Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a charge of discrimination filed against the City of New York for an allegedly unlawful testing accommodation policy. Grossman describes the facts alleged in the charge: an NYPD police officer was denied the opportunity to reschedule a sergeant’s exam despite that she was scheduled to give birth on the same day as the exam. Grossman then discusses the applicable laws, and she argues that the discriminatory policy is a manifestation of the erroneous mindset that pregnancy is a condition not worthy of even minor accommodation.
Justia columnist and U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion of the legal issues raised by Tim Draper’s “Six Californias” initiative. In this column, Amar focuses on one particular issue: whether California courts will block the initiative on the ground that it constitutes a “revision” of the California constitution. Amar explains the procedural distinctions between “revisions” and “amendments” to the state constitution and suggests that current case law does not clearly predict the outcome of the Six Californias initiative.
Justia columnist and Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf discusses yesterday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialty Stores Corp. v. Sebelius, which presented questions over the degree of religious freedom afforded to for-profit corporations. Dorf describes how these issues have evolved over the past two and a half decades and provides several possible reasons they have become so ideologically charged, as they are today.
Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton continues her series of columns regarding Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Here, in her most recent column, Hamilton addresses the argument that RFRAs should be extended to suits between private parties. This issue has surfaced primarily in the states, Hamilton notes, where purportedly rampant fear by bakers and florists of having to deal with same-sex couples has led to proposals to give businesses a RFRA defense that could be invoked against potential customers. The most controversial such bill was eventually vetoed by Arizona’s Governor Brewer; that bill would have permitted private businesses to raise the state RFRA as a defense in lawsuits by customers whom they have turned away.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb continues her analysis, in the third of three columns on the topic, of the Supreme Court's decision in Burrage v. United States. There, the Court interpreted the eligibility of a heroin-distributing defendant for a sentencing enhancement under the penalty-enhancement provision of the Controlled Substances Act for selling drugs from the use of which death resulted. Colb explains how a defendant would qualify for the enhancement.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman tells the story of a boy in Indiana who sued for, and won, the right from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for male athletes to wear their hair long during the athletic season, or at least for the right for boys not to be forced to cut their hair while female athletes are allowed to wear theirs long. Grossman discusses the ruling and why, although it corrects some of the missteps made by other federal courts in grooming-code cases, it does not go far enough to eliminate the gross stereotyping implicit in many sex-specific appearance codes.
Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden comments on a recent Ninth Circuit case that involves Supreme Court doctrine regarding compelled speech. Here, the compelled speech issue arose when public school students were required to wear uniforms that stated “Tomorrow’s Leaders.” Hilden also describes two Supreme Court cases that also involve compelled speech.
Justia guest columnist, UNLV law professor, and visiting UC Irvine law professor Leslie Griffin comments on the recent controversy regarding Notre Dame, of which she is an alumna. Professor Griffin comments on Notre Dame’s arguments, which include one relating to the Catholic concept of scandal, and another that postulates that whenever Notre Dame signs the form objecting to contraception, the complaint triggers the provision of free objectionable coverage to Notre Dame’s employees in a manner contrary to its beliefs. Notre Dame also argues that by signing the objection, it facilitates contraception, and, by doing so, it will lead many to think that Notre Dame condones these services, and hence undermines its role, as a Catholic educational institution, to educate others on a matter of religious and moral significance. Griffin offers strong counterarguments, both logical and legal, to Notre Dame’s contentions.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf contends that recent and ongoing controversies involving First Amendment freedoms pose fundamental questions about the circumstances under which exceptions should be granted to individuals and businesses with objections to complying with general laws. How should these questions be resolved? Dorf posits that the answer may depend upon the particular right in question.
Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on federal RFRAs in the first column in a two-part series of columns that addresses the federal RFRA and the intersection of RFRAs and corporate law, as well as why corporations cannot take advantage of RFRAs. Part Two in the series, which will address state RFRAs, will appear here on Justia on March 20.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb comments on the United States Supreme Court decision in Fernandez v. California, upholding the search of a co-occupied apartment upon the consent of just one of the residents. Colb notes that the case offers a refinement on an earlier decision that had invalidated a search to which one occupant consented, while the second occupant simultaneously objected.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman notes that first Utah, then Oklahoma, then Kentucky, and now Texas have seen at least some aspects of their anti-same-sex marriage rules invalidated by federal courts. Red states are unlikely to shift as quickly as blue states, Grossman notes, but change on this issue is inevitable, and only in one direction. She also notes the irony of Justice Scalia's words being used against him.
Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden discusses a First Amendment opinion by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel: Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. The lawsuit emerged after school officials at Live Oak High School, in Northern California, learned of threats of race-related violence that had occurred during a school-sanctioned Cinco de Mayo celebration. School authorities then asked a group of students to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag. The students then brought a civil rights suit against the school district and two school officials. The Ninth Circuit panel held that because school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption, the officials’ response of banning the shirts was tailored to the circumstances, and thus appropriate despite First Amendment concerns.
Justia columnist Vikram Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C. Davis law professors, comment on two key upcoming Supreme Court cases involving religion: (1) the highly-anticipated Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. cases that will be argued in the Supreme Court next month, and that involve challenges under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers must provide contraceptive services in their healthcare policies offered to employees; and (2) Town of Greece v. Galloway, which involves the permissibility of state-sponsored prayers before town board meetings.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf comments on last week's approval by the Arizona legislature of a bill last week that, if signed by the Governor would greatly expand the scope of religious exemptions from nondiscrimination law in that state. Like measures proposed elsewhere, the Arizona bill grows out of a fear by people opposed to same-sex marriage that they will be required to provide services to same-sex couples. Dorf comments on the relevant issues.
Justia columnist and Cardozo law school professor Marci Hamilton comments on recent stories about the mishandling of reports of sex abuse and assaults at two fundamentalist colleges: Patrick Henry College and Bob Jones University. Hamilton also covers the Catholic Church’s ongoing issues with clergy sex abuse, and cautions these colleges not to follow the Church's lead. Hamilton notes that President Obama has been silent on the epidemic of sex abuse and assaults in religious entities in the United States. She argues that it is high time now, nearing the end of his last Term, for him to step up for all victims, and to stop pandering to religious entities.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the status of same-sex marriage in Kentucky. There, a federal court’s ruling in Bourke v. Beshear concluded that whether or not a state has the power to refuse to authorize same-sex marriages on its own turf, it does not have the constitutional power to refuse to recognize those that are validly celebrated elsewhere. Grossman notes that Bourke joins a growing number of cases in which recognition issues are at the forefront, a trend that was ignited by the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in United States v. Windsor, which found fault in the federal government’s decision to single out same-sex marriages for non-recognition.
Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden comments on the Florida state court litigation between wrestler Hulk Hogan and the Gawker website regarding Hogan's sex tape. Hilden comments on the First Amendment, copyright, and tort issues that the litigation involves. Interestingly, the litigation has intersected with considerable publicity for Hogan, suggesting that he may not be solely a victim here.
In the second in a two-part series of columns, Justia columnist Vikram David Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C., Davis law professors, continue their commentary on a Ninth Circuit decision regarding the use of peremptory challenges in jury selection to eliminate gay or lesbian jurors. Amar and Brownstein also note the strong possibility of additional developments that may follow in this area of law, and a host of others, regarding gay and lesbian rights, especially if intermediate level scrutiny is held by the Supreme Court, in the future, to govern all types of sexual-orientation-based discrimination.
Justia columnist and Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf discusses an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case addressing how to determine whether a criminal defendant is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. Dorf explains the potentially far-reaching implications of the case, Hall v. Florida, and cautions that a ruling for Florida could undermine the uniformity of federal constitutional law.
