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 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.

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.

The Supreme Court's oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and the recent shootings at the "Draw Muhammad" contest in Texas have led to some pretty interesting theories about how the Constitution works.

In both cases, the interplay of religious liberty, free speech, and the rights of others concern some people out in the world who are afraid of same-sex marriage or of events that are designed to make people angry, like the Draw Muhammad contest. In both cases, however, the fear that the government can bring its hammer down on free expression is unwarranted.

The 5-4 opinion in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar was a bit of a surprise. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the Court's four liberals to conclude that a state canon of judicial ethics prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign donations was constitutional.

What made more sense is that Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court's opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, dissented from this judgment. It's clear that Roberts made the right call, but his reasoning leaves something to be desired, and indeed, carries some weighty implications for future free speech decisions.

They're just gluttons for punishment, aren't they? After two and a half hours of arguments yesterday on the topic of same-sex marriage, the justices today opted for some lighter fare: the death penalty.

Richard Glossip, along with two other Oklahoma inmates, contends that the three-drug cocktail that state uses for lethal injections violates the Eighth Amendment.

Only a few hours ago, the Court concluded a marathon two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the consolidated same-sex marriage cases that undoubtedly form the basis of the big civil rights decision of our time.

The Court divided the arguments according to the two questions presented: First, whether the same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, and second, whether Ohio's refusal to acknowledge an out-of-state same sex marriage violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The same-sex marriage cases, known to posterity as DeBoer v. Synder, may very well be the biggest civil rights decision of our generation. As such, everyone wants to put their two cents into what will undoubtedly become an historic opinion.

Lots of people want in on the action. Lots. As of April 3, one hundred and thirty-seven individuals, organizations, and states have filed amicus briefs in support of one side, or neither side.

Here's a brief round-up of just some of these 137 briefs.

An ankle bracelet is more than a fashion statement: it's a search. At least according to the Supreme Court's holding in Grady v. North Carolina, which found that a state conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it affixes a device to an individual's body, sans consent, for the purposes of monitoring them.

The case involves Torrey Grady, a "recidivist sex offender" who was ordered to wear a tracking device at all times, much to his dislike. Grady's cert. petition asked the Court to decide whether the monitoring bracelet was an unconstitutional search, in violation of the offender's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court didn't go that far, however, content on ruling on the search issue alone.

An employment policy that accommodates disabled workers must also accommodate pregnant workers, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday in a 6-3 opinion in Young v. UPS. After becoming pregnant, UPS driver Peggy Young was advised by her doctor not to lift more than 20 pounds; however, UPS requires drivers to be able to lift up to 70 pounds.

Young requested temporary reassignment or an accommodation, but UPS refused, even though it granted such requests to employees for on-the-job injuries or for statutory reasons, like an ADA-protected disability. She sued, claiming disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

In 2012, the Alabama legislature redrew the state's legislative districts. In doing so, it attempted to keep the districts roughly equal in population and, in order to remain compliant with the Voting Rights Act, keep about the same black population percentage in existing majority-minority districts.

These goals were sometimes at odds with each other, and in the end, Alabama added more black voters to existing majority-minority districts in order to prevent the percentage of minority voters in those districts from declining. The Alabama Black Legislative Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference called this an impermissible "racial gerrymander."