Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[LA - L.A.]

In order for there to be a crime Due Process requires that the crime be charged

A crime was charged. The crime that was charged doesn't require the other crimes to be charged separately, they are proven within the trial of the crimes charged.

Sendai knows what they are saying is a lie.

Sendai has been challenged several times to cite court rulings that say the New York law is a violation of due process.

Sendai has ignored every single one of those challenges, because Sendai knows what they're saying is a lie, so there are no rulings for them to cite.

Sendai is a dishonest person, no one should believe anything they say.

Sendai could have easily proven me wrong buy citing rulings that specifically that specifically struck the New York law down as being a violation of due process. That's the proof that Sendai knows what they keep saying isn't true. Sendai is not bright enough to figure out he's hurting the very cause he's trying to help. That's a they problem, not a we problem.

Everything Sendai says about the law is a lie. Everything.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Soft Drink.

I’m going to say I was probably 4 or 5 and it was Sarsaparilla.

Too late, human trainer. Your cover is blown. I do what you're doing on an independent contractor basis, that's why it's easy for me to spot what you're doing.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[Sendai]

A crime was charged. The crime that was charged doesn't require the other crimes to be charged separately, they are proven within the trial of the crimes charged.

Sendai knows what they are saying is a lie.

Sendai has been challenged several times to cite court rulings that say the New York law is a violation of due process.

Sendai has ignored every single one of those challenges, because Sendai knows what they're saying is a lie, so there are no rulings for them to cite.

Sendai is a dishonest person, no one should believe anything they say.

Sendai could have easily proven me wrong buy citing rulings that specifically that specifically struck the New York law down as being a violation of due process. That's the proof that Sendai knows what they keep saying isn't true. Sendai is not bright enough to figure out he's hurting the very cause he's trying to help. That's a they problem, not a we problem.

Everything Sendai says about the law is a lie. Everything.

The only crime in the charge was falsification of records. Nothing in the charge about Election Law or Tax Law violations. The prosecution didn’t spring them until closing arguments. Also makes the case ripe for a 6th amendment violation.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The only crime in the charge was falsification of records.

That's the only crime that the New York law required to be charged.

The prosecution didn’t spring them until closing arguments.

That is a flat out lie. The prosecution showed evidence of those crimes while putting on their case and the jurors all agreed that the prosecution proved the records were falsified to cover up another crime.

Also makes the case ripe for a 6th amendment violation.

That's another lie and here's how I prove it's a lie folks. @Sendai, cite the cases that
ruled the New York law that Trump was convicted under violates 6th amendment rights.

Now here's what happens next folks. @Sendai is going to come back and just repeat the same lies he keeps repeating. He is not going to show you a single court ruling that the New York law Trump was convicted under violates 6th amendment rights.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Wasn’t sure if this should go here or abortion thread
=========


The US supreme court will allow the Biden administration to withhold millions of dollars in grant money from the state of Oklahoma over its refusal to provide information about abortion providers to patients who seek it.

In an order released on Tuesday, the nine-member court said an injunction filed by the state had been denied in a 6-3 decision. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the three who would have granted Oklahoma’s application for relief.

Tuesday’s order reaffirms two previous lower-court decisions in which judges determined a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by the state of Oklahoma over the taking back of the funds was unlikely to succeed.

The grant at the center of the legal battle – Title X family planning program – is distributed by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 2021, HHS created a new rule for grant recipients that required them to offer “non-directive”, neutral information about health and family planning options, including on abortion, and to offer people referrals to medical providers, including those who offer abortion services.

The following year, HHS approved a grant to Oklahoma’s health department, but reminded the state it had to comply with the new rule, a point that HHS reiterated after the landmark 2022 Dobbs decision – which overturned the national right to abortion – came down, according to court records. That same year, Oklahoma’s governor signed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, but the HHS determined that state law did not preclude them from meeting the requirement for neutral information on abortion and referrals to providers upon request.


In March last year, Oklahoma accepted another Title X grant from the HHS. To satisfy the 2021 rule, the state promised to provide patients with a “national call-in” phone number that would provide them with neutral information. But by May, Oklahoma officials had removed the phone number, prompting HHS to give the state 30 days to come into compliance, which Oklahoma refused to do.……..

Supreme court allows US to withhold Oklahoma’s family planning fund

State refused to comply with health and human services department’s order to give abortion providers’ information

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Days after the US supreme court ruled affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional, the legal activist behind the big win for conservatives called the ruling “the end of the beginning”.

