Tag: SCOTUS

Posted on

SCOTUS Says ‘No’ To Anti-LGBTQ Bed & Breakfast

The U.S. Supreme Court declined the hear the appeal of a bed & breakfast owner in Hawaii who refused to host a same-sex couple due to her religious objections over homosexuality.

The initial lawsuit, Aloha Bed & Breakfast v. Dianne Cervelli, stems back to an incident in 2007 when Cervelli contacted the B&B owner, Phyllis Young, about accommodations.

Cervelli indicated there would be two guests as she would be traveling with her same-sex partner, Taeko Bufford.

According to the complaint, Young asked “Are you both lesbians?” Young then refused to board the couple saying she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her home.

The couple filed complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission which found Young had illegally discriminated against the couple. Hawaii’s public accommodation law clearly bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Associated Pressreportedthat Young told the commission she is Catholic and feels that homosexuality is wrong. She felt her decision to deny accommodations to the couple was protected by her right to free exercise of her religious beliefs under the First Amendment.

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple in 2011, along with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission as co-plaintiffs. 

In April of 2013, the Hawaii First Circuit Court ruled in favorof Cervelli.

Young appealed the ruling, and in February 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision.

The B&B owner tried to take her case to the Hawaii state Supreme Court, but the high court refusedthe hear the appeal last year.

In October, Young filed a petition to have her appeal heard at the U.S. Supreme Court.

As SCOTUS has declined to take up the case, Young has exhausted her legal options and the ruling by the lower court will stand.

Peter Renn, counsel for Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office, celebrated the news.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court ruling stand reaffirms that the freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to violate nondiscrimination laws that protect all individuals from harm, whether on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation,” said Renn in a statement to the Washington Blade. “The Supreme Court declined to consider carving out an exception from this basic principle when a business discriminates based on the sexual orientation of its customers.”

“LGBT people deserve an equal right to go about their everyday life without the fear that discrimination waits for them around the corner,” he added.

Posted on

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Declared Cancer-Free

The ‘notorious’ Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been declared cancer-free by her doctors and is recovering well from her recent surgery, according to a Supreme Court spokesman.

From The New York Times:

“Her recovery from surgery is on track,” the spokeswoman, Kathleen Arberg, said in a statement. “Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

Justice Ginsburg, 85, underwent surgery in late December to remove two nodules from her left lung. She missed this week’s arguments, and will be absent from the bench next week, too, Ms. Arberg said.

“Justice Ginsburg will continue to work from home next week and will participate in the consideration and decision of the cases on the basis of the briefs and the transcripts of oral arguments,” Ms. Arberg said.

Earlier this week, Politico reported aides to Donald Trump were “reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court.”

But our girl is just fine, folks. No worries.

Posted on

Supreme Court Declines To Block Trump’s Asylum Ban

Donald Trump’s week just got that much worse as the Supreme Court has refused to reinstate Donald Trump’s asylum ban while a government appeal is pending.

From The New York Times:

The court was closely divided, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the four-member liberal wing in turning down the administration’s request for a stay of a trial judge’s order blocking the program.

The court’s brief order gave no reasons for its action. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted the stay.

In a proclamation issued on Nov. 9, President Trump barred migrants from applying for asylum unless they made the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those applying at a port of entry would be eligible, Mr. Trump said, invoking what he said were his national security powers to protect the nation’s borders.

Lower courts blocked the initiative, ruling that a federal law plainly allowed asylum applications from people who had entered the country unlawfully.

“Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States,” the relevant federal statute says, may apply for asylum — “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”

In related news, NPR is reporting that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery Friday for early stage lung cancer.

Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering hospital in New York performed a lobectomy, removing one of the five lobes of the lung.

Short of complications in recovery, doctors say prospects look good for a full recovery for Ginsburg, 85. She hopes to be back on the court for the start of the next argument session in early January.

Posted on

Trump Administration Asks SCOTUS To Allow Trans Military Ban Before Review

The Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members to go into effect while waiting on SCOTUS to decide whether or not to even take the case up for review.

The Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members to go into effect while waiting on SCOTUS to decide whether or not to even take the case up for review.

Apparently, the United States is in a state of emergency regarding the few thousand transgender people currently serving with honor in the U.S. military.

I know – it doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s go back a bit, shall we?

In July of 2017, President Trump surprised American military leaders and the world when he announced his plan to ban trans military service members after “consultation with my Generals and military experts” due to the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender service members.

Remember, this is the guy who told Americans during the 2016 presidential campaign that he would ‘fight’ for the LGBTQ community.

