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

When police officers in Washington, D.C. responded to a noise complaint one night in 2008, they found an unusual scene: women in lingerie, money hanging from their garter belts, marijuana smoke wafting through the air. It was something out of a make-shift strip joint, not the empty tableau you'd expect in a reportedly vacant building.

But the partygoers had an excuse: A woman going by "Peaches" and "Tasty" had invited them. And she had, it turns out. But the partiers were arrested for trespassing anyway. Now, nearly nine years later, their case is coming before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in Lee v. Tam, the much-anticipated case over trademark registration, free speech, and disparaging names. The Slants, an Asian-American "Chinatown dance rock" band, had its trademark rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Slants' name, the PTO explained, was the sort of "scandalous, immoral, or disparaging mark" for which the Lanham Act denies trademark protection.

That decision eventually led the Federal Circuit to strike down the act's "disparaging marks" provisions as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That's a ruling that could reach well beyond The Slants -- and straight to the Redskins, the Washington, D.C. football team that has been fighting its own offensive name dispute for years.

The Supreme Court's first opinion of 2017 was released today, a summary ruling in case involving a New Mexico police officer who shot and killed a gun-wielding man without giving a prior warning. Reversing the Tenth Circuit, the Supreme Court found that the officer's behavior violated no clearly established constitutional rights and thus he was entitled to qualified immunity.

The brief, per curiam opinion also contained a warning to the Tenth and other circuits: stick to the narrow confines of clearly established law in qualified immunity cases or risk being overturned.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear four cases from death row inmates facing execution, resulting in a rare dissent from a denial of certiorari by Justice Breyer. In one case, an inmate had spent 40 years on Florida's death row, awaiting an execution that has yet to come. The Berlin Wall was still standing when the man was sentenced to death, Justice Breyer noted. Saigon had just fallen. Over half of all Americans alive today had yet to be born.

In another denied case, an inmate in Ohio had already evaded execution once -- because the executioner could not find a vein through which to lethally inject him. To try again now, after one botched attempt, would be unconstitutional, he argued.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Moore v. Texas, a challenge to the standards Texas uses to determine whether inmates are too mentally disabled to be executed. In this case, Bobby James Moore was sentenced to death in 1980 for the murder of a grocery store clerk. A court later ruled that Moore was too mentally disabled to be executed, based on modern medical standards. Texas's highest criminal court, however, reversed that determination.

Questions of intellectual disability and eligibility for capital punishment, Texas ruled, must be determined on the state's judicial precedent, which references an outdated medical definition of disability from 1992 and Lennie Small. Yes, that Lennie, the kindhearted but dim-witted character from John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men."

A year ago on Sunday, while campaigning in Iowa, Donald Trump said that as president he would "absolutely" implement a registry for Muslims in the United States. He has since denied ever supporting a registry, though his Chief of Staff-in-waiting, Reince Priebus, has refused to rule the possibility out. And just the other day, a Trump surrogate went on TV to argue that such a registry would be perfectly constitutional. His evidence? Japanese internment and the Supreme Court's approval of it in Korematsu.

But Korematsu may not be good law any longer, despite having never been explicitly overturned, according to one Harvard law professor.

Gerrymandering in America is almost as old as U.S. democracy itself. In 1788, Patrick Henry drew congressional boundaries in Virginia in order to keep James Madison out of the first U.S. congress. (It didn't work.) But despite gerrymandering's long history, it's widely acknowledged as a threat to democracy, as a way to manipulate America's political processes for unearned advantage.

Now, the issue of gerrymandering will be back before the Supreme Court this December, as the Court hears oral arguments in two gerrymandering cases, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris. The results could be significant.

The Supreme Court is looking to keep controversial, potentially divisive issues off its docket this term, the conventional wisdom goes -- at least until it has a ninth justice on the bench. Today's oral arguments, for example, deal with service dogs and administrative exhaustion, for one, and cheerleader uniforms, in the other. Hardly the kind of issues that grab headlines or split the Court.

But the idea that the Court was playing it safe was upended on Friday, when the Court granted cert in five new cases, including a dispute over transgender students' ability to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry. So far, the impact of that ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, has largely been confined to similar issues. (A quick review: Does Obergefell mean that state same-sex marriage bans are invalid? Yes, of course. Even Puerto Rico's? Yes. Does it require states to issue same-sex marriage licenses? Yes. Even if you're Kim Davis? Yes. Even if you're in Alabama? Yes. Really? Yes.)

But now a new lawsuit is turning to Obergefell to strike down marriage license paperwork requirements in Louisiana. These requirements are seen by marriage equality advocates as unconstitutionally burdening the marriage rights of immigrants and refugees, be they gay, straight, or other.

Sergio Hernandez died in Mexico, but the bullet that killed him was fired from the United States. The 15-year-old boy was shot in the head by a Border Patrol agent in 2010. The agent, Jesus Mesa, initially said Hernandez was throwing rocks in order to distract agents from a smuggling operation; his parents say he was simply playing with friends along the unmarked border that separates El Paso, Texas, from Juarez, Mexico.

The Hernandez family sued, alleging that Mesa violated the Constitution when he killed their son, but an en banc Fifth Circuit tossed the suit. Now, the Supreme Court will take up Hernandez's case, ruling later this term on how far constitutional protections against excessive force can reach.