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 refused to intervene in a conflict over Texas's voter identification law today. That law, which imposes some of the most rigorous voter ID requirements in the country, has been used in Texas's last three elections, even though the Fifth Circuit has found the law to have a discriminatory effect. And those voter ID requirements will continue to remain in place for Texas's upcoming runoff elections in May, now that the Supreme Court has refused to halt the law's enforcement.

But the Court might not stay away much longer. In its order, the Supreme Court gave the Fifth Circuit until July 20th to act on the dispute. If it doesn't, the order explained, then the Supreme Court would be likely to step in.

When Jeffrey Heffernan, a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey, was spotted with a campaign sign for his mayor's political challenger, he was quickly demoted, as punishment for his "overt involvement" in the opponent's campaign. Heffernan sued, arguing that the demotion violated his First Amendment rights. And he would have had a fairly straight-forward case, except for one complication. Heffernan hadn't been involved in the opponent's campaign. Not at all. He'd just been picking up a sign for his bedridden mother.

Could he sue for a violation of a constitutional right he hadn't actually exercised? Yes, the Supreme Court ruled today, finding that employees who have been punished in order to prevent them from engaging in protected political activity can sue, even when the employer's actions were based on a mistaken understanding of the employee's behavior.

Wednesday was not a shining moment in the history of Supreme Court oral arguments. This was not Paul Clement going punch-for-punch with Justice Souter in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It wasn't even Margie Phelps, a crazed member of the Westboro Baptist Church, winning over the reluctant justices in Snyder v. Phelps.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether states can penalize drivers who refuse to take warrantless breathalyzer tests. And attorneys for all sides performed "like a clodhopping amateur trying out for a moot court team," as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern so adroitly describes it.

Last June, the Supreme Court struck down the Armed Career Criminal Act's so-called residual clause. Under the ACCA, which is the federal "three strikes" law, certain violent offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences if they've been thrice convicted of specific crimes, or any crime involving "a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." That residual clause, quoted above, was unconstitutionally vague, the Court ruled in Johnson v. United States.

But an open question remained: what happens to those who had already been sentenced under the ACCA's residual clause, pre-Johnson? Now, that question has been answered. On Monday, in a 7-1 opinion, the Supreme Court announced that Johnson has fully retroactive effect in cases on collateral review.

In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over what the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate can require of religious employers. The case, set to be decided by the end of the term, could affect how millions of workers get access to contraception -- and how religious employers get around providing it.

But the case may also force the Court to address more than just access to the pill and family planning. At its heart, Zubik v. Burwell is a conflict over who determines when religious beliefs have been burdened and how far the government must go to accommodate the aggrieved faithful.

Do accusations of an unfair conviction, tainted by juror racism, justify breaching the confidentiality of jury deliberations? The Supreme Court will answer that question in its next term.

On Monday, the Court granted cert to Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a challenge to state and federal rules that prohibit evidence about juror statements made during deliberations. The so-called “no impeachment” rules have been criticized for impeding defendants’ ability to show that their right to a fair trial has been violated, though their supporters argue that the rules protect jurors from later coercion and uphold the integrity of deliberations.

It's the bedrock of modern American democracy: one person, one vote. But that seemingly simple principle can raise major ambiguities when it comes to legislative districting. Who, after all, counts as 'one person,' when drawing election districts? All residents, all citizens, all voters?

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge that sought to make "one person" mean "one voter." States are free to use total population numbers, the Court ruled. But it didn't foreclose the possibility that, when it comes to "one person, one vote," there could be more than one way of counting.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what an out-of-balance Supreme Court looks like. Today, a deadlocked Court issued a one sentence ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, an important and highly-anticipated case about agency fees for public employee unions.

Perhaps to avoid a similar outcome in a challenge to Obamacare contraception rules, the Court also shifted gears in that case. Less than a week after oral arguments -- arguments which indicated an equally divided Court -- the Court has asked the parties to submit possible alternative systems to the current exemption procedures for religious employers who do not want to provide birth control coverage to their employees. Let's take a closer look at these two messes.

The Supreme Court heard lively oral arguments this morning in a case over whether religious organizations must comply with Affordable Care Act rules on the provisioning of contraception through employee health insurance plans.

Those employers, which include religious universities, hospitals, and one group of nuns, don't actually provide contraception directly, however. They are already exempt from that requirement. Once they notify the government of their objections, their insurer handles employee contraception on its own. But even that, the employers argued before the Supreme Court today, is too great a burden on their religious beliefs. Here's how the arguments went down.

Marriage equality is the law of the land. That much is settled. Despite this, a recent, very unexpected ruling from a federal judge in Puerto Rico, found otherwise -- holding that the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and last summer's gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, don't apply to the la isla del encanto.

Don't worry, gay marriage advocates, the ruling will be overturned. But, it might force courts to seriously address the Insular Cases, a group of truly awful Supreme Court decisions that denied many of the protections of the Bill of Rights to U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.