SCOTUS Roundup
The first batch of opinions from the current term of the Supreme Court dropped today. There were 6 in total, however one was a dismissal of certiorari. All but the dismissal were unanimous. I wrote about one – S&W et al v Mexico – in today’s RNN. Here is a quick look at the other 5.
We’ll start with the two that I feel hold the least interest for y’all, BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman and CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.
BLOM bank is a technical case involving a bank being sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding and abetting the attacks by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated customers. The plaintiffs in that case failed at the district level over technical matters and appealed. The 2nd CIrcuit then affirmed. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint and were rebuffed by the district court. The 2nd circuit ruled in their favor and remanded the case with new instructions for the district court. The bank sought Cert at SCOTUS and got it.
Justice Thomas, writing for the Court found the Appeals court used too strict a standard while applying the applicable rules and reversed and remanded the case.
Antrix is another technical case. I do not begin to pretend I know what this case is about other than it is a civil suit between two foreign entities, one of which was challenging whether or not the district court where the suit was filed had jurisdiction and that Alito writing for the Court reversed the 9th circuit and was a bit snarky in doing so.
Next up is the lone case with a dissent, Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis. Davis is an ADA adjacent case. 8 Justices voted to dismiss cert as the case was moot. Justice Kavanaugh disagreed and wrote that this case probably should have been taken up and decided on the merits.
The first of the two cases with widespread appeal is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n. In this case, Catholic Charities sued the state of Wisconsin because they were denied tax breaks that religious organizations are allowed under Wisconsin law. The Supreme court of Wisconsin held that because Catholic Charities neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics they were not eligible for the exemptions.
The question before the Court was whether the statute that the Wisconsin Court relied on in its decision was constitutional under the 1st amendment. Justice Sotomayor writing for the Court held that it was not and that the WIsconsin Supreme Court erred in its application of the law in question.
This is a big win for religious freedom.
The final case we’re looking at today puts a nail in the coffin of DEI and intersectionality in the US. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services has been called the ‘reverse discrimination’ case.
Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. In 2019, the agency interviewed Ames for a new management position but ultimately hired another candidate—a lesbian woman. The agency subsequently demoted Ames from her role as a program administrator and later hired a gay man to fill that role. Ames then filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.
Justice Jackson (yeah it shocked me too) wrote the majority opinion in this case that held that the “background circumstances” rule – which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim – cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents. From the opinion:
The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.
Those three sentences when taken in conjunction with a case from last term have just about ended disparate impact as a legal theory in the US whether anyone realizes it or not.
There are several more high profile cases still to be decided for this term. I’ll cover them as the opinions are released.
