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

A black death row inmate has been saved from execution this morning, after the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors violated the Constitution when striking all potential African American jurors from his trial. Timothy Foster had been convicted of capital murder in Georgia in 1987. He later discovered evidence showing that prosecutors exercised their peremptory strikes almost entirely because of race. Under Batson v. Kentucky, that evidence was enough to undo his conviction, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 today.

But what the case means for Foster, and for others like him, is still unclear.

After Brandon Betterman pleaded guilty to bail jumping, he spent over 14 months in jail, simply waiting to be sentenced. Betterman eventually appealed, arguing that the year-long delay violated his right to a speedy trial.

But, unfortunately for Betterman and the many other individuals who can wait months before being sentenced, the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial guarantee does not include a right to a speedy sentencing, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion released this morning.

After a few slow weeks, the Supreme Court dropped five new opinions this morning. They're not just small-beans disputes either -- rather, they include two of the Court's most important cases of the term, both of which touch on important constitutional issues. Those are Zubik v. Burwell, a challenge to Obamacare's contraception mandate, and Spokeo v. Robins, a dispute over whether privacy violations are sufficient to confer standing.

Here's a quick and dirty review of those opinions, with more to come in the following days.

In 2003, at the start of the Iraq war, a U.S. Army Sergeant Hasan Akbar turned on his fellow soldiers, tossing three grenades into the tents of the sleeping 101st Airborne Division, then opening fire as the soldiers fled. Two men were killed, 14 wounded. Akbar, who had been suffering from psychiatric problems, was court-martialed and sentenced to death.

Now, as Steve Vladeck notes in the Just Security blog, the Supreme Court could soon decide to review his case. But it's not Akbar's crimes that are in question, it's whether the way the military imposed his capital conviction is constitutional. And it's a case that could undermine every military death sentence.

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.