked for a religious accommodation -- the fact that the store's managers suspected that her headscarf was religious in nature and did not make accommodations was enough to violate the law.

SCOTUS Reverses 'Facebook Threats' Conviction

Anthony Douglas Elonis made statements on Facebook threatening his ex-wife, a local school, the local sheriffs, and the FBI agents who came to question him about all these threats.

Maybe that's how it happened. Or maybe Elonis was merely practicing his "rap lyrics" and exercising his constitutional rights in the process. Whatever he was doing, the Supreme Court vacated Elonis' conviction for making criminal threats -- but didn't do much beyond that.

The Court is back from its two week recess and the Justices sure did all their homework over the break, dropping six new decisions on Monday. Tomorrow, they'll sit down and decide what workload to pick up next.

One of the petitions they'll consider, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, could have a far reaching impact on affirmative action in education. It would also give the Court a chance to revisit its 2013 ruling in the case, one which was largely criticized for ducking the suit's central issue.

Two New Opinions: Excessive Force and Dormant Commerce Clause

Last week, we asked for opinions from the Supreme Court and we got them -- six of them, in fact -- which may portend more multi-opinion days in the weeks to come.

Today's opinions were fairly prosaic (by which we mean "bankruptcy"), but a few stood out as fairly important.