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

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

A recent dissent issued from the High Court without a majority opinion at all. The case wasn't even argued. Rather, the dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justice Kagan, explained that the majority was flat out wrong to reject the North Dakota voter ID challenge.

In short, North Dakota passed a voter ID law that required voters to show a valid state ID with a street address at the polls. The federal district court, however, enjoined enforcement of that law in time for the primaries that occurred ahead of this upcoming midterm election. After the primaries though, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the injunction, allowing the voter ID law to take effect. The challengers sought immediate review by SCOTUS as the midterms are only a few weeks away.

The case of Vernon Madison was just argued before the Supreme Court again. However, this time, there might be a bit of a catch 22, or perhaps, a catch 8, seeing as how the Court is one justice shy of the full 9.

Nevertheless, for the death row inmate suffering from dementia, the novel legal questions his case has presented has stumped scholars and justices over the past few years. The big question boils down to whether a person with dementia, who cannot remember his crime(s), should be executed. Generally, there are exceptions to death sentences. Namely, per SCOTUS's own rulings, minors and the mentally incompetent cannot be executed thanks to the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In recent years, big oil has faced increasing pressure from state and local governments due to potential violations of environmental laws and due to the increasing visibility of climate change.

Massachusetts has been pursuing an investigation against Exxon since 2016. Unfortunately for the state's AG, Exxon isn't being cooperative. And after the state secured a victory before the State's Supreme Court demanding the oil company respond to the state's investigatory demand, Exxon recently petitioned SCOTUS, seeking review of the state High Court decision.

In what seems to be one of those times where the High Court majority would have been better off not saying anything at all, Justice Roberts writing for the majority in Trump v. Hawaii, stated: "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case."

Naturally, given the controversial subject matter of the travel ban case, that statement was not likely to go un-responded to in the media and by legal scholars. And though the mention of Korematsu was borne out of the dissent's criticism of the majority's opinion, as many pundits (and the dissent) point out, Justice Roberts' statements on Korematsu belied conventional logic.

In two highly contested and controversial cases, SCOTUS has ruled 5 to 4 along strict partisan lines, which perhaps explains the delays this term.

In short, the High Court struck down the preliminary injunction issued against the president's Executive Order travel ban. Also, the Court reversed and remanded a decision upholding a California law requiring anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" to not intentionally mislead women about the nature of their services.

Below are highlights on both the Trump v. Hawaii and the NIFLA v. Becerra decisions.

In a detailed 5- 4 opinion, the High Court basically proclaimed the following rule when it comes to law enforcement obtaining an individual's cell phone location data:

Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one -- get a warrant.

In Carpenter v. U.S., Justice Roberts, for the majority, stressed the fact that individuals have a privacy interest in their cell phone location data, and that absent probable cause and a warrant, or exigent circumstances, it cannot be searched by law enforcement.

To the surprise of many, the challenge to the Minnesota law banning political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia at polling places was successful in the U.S. Supreme Court case Minnesota Voter Alliance v. Mansky.

The High Court held that the law violates the First Amendment rights of voters because, as the law is written, it's just too vague. The 7 to 2 majority opinion explains that the wording of law does not provide individuals, nor those tasked with working the polls, clear definitions as what qualifies as "political." Reading through the opinion, though, it is clear that SCOTUS does see a path whereby such restrictions on apparel could cut Constitutional muster.

Though commentators were just starting to posit that the Azar v. Garza matter was doomed in SCOTUS conference limbo, this week, the Justices issued a unanimous decision. And if you feel like this decision was unexpected, well, you're not alone, as the High Court never heard an oral argument.

The case involved an undocumented teen who needed a court order in order to be allowed to get an abortion. And since the abortion actually happened promptly after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it could, SCOTUS ruled that the case was now moot. As to the sanctions the government sought against the lawyer who they claimed misled the government as to the date of the abortion procedure, SCOTUS was not convinced.

This week, SCOTUS ruled in perhaps the most closely watched case this term, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The 7 to 2 ruling came down in favor of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. But that ruling was rather narrow, seeming to exclusively rest on the state's civil rights commission's hostility toward the baker's claim, rather than constitutional problems with the state's civil rights law.

It appears that the Court has completely avoided the question of whether the baker was in the right or not, instead finding the state civil rights commission was out of order. Naturally, a limited opinion in such a divisive case will likely lead to confusion. And Justice Ginsburg's short dissent, in which Justice Sotomayor joins, is sure to give pause to any readers.

The United States Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in the controversial Arkansas abortion pill case.

In that matter, Planned Parenthood is challenging an Arkansas state law requiring those who provide "medication abortions" to have a contractual relationship with a doctor that has admitting privileges at a local hospital. The challenge claims that the law essentially denies Arkansas residents "medication abortions" as there would be only one other provider left in the state, since Planned Parenthood has not been able to meet the law's requirement. Proponents of law say it's about safety and the state's pro-life politics.