Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
(1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.NPR's Nina Totenberg claims that the Court is expected to reverse the 4th Circuit's holding that the monument has the "primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion." The real question is how far will the Court's conservative majority go in dismantling the wall between church and state in this case?
In the poll — which was conducted Sunday (when the accusation from Christine Blasey Ford was first made public) through Wednesday — 38 percent of voters say they oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the nation’s highest court, including 27 percent who “strongly” oppose him.
That’s compared with 34 percent who support his nomination, including 25 percent who “strongly” support him. Twenty-eight percent say they don’t enough to have an opinion.The support for Kavanaugh has gotten worse over time.
The plans, developed in 2011 by Republican leaders who controlled the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R), were effective.
In the election held after the new district maps were adopted,Republican candidates won 48.6 percent of the statewide vote but captured a 60-to-39 seat advantage in the State Assembly.
Evidence uncovered during lawsuits over the redistricting found that models showed Democrats would have to win about 53 percent of the statewide vote to capture a bare majority of the seats.The swing vote (as usual) is Justice Anthony Kennedy.
America’s long journey towards equality has been guided by countless small acts of persistence, and fueled by the stubborn willingness of quiet heroes to speak out for what’s right.
Few were as small in stature as Edie Windsor – and few made as big a difference to America.
I had the privilege to speak with Edie a few days ago, and to tell her one more time what a difference she made to this country we love. She was engaged to her partner, Thea, for forty years. After a wedding in Canada, they were married for less than two. But federal law didn’t recognize a marriage like theirs as valid – which meant that they were denied certain federal rights and benefits that other married couples enjoyed. And when Thea passed away, Edie spoke up – not for special treatment, but for equal treatment – so that other legally married same-sex couples could enjoy the same federal rights and benefits as anyone else.
In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. And because people like Edie stood up, my administration stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. The day that the Supreme Court issued its 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor was a great day for Edie, and a great day for America – a victory for human decency, equality, freedom, and justice. And I called Edie that day to congratulate her.
Two years later, to the day, we took another step forward on our journey as the Supreme Court recognized a Constitutional guarantee of marriage equality. It was a victory for families, and for the principle that all of us should be treated equally, regardless of who we are or who we love.
I thought about Edie that day. I thought about all the millions of quiet heroes across the decades whose countless small acts of courage slowly made an entire country realize that love is love – and who, in the process, made us all more free. They deserve our gratitude. And so does Edie.
Michelle and I offer our condolences to her wife, Judith, and to all who loved and looked up to Edie Windsor.Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo
While he has not written extensively on several issues of importance to many conservatives, including gun control and gay rights, Judge Gorsuch has taken strong stands in favor of religious freedom, earning him admiration from the right.
In two prominent cases, both of which reached the Supreme Court, he sided with employers who had religious objections to providing some forms of contraception coverage to their female workers.
He voted in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, a family-owned company that objected to regulations under the Affordable Care Act requiring many employers to provide free contraception coverage. Similarly, he dissented from a decision not to rehear a ruling requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns, to comply with an aspect of the regulations.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in 2014 and vacated the decision concerning the Little Sisters of the Poor in 2016.And so it goes.
(1) Whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought; and (2) whether, with or without deference to the agency, the Department of Education's specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity,” should be given effect.SCOTUSblog describes the Grimm case in this way:
Although the controversy over the school board’s policy requiring students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that match the gender that they were assigned at birth instantly became the highest-profile case of the court’s term so far, the dispute actually centers on more technical (and, some would say, rather dry) legal issues. In this case, the district court ruled against G.G., relying on a 1975 regulation that allows schools to provide “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” as long as those facilities are comparable to those provided to the opposite sex. But, in January 2015, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued an opinion letter stating that, if schools separate students in restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of their sex, a “school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” In light of the 2015 letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed and ruled for G.G. It relied on the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Auer v. Robbins, which held that courts generally should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation.
In granting review today, the justices sidestepped the most prominent issue they had been asked to take on: whether they should overrule their decision in Auer, which has been the target of criticism by conservative lawyers and jurists. Instead, they agreed only to weigh in on two other, lower-profile questions presented in the school board’s petition: whether courts should defer to a letter, like the Department of Education opinion letter in this case, that was issued as part of the specific dispute before the court; and whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the federal civil rights laws and the 1975 regulation as requiring schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity should be given effect.
The school board’s case, as well as the others in which the justices granted review today, likely will be argued during the court’s February sitting, which begins on February 21.Here at MadProfessah.com we will be watching this case closely. The primary takeaway should be that although marriage equality is now the law of the land, the fight for full LGBT equality is clearly not over. And the United States Supreme Court will almost certainly play a role in accomplishing this.
“One year ago today, we celebrated a watershed moment for equality in America. Thanks to the bravery of LGBT Americans like Jim Obergefell and Edie Windsor, and the determination and tireless organizing of the LGBT community and their allies, marriage equality became the law of the land in all 50 states.