“This issue of race and ethnicity in our public lives is not going to go away,” Edward Blum told the New York Times in July 2023. “All of these preferences, whether it’s in the employment arena, contracting arena, internships – all of that I think will be energized by this supreme court opinion. And we’re blessed to have this supreme court opinion.”

True to Blum’s word, conservative groups have unleashed a flood of lawsuits since the ruling with the ultimate goal of dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the American workplace. In the year since the supreme court’s affirmative action decision, 68 lawsuits that call DEI into question have been filed.


This legal fight looks to be much more complicated than efforts to overturn affirmative action. DEI encompasses many different policies and practices designed to make workplaces more equitable, from hiring diverse candidates to preventing bias in the workplace. Many DEI policies started as measures to protect marginalized workers from discrimination and strengthening their positions in the workplace through initiatives like mentorship programs and de-bias training. But conservatives against DEI see this as the best moment to get DEI out of the American workplace.

Legal scholars with NYU School of Law’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging have been tracking anti-DEI lawsuits and recently launched a database of more than 100 lawsuits that could change DEI.

The Guardian spoke with David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer center, who broke down what the battle against DEI is starting to look like.…….

How the US supreme court’s affirmative action ruling unleashed anti-DEI cases

Activists against diversity, equity and inclusion feel the 6-3 conservative majority will aid workplace lawsuits

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trumpahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.


In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.

The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity.

He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.……..

Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaveXA]

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trumpahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.


In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official – including Trump – from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.

The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

In the leaked memo, the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward – and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity.

He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.……..

Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

www.theguardian.com

It should be shocking and surprising...yet it feels like this isn't gonna move the needle and be dismissed as business as usual, unfortunately. Smh

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US supreme court justices on Wednesday appeared to lean toward making it easier for people from “majority backgrounds”, such as white or heterosexual people, to pursue workplace-discrimination claims, as they heard an appeal by an Ohio woman who claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.

The court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to transform workplace-discrimination claims and unleash a flood of lawsuits from white people, straight people and men.

Marlean Ames has brought an appeal to the highest court claiming that she was passed over for a job and demoted because she is straight. She says she was removed from her position as an administrator in a state agency for youth services in Ohio and replaced by a gay man.

Her petition to the supreme court challenges the way that such “reverse discrimination” cases have been handled in lower courts.

Previous rulings have determined that people from majority groups – such as men, white and straight people – have to meet a higher legal bar than those from minority groups in proving workplace bias.

Ames asked the highest court to revive her civil rights lawsuit against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services, after lower courts sided with the state.

The justices – liberal and conservative alike – on Wednesday seemed poised to throw out a ruling against Ames by the Cincinnati-based sixth US circuit court of appeals and direct lower courts to reconsider the matter.

Stakes in the case are high. Should the supreme court side with Ames, 60, as is widely expected, the floodgates would be opened to discrimination claims from an array of majority groups.

Programs that attempt to increase diversity, equity and inclusion to better serve underrepresented minority demographics among the workforce could be further battered at a time when DEI is already under sustained assault from the Trump administration.

The politically charged nature of the case was underlined when America First Legal, the group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff at the White House, Stephen Miller, filed an amicus briefwith the supreme court supporting Ames’s claim.

It argued that many leading companies “illegally awarded jobs, special benefits, bonuses, and other career opportunities to minorities while openly excluding whites (and sometimes Asians), heterosexuals, and males”.

Groups opposing the Ames suit have countered that Black people and other minority groups are much more likely to be the subject of bias at work and that reverse discrimination was rare.

Ames’s case has been brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 statute that was one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement.……..

US supreme court likely to back straight woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case

Lawsuit from Ohio woman could transform workplace-discrimination claims and lead to flood of litigation

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaveXA]

The US supreme court justices on Wednesday appeared to lean toward making it easier for people from “majority backgrounds”, such as white or heterosexual people, to pursue workplace-discrimination claims, as they heard an appeal by an Ohio woman who claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.

The court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to transform workplace-discrimination claims and unleash a flood of lawsuits from white people, straight people and men.

Marlean Ames has brought an appeal to the highest court claiming that she was passed over for a job and demoted because she is straight. She says she was removed from her position as an administrator in a state agency for youth services in Ohio and replaced by a gay man.

Her petition to the supreme court challenges the way that such “reverse discrimination” cases have been handled in lower courts.

Previous rulings have determined that people from majority groups – such as men, white and straight people – have to meet a higher legal bar than those from minority groups in proving workplace bias.

Ames asked the highest court to revive her civil rights lawsuit against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services, after lower courts sided with the state.

