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's latest orders list is out, with three very interesting grants. First, what happens to a convict's guns? Can a court order them transferred or sold to a buyer of the convict's choice? Second, can a Batson issue be dealt with ex parte? And in the third grant, the Court explores the possibility of a facial challenge to a hotel records law under the Fourth Amendment.

In other news: The Court let another state voting law stay in effect, this time in Texas, in the strongest test of the Purcell v. Gonzalez holding yet. A district court had held that the law had a discriminatory purpose, and blocked it, but the Fifth Circuit, citing Purcell, reversed the trial court.

We've got two big pieces of news on the Supreme Court front, both involving issues of national importance: abortion and voting rights.

The biggest development has to be the Supreme Court's decision to vacate parts of a Fifth Circuit opinion that allowed Texas' new abortion law to go into effect; the law would effectively force all but a few abortion clinics in the state to close. The issue, and appeal, are likely to make it to the Court on the merits.

Meantime, back at the Fifth Circuit, the court allowed the Texas voter ID law to go into effect, despite the district court's finding that the law had a discriminatory purpose. That too will likely head to the High Court at some point.

In what might be the most litigious election season in recent memory, the Supreme Court has stepped in and blocked three lower court rulings in the last week alone, some of which allowed controversial voting laws, and some of which blocked those laws. The seemingly conflicting rulings all have one thing in common: the Purcell rule.

Meantime, a court in Texas has blocked that state's voter ID law at the last second. A quick appeal, citing that same Purcell rule, is a foregone conclusion.

SECOND UPDATE, October 10, 2014, 2:33 p.m.: The Supreme Court has just issued an order lifting the stay on same-sex marriages in Idaho, less than three days after Justice Kennedy's surprising initial stay.

UPDATE, October 8, 2014, 12:54 p.m.: Justice Kennedy has issued a new order, dropping the stay in Nevada. Gay marriage can proceed in Nevada, but it's still on hold in Idaho. Meantime, BuzzFeed reports that the conservative Nevada district court judge who ruled against gay marriage in 2012, and was ordered to issue the injunction (blocking the ban), has self-recused.

This morning, those of us on the west coast woke up to surprising news: Two days after the Supreme Court declined to take on the issue of gay marriage, and one day after the Ninth Circuit followed that up with a smackdown of Nevada and Idaho's gay marriage bans, the Supreme Court stepped in and pressed pause on Idaho gay marriages. And maybe Nevada too -- nobody is quite sure.

Speaking of stays, despite issuing a stay blocking last-minute changes to voting laws in Ohio, the Court has yet to rule on other requests out of North Carolina and Wisconsin. The latter state sent a follow-up request to the Court earlier today, while the waiting game rolls on on the two earlier requests.

Well, this is quite a way to kick of SCOTUS Week at FindLaw, isn't it? This morning, the Supreme Court shocked the nation by denying certiorari in all of the pending gay marriage cases. The orders were handed down with no warning, no elaboration, and no dissent.

In retrospect, the denials shouldn't have been that shocking: While the issue is of major nationwide importance, there is no circuit split yet, and every federal appeals court to consider the issue since Windsor has ruled in favor of marriage equality. The Court's denial is simply an exercise of restraint -- if they don't have to touch the issue, they apparently won't.

In the coming days, we'll be doing a circuit-by-circuit review of the Court's major cases that they did take, but for today, we're going to stick to the major ramifications of the Court's non-decision in the marriage cases.

Last week, we blogged about the Big Fall Conference (aka long conference) at the U.S. Supreme Court. After a summer's worth of backlog clogs up the docket with around 2,000 certiorari petitions, the clerks of the Court sort through the chaff, the justices review their recommendations, and less than one percent are granted cert.

Of the 1,845 listed for Monday's BFC, and SCOTUSblog's "Petitions We're Watching" list, here are a few that we're particularly interested in, covering everything from equality (in marriage and employment) to juvenile sentencing:

We've got a double-dose of Supreme Court-related news today: A Supreme Court justice officiated a same-sex marriage over the weekend. And though Justice Elena Kagan isn't the first current or retired justice to do so, it's sure to draw some complaints and questions about bias, with the Court set to hear same-sex marriage cases at some point this term.

Speaking of same-sex marriage, in one week, the Supreme Court will consider the handful of petitions floating in the cert. pool at its first conference of the term. The New York Times reports that lawyers in the cases are jockeying for position in their briefs, hoping that their case becomes the case.

Seven more days folks: Seven days until we get to cert. petitions, oral arguments, and Court decisions.

Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School earlier this week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the Sixth Circuit cases on same-sex marriage were going to be crucial to the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decisions.

If the Sixth Circuit upholds bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, "there will be some urgency" on the High Court's part to intervene, Ginsburg told the audience.

"There are drones flying over the air randomly that are recording everything that's happening on what we consider our private property. That type of technology has to stimulate us to think about what is it that we cherish in privacy and how far we want to protect it and from whom."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a discussion with faculty and students at Oklahoma City University's law school, sounded the alarm on privacy intrusion, by both public and private actors, reports The Wall Street Journal's Bits Blog. This alarm, of course, is one that many Americans have been hearing ever since Edwards Snowden blew the whistle on the National Security Agency's mass surveillance here and abroad.

And while Justice Sotomayor's comments were general in nature, and addressed unmanned drones controlled by both the government and private citizens, her comments and recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may just be ready to start addressing some of the more pressing privacy issues.

With the Supreme Court set to consider same-sex marriage petitions from five states at its first conference on September 29, one argument lurks in the background.

Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Virginia passed their same-sex marriage amendments through statewide referenda. "Millions of voters" would be "disenfranchised," Utah argued, if the Court didn't take the case. Similarly, Wisconsin said the Seventh Circuit's opinion "ignored Wisconsin voters' right to 'exercise[] their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.'"

Implicit in this concern for popular sovereignty must be a suggestion that, when the people themselves make law, that law is somehow more important than when the legislature does it (and, as a corollary, it's more important because it's achieved via the mechanism of voting). Consequently, the Court must take the great weight of popular opinion into account.