“Over the last year, more barriers to equality have fallen – including, finally, the last state law banning same-sex couples from adopting. Just this month, President Obama designated Stonewall as the first national monument commemorating LGBT history in America.
“We’ve also seen how much work is still unfinished. The attack in Orlando broke our hearts, and reminded us that LGBT people – particularly people of color – are still targets for harassment and violence. Discriminatory laws in states like North Carolina highlight the need for full federal equality under the law for LGBT Americans. And Donald Trump’s pledge to consider appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn marriage equality underscores the fact that so much of the progress we’ve made is at stake in November.
“But even when the road ahead seems daunting, never forget: on this day in history, love triumphed in the highest court in the land. Today, our march toward a more perfect union continues—toward equality, dignity, and justice for all.”
Garland, 63, is currently the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A former prosecutor, he's also viewed as a moderate. And he has cultivated a reputation for openness and collegiality at the D.C. Circuit, a bench that's sometimes called the second most important in the land.
Garland will visit Capitol Hill on Thursday to begin meeting with legislators, Obama said.
After the announcement was made, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated his pledge that the Senate would not take any steps toward confirming an Obama nominee. McConnell's fellow Republicans in Congress echoed his comments.It should be noted that if the Senate does not hold hearings on Obama's choice it will be the first time in the modern era such obstruction has occurred. Despite Senator McConnell's statements, at least 8 Republican Senators have said that they will meet with Judge Garland.
“Marriage equality is now the law of the land—including in Alabama. Today’s unconstitutional order reminds us that, despite the Supreme Court's ruling that all Americans have the right to marry the person they love, our work is far from over. There are still judges who are determined to stand in the way of people's rights. There are still politicians who argue the Court got it wrong and states should ignore its ruling. We need to ensure that marriage equality is guaranteed and enforced nationwide. And we need to fight discrimination against LGBT Americans wherever it occurs. There are places where you can get married on Sunday and are at risk of being fired from your job or evicted from your home on Monday because you're gay. That's not how it should be in the United States of America. As President, I'll fight for the equal rights of all Americans, no matter who they are or who they love.”Hat/tip to New Civil Rights Movement
Though the Supreme Court's decision has not immediately influenced Americans' overall opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage, this is not to suggest it will not affect opinion in the long run.
Even after a 1967 Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriages, Gallup's polling in 1968 found that only one in five Americans (20%) approved of such marriages. It took three more decades to reach a majority of support.
The path to legality of interracial marriage differed from same-sex marriage, though, in that the Supreme Court led public opinion bylegalizing something that Americans largely disapproved of at the time. Approval of same-sex marriage, however, has ascended significantly faster, and has enjoyed majority support for a few years before the court's decision. Still, a long view of the trend on gay marriage illustrates that support for it was steady and incremental, and that the movement's big victories in statewide ballot initiatives and legislature-enacted laws had limited effect on public opinion at large.I really do not understand how one person's civil marriage affects someone else's. Hopefully even Republican Presidential candidates will figure that out eventually!
There are 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, where, through the legislative process or court order, gay couples are allowed to marry. In those place, 64 percent say such unions should be legal. But even in the 13 states where same-sex marriage is not legal, 54 percent say it should be.
The public’s perspective on whether states may forbid same-sex marriage mirrors overall views on the subject, according to the poll. Sixty-one percent oppose allowing states to prohibit same-sex marriages, and 62 percent support requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.There are some people who say there will be a popular opinion backlash if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality but a recent report from the Williams Institute shows the reverse is true. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples in the past has accelerated the rate at which popular support for marriage equality increases.
There are 36 states and the District of Columbia presently with a majority (50% or above) in support of same-sex marriage. And, given trends in public opinion on this issue over the last decade, at least an additional five states will join this group by the start of 2016, with six more states very close to that majority point.
All states are currently experiencing a trend reflecting increasing popular support for marriage for same-sex couples; the rates of change across states averaged 2.6% over the last ten years. For almost all of the states the rate of change of support has accelerated over the last two years. Since 2012, states have increased support by 6.2% on average.Hat/tip to Wonder Man
While he said that the recognition question presents “a distinctive harm” to his clients because it amounts to Tennessee “destroy[ing], as a legal matter, families and marriages that have already been created,” he also said he does not expect the court to reach different answers on the two issues because “the arguments that the states have made are the same on both” questions.Hat/tip to Buzzfeed
“One of the things that I hope the justices appreciate is that this is not an issue that only affects — we are very clear in our brief that this is not about ‘gay marriage’ … it’s not a different kind of marriage, it’s about marriage and about allowing people who love each other to join in that institution,” he said. “It’s about my family members, my friends, my children. It affects me as it affects others.”
More than that, Doug Hallward-Dreiemeier knows that — while there are no cameras in the courtroom — the audio set to be released that day will be listened to by same-sex couples across the country, looking for signs about whether they will be able to marry or have their marriage recognized elsewhere once a decision comes down.
“It is a huge, huge honor,” he said, “and I sense the hopes and aspirations of so many people that are at stake here. That’s something I carry with me. And I’m just going to do everything I can.”