The justices – liberal and conservative alike – on Wednesday seemed poised to throw out a ruling against Ames by the Cincinnati-based sixth US circuit court of appeals and direct lower courts to reconsider the matter.

Stakes in the case are high. Should the supreme court side with Ames, 60, as is widely expected, the floodgates would be opened to discrimination claims from an array of majority groups.

Programs that attempt to increase diversity, equity and inclusion to better serve underrepresented minority demographics among the workforce could be further battered at a time when DEI is already under sustained assault from the Trump administration.

The politically charged nature of the case was underlined when America First Legal, the group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff at the White House, Stephen Miller, filed an amicus briefwith the supreme court supporting Ames’s claim.

It argued that many leading companies “illegally awarded jobs, special benefits, bonuses, and other career opportunities to minorities while openly excluding whites (and sometimes Asians), heterosexuals, and males”.

Groups opposing the Ames suit have countered that Black people and other minority groups are much more likely to be the subject of bias at work and that reverse discrimination was rare.

Ames’s case has been brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 statute that was one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement.……..

US supreme court likely to back straight woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case

Lawsuit from Ohio woman could transform workplace-discrimination claims and lead to flood of litigation

www.theguardian.com

I figured this was coming sooner or later.

 

[bird]

I figured this was coming sooner or later.

As did I. And there will likely be more.

 

[wardorican]

The US supreme court justices on Wednesday appeared to lean toward making it easier for people from “majority backgrounds”, such as white or heterosexual people, to pursue workplace-discrimination claims, as they heard an appeal by an Ohio woman who claims she was denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.

The court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to transform workplace-discrimination claims and unleash a flood of lawsuits from white people, straight people and men.

Marlean Ames has brought an appeal to the highest court claiming that she was passed over for a job and demoted because she is straight. She says she was removed from her position as an administrator in a state agency for youth services in Ohio and replaced by a gay man.

Her petition to the supreme court challenges the way that such “reverse discrimination” cases have been handled in lower courts.

Previous rulings have determined that people from majority groups – such as men, white and straight people – have to meet a higher legal bar than those from minority groups in proving workplace bias.

Ames asked the highest court to revive her civil rights lawsuit against her employer, Ohio’s department of youth services, after lower courts sided with the state.

The justices – liberal and conservative alike – on Wednesday seemed poised to throw out a ruling against Ames by the Cincinnati-based sixth US circuit court of appeals and direct lower courts to reconsider the matter.

Stakes in the case are high. Should the supreme court side with Ames, 60, as is widely expected, the floodgates would be opened to discrimination claims from an array of majority groups.

Programs that attempt to increase diversity, equity and inclusion to better serve underrepresented minority demographics among the workforce could be further battered at a time when DEI is already under sustained assault from the Trump administration.

The politically charged nature of the case was underlined when America First Legal, the group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff at the White House, Stephen Miller, filed an amicus briefwith the supreme court supporting Ames’s claim.

It argued that many leading companies “illegally awarded jobs, special benefits, bonuses, and other career opportunities to minorities while openly excluding whites (and sometimes Asians), heterosexuals, and males”.

Groups opposing the Ames suit have countered that Black people and other minority groups are much more likely to be the subject of bias at work and that reverse discrimination was rare.

Ames’s case has been brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 1964 statute that was one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement.……..

US supreme court likely to back straight woman in ‘reverse discrimination’ case

Lawsuit from Ohio woman could transform workplace-discrimination claims and lead to flood of litigation

www.theguardian.com

Rare or not, it's wrong. And wrong is wrong. I'm sure many cases may follow, but most wouldn't stand to legal scrutiny.

 

[bird]

Rare or not, it's wrong. And wrong is wrong. I'm sure many cases may follow, but most wouldn't stand to legal scrutiny.

Claiming she was discriminated against is not the same as actually being discriminated against. Do we make the assumption that the lower court was wrong? I would like to hear more about this than just what is being parceled out.

 

[wardorican]

Claiming she was discriminated against is not the same as actually being discriminated against. Do we make the assumption that the lower court was wrong? I would like to hear more about this than just what is being parceled out.

Same. I havent read anything on this. I'd think the same burden of proof would be required. I don't know if there is some constraints the lower courts are held to.

I agree with the sentiment.

At some point I'll read into this.

 

[RobF]

Same. I havent read anything on this. I'd think the same burden of proof would be required. I don't know if there is some constraints the lower courts are held to.

I agree with the sentiment.

At some point I'll read into this.