Riiiiight.

Conservatives loved the idea; Liberals and LGBTQ activists were outraged.

In the ensuing months, numerous injunctions were ordered by judges blocking the implementation of the policy, and for good reason.

Not only has The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement saying there is ‘no medically valid reason’ for banning transgender people from serving in the United States military, but all four service chiefs (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force) have testified they’ve seen no negative effects from transgender military personnel serving the country they love.

According to a 2016 RAND Corporation study, there are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender individuals out of the 1.3 million service members on active duty.

That same study estimated the cost of health care coverage for transgender personnel could range from $2.4 million and $8.4 million a year, which is about one-fifth of what

So, we can afford dick pills, but not trained trans soldiers…?

Then, earlier this month, Department of Justice Attorney Brinton Lucas told the D.C. Circuit Court that if the Trump policy were to be implemented, transgender troops would not be “discharged on the basis of their transgender status.”

(Wait for it…)

But, they would have to identify as the biological sex assigned to them at birth meaning they would have to stop any transition-related medical treatment – treatment that every major medical association has deemed necessary and life-saving for trans people.

Then, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Trump administration bypassed the appeals court process and requested the Supreme Court review the case before the circuit level courts even issue their opinions.

This isn’t a very popular approach as SCOTUS doesn’t like to review a case before it has made its way through the lower courts.

The high court likes to have cases work their way through traditional channels so they have the benefit of the opinions of lower court judges by the time cases reaches SCOTUS.

This week, the Trump administration filed emergency briefs asking the high court to allow the transgender ban to go into effect until SCOTUS can review the case in 2019.

According to Think Progress, the emergency briefs claimed waiting any longer to boot transgender military service members poses “too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality” and it would be “contrary to the Nation’s interests.”

But such arguments have gained little traction in the past.

For example, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled in September that “loss of unit cohesion” was the same argument used to keep Black people, women, and gay people from joining the military.

“The military has repeatedly proven its capacity to adapt and grow stronger specifically by the inclusion of these individuals,” wrote Bernal as he dismissed claims that including trans people would generate any different outcome.

It’s worth noting that the emergency briefs filed this week object to numerous motions for discovery filed in the cases. It seems the Trump administration wants to claim that all documentation related to how the ban was developed would fall under executive privilege.

What they really mean is that if those documents came to light, the American public might discover that Vice President Pence (a known homophobe) and his virulently anti-LGBTQ friends were instrumental in pushing the new ban through.

Should the Supreme Court allow the policy to be implemented before the case reaches SCOTUS, thousands of transgender soldiers could be discharged for being who they are.

This short video from the New York Times introduces just a few of the trans soldiers who are at risk of being discharged.

Posted on

Trump Administration Leap Frogs Over Appeals Courts, Asks SCOTUS To Rule On Trans Military Ban

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and review its long-intended ban on military service by transgender Americans.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and review its long-intended ban on military service by transgender Americans.

According to The Washington Post, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco has filed a request asking SCOTUS to bypass traditional legal processes and rule on the challenges to the ban which have held the proposed policy to be unconstitutional.

In July of 2017, Donald Trump surprised many, including members of his own administration, with an abrupt announcement proposing the ban on transgender service members.

At the time, Trump tweeted that he had consulted with his “Generals and military experts” before announcing the ban.

But in March of this year, more than 20 retired generals and admirals signed on to a letter opposing such a ban.

“The administration’s announcement on the treatment of transgender service members is a troubling move backward,” the 26 officers wrote in their statement via the Palm Center, which researches issues of gender and sexuality.

“There is simply no reason to single out brave transgender Americans who can meet military standards and deny them the ability to serve.”

Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association both say claims by Secretary of Defense James Mattis indicating trans soldiers diagnosed with gender dysphoria cannot effectively serve in the military are false.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted an injunction that blocked implementation of the ban in October 2017.

This past August, she rebuffed a request by the Trump administration to lift the injunction after some of the proposed language had been amended.

Kollar-Kotelly was not convinced saying discharging trans soldiers and denying enlistment would most likely to be found discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 10 regarding Kollar-Kotelly’s order that blocked the ban.

It’s highly unusual to approach the Supreme Court before exhausting the available appeals court processes.

“Trump’s lawyers fail to understand that the government is not entitled to play leapfrog whenever it loses in federal court,” says attorney Joshua Matz, who filed an amicus brief in the case. “If the department’s battery of ‘emergency’ petitions were granted, they would immediately overload the Supreme Court docket with politically fraught challenges to Trump administration policies.”

