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

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the petition to hear arguments in the United States v. Microsoft case, which is the biggest digital privacy case of the term. The question being presented to the High Court is as follows:

Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

Basically, the government is making one last final effort in the fight to force Microsoft to turn over information stored on foreign soil via a valid search warrant issued by a U.S. court.

With SCOTUS basically split along partisan lines, Justice Anthony Kennedy's swing vote is expected to decide the closely watched Wisconsin gerrymandering case. During oral arguments this week, Justice Kennedy's line of questioning may have hinted at what he's considering in this case.

First off, he did not bother questioning the plaintiffs in the case who successfully challenged the law in the lower courts. Instead he only asked questions of the state's attorney, and led by asking what would result if the Court decided that gerrymandering along political lines was a First Amendment issue. Generally, conservative justices focus their question to the liberal viewpoint's attorney, while the liberal justices question do the same to the conservative viewpoint's attorney.

Pioneering Gay Rights Activist Dies: Edith Windsor's Legal Legacy

Edith Windsor, who won a pioneering case for same-sex marriages, has died.

She was not a lawyer, but she won a case that secured her legacy in civil rights history. Two past presidents honored her after news of her passing.

"Few were as small in stature as Edie Windsor -- and few made as big a difference to America," said former President Barack Obama.

Title VII Sexual Orientation Suit Filed at Supreme Court

It's not that the case came from the Deep South, but Judge Robin Rosenbaum knew the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was in deep trouble.

As she wrote in her long dissent in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, the Eleventh Circuit majority was about 50 years behind the times. Now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it's time to bring the appeals court up to date.

The question is whether an employer may discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation. Is that still a question in 2017?

Trump Lawyers Back the Baker Against Gay Couple

No shorts, no shoes, no shirt, no service. But what about gay couples?

That's the question baker Jack Phillips poses to the U.S. Supreme Court in a showdown between gay and religious rights. For now, the U.S. Justice Department has answered the question: no service.

"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argues in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Supreme Court to Consider Attorney's Fees in Prison Beating Case

After all that Charles Murphy suffered at the hands of prison guards, his case is going to the U.S. Supreme Court over another issue: attorney's fees.

The High Court has docketed the case, Murphy v. Smith, to decide whether a portion of a judgment means "up to 25 percent" or "exactly 25 percent" for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that Murphy has to pay 25 percent of the fees from his award.

Murphy's attorneys, who won a $307,733 judgment, said the appeals court cut too much into the recovery for attorney's fees to be paid by the plaintiff. They want the defendants -- prison guards who beat him -- to pay more.

Five Supreme Court protesters have just been sentenced to six weekends in jail. The group was arrested, and held in custody for 30 hours, after disrupting a 2015 Supreme Court proceeding.

While protesting the Supreme Court is all fine and dandy, doing so inside the actual courtroom is not. The group pleaded guilty to "illegal picketing and haranguing speeches on Supreme Court grounds," earning four of them one weekend in jail, and the fifth receiving two weekends in jail. Additionally, all five defendants have been ordered to stay away from the High Court for one year.

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.