Background: Marlean Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs. from Sixth Circuit court of appeals - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/23-3341/23-3341-2023-12-04.html

Summary from there:

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames, a heterosexual woman, was an employee of the Department and was demoted from her position as Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and denied a promotion to Bureau Chief of Quality. She was replaced in her role by a gay man and the Bureau Chief position was filled by a gay woman.​

​

The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. It found that Ames failed to provide sufficient evidence of "background circumstances" necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court stated that a plaintiff who is a member of the majority must show suspicion that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. Ames was unable to provide evidence that the decision-makers who demoted her were part of a minority group (gay people) or that there was a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals by the Department.​

​

As for Ames's sex discrimination claim, the court found that while Ames was replaced by a man, the Department had provided nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion. The Department cited the need for improved performance and the fact that Ames's evaluations showed she met expectations rather than exceeded them. Ames was unable to show that the Department's reasons were without basis in fact, did not actually motivate the employer's actions, or were insufficient to motivate the employer's actions. Therefore, her claims of pretext were not persuasive.​

From an admittedly very quick read about it, I think the crux of the matter for the appeal is the requirement for what can be seen as a higher level of evidence for 'reverse discrimination', that is, showing evidence that "the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority".

That seems likely to go through, which will allow her appeal to be heard, but it's not clear that'll help her actually win her case, as opposed to just getting it heard though, given that she'd still presumably have to show some evidence of discrimination that is able to discount the "nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion" provided by the Department. I'm not sure "the people who got the promotion and replaced me in my previous job are gay! See! Discrimination!" will cut it.

 

[bird]

Background: Marlean Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs. from Sixth Circuit court of appeals - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/23-3341/23-3341-2023-12-04.html

Summary from there:

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, alleged that the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ames, a heterosexual woman, was an employee of the Department and was demoted from her position as Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and denied a promotion to Bureau Chief of Quality. She was replaced in her role by a gay man and the Bureau Chief position was filled by a gay woman.​

​

The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. It found that Ames failed to provide sufficient evidence of "background circumstances" necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court stated that a plaintiff who is a member of the majority must show suspicion that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. Ames was unable to provide evidence that the decision-makers who demoted her were part of a minority group (gay people) or that there was a pattern of discrimination against heterosexuals by the Department.​

​

As for Ames's sex discrimination claim, the court found that while Ames was replaced by a man, the Department had provided nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion. The Department cited the need for improved performance and the fact that Ames's evaluations showed she met expectations rather than exceeded them. Ames was unable to show that the Department's reasons were without basis in fact, did not actually motivate the employer's actions, or were insufficient to motivate the employer's actions. Therefore, her claims of pretext were not persuasive.​

From an admittedly very quick read about it, I think the crux of the matter for the appeal is the requirement for what can be seen as a higher level of evidence for 'reverse discrimination', that is, showing evidence that "the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority".

That seems likely to go through, which will allow her appeal to be heard, but it's not clear that'll help her actually win her case, as opposed to just getting it heard though, given that she'd still presumably have to show some evidence of discrimination that is able to discount the "nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion" provided by the Department. I'm not sure "the people who got the promotion and replaced me in my previous job are gay! See! Discrimination!" will cut it.

Thanks RobF. The only possible wrinkle I can see is that she may claim her performance met expectations did not justify removing her or demoting her unless the organization stated that while she met expectations at point “A” by the time she reached point “B” her performance would have to be better. Thus I would think that documentation of those increased expectations would have to be provided to her and kept in her personnel file. As for the promotion the same would apply. In order to be given the promotion she needed to improve her performance.

 

[Sendai]

The simple question before the court is whether it is appropriate to require a higher burden of proof from a member of a “majority group”. Nothing more.

“Justice Elena Kagan resisted Gaiser’s efforts to turn the justices’ attention to that issue. The question that the court agreed to decide, she stressed, “is whether a majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff – here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person.” Ames and the federal government say that the answer is no, Kagan observed, and now Gaiser agrees. “Why would we use this case, which is about whether a majority-group plaintiff has an extra burden,” Kagan concluded, “to opine on a range of things that have nothing to do” with the question that the justices agreed to take up?

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to agree. What would be wrong, he asked Gaiser, with a decision by the court holding that everyone should be treated equally in making out their basic employment discrimination case, and then the state can make its other arguments when the case returns to the lower courts?”

Court appears likely to side with straight woman in reverse discrimination suit - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday was sympathetic to an Ohio woman who alleges that she was the victim of reverse discrimination. Marlean Ames contends that she lost out on a promotion that she wanted, and then was demoted, simply because she is straight. With Ames and her employer in what Justice Neil

www.scotusblog.com