In addition to Kollar-Kotelly’s injunction, judges in three other states – California, Maryland and Washington – have also enjoined the bans implementation thanks to challenges filed in those states.

In related news, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant review to another case regarding protections for transgender Americans at the high court’s November 30 conference.

According to BloombergLaw.com, the issue in question in that case concerns whether trans discrimination in the workplace constitutes discrimination based on sex, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Opponents say transgender status is not related to the issue of ‘sex.’

Posted on

Oregon Bakers Ask Supreme Court To Overturn Anti-LGBT Violation

Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling on Colorado baker Jack Phillips’ appeal for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple, another anti-LGBT bakery has asked the Supreme Court to consider their appeal. The petition for review, filed last Friday by the conservative law firm First Liberty on behalf of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, asserts the couple’s First Amendment rights to refuse service to a lesbian couple, according to SCOTUSblog.
Melissa and Aaron Klein (image via Facebook)

Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling on Colorado baker Jack Phillips’ appeal for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple, another anti-LGBT bakery has asked the Supreme Court to consider their appeal.

The petition for review, filed last Friday by the conservative law firm First Liberty on behalf of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, asserts the couple’s First Amendment rights to refuse service to a lesbian couple, according to SCOTUSblog.

In 2013, Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer asked the Gresham, Oregon, bakery to sell them a cake for their upcoming commitment ceremony.

Based on her ‘deeply held religious beliefs,’ Melissa Klein refused to sell the couple a cake saying same-sex marriage was not consistent with her religious beliefs.

It’s worth underscoring that the Bowman-Cryers weren’t asking for a wedding cake, or holding any kind of religious ceremony, as marriage equality hadn’t been adopted by Oregon at the time.

Also, the state of Oregon’s public accommodation laws clearly prohibit any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state’s Bureau of Labor & Industries which found the bakery had, indeed, violated the state’s laws.

The Bureau fined the couple $135,000 for the violation, which the Kleins’ claim put them out of business, even though a Christian-led crowdfunding campaign raised over $352,000 for the couple.

The Kleins appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, but the Bureau’s decision was upheld.

The bakers then asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review the decision, but the state’s high court refused that request earlier this year.

It’s worth noting that this summer’s ruling regarding the Colorado baker was a win for Phillips only in that the Supreme Court felt the Colorado administrative agency that initially ruled against him appeared to be “too hostile” to Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Supreme Court never actually ruled on whether religious beliefs trump public accommodation laws.

The Supreme Court has several options regarding the petition for review.

In order to accept the case, at least four justices must vote to do so.

The court could decline the review completely, or decline to review but vacate the earlier rulings in Oregon remanding the case back to the earlier courts to review their decision.

That’s the route the high court took in June of this year regarding an anti-LGBT florist in Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers.

According to SCOTUSblog, the state of Oregon now has 30 days to respond to the filing although a 30 extension is possible.

Should the Supreme Court choose to review the case, after oral arguments a decision would come down sometime before the end of June 2019.

Posted on

Trump “Apologizes” To Brett Kavanaugh, Falsely Claims He Was “Proven Innocent”

At a ceremonial swearing in at the White House last night, Donald Trump falsely claimed that newly-installed Justice Brett Kavanaugh had been “proven innocent” of the allegations of sexual misconduct brought against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Trump claimed the allegations were based on “lies and deceptions.”

Said Trump:

“On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of personal and political destruction based on lies and deception.

“What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process. In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

“And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent.”

The Trumpster literally can’t stop himself from lying, as if by saying something over and over again he can create his own reality.

Posted on

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed To The Supreme Court By Vote Of 50-48

The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 50-48.
Brett Kavanaugh 

The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 50-48.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski withdrew her ‘no’ vote as a courtesy to Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines, who is walking his daughter down the aisle in Montana today.

There’s an irony that Kavanaugh is the 69th judge confirmed by the Trump administration.

Posted on

Sens. Susan Collins & Joe Manchin Announce ‘Yes’ Votes To Confirm Kavanaugh To Supreme Court

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced during a lengthy speech on the floor of the Senate that she will vote ‘yes’ on confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shortly after her announcement, red state Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin also announced he will vote ‘yes’ as well, which appears to give Kavanaugh the 51 votes he needs for confirmation.

Manchin, in a tough re-election fight in West Virginia, is the only Democrat to cross party lines and vote for Kavanaugh.

Posted on

Brett Kavanaugh Pens Op-Ed: “I Might Have Been Too Emotional At Times”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned a last-minute op-ed for the conservative Wall Street Journal defending his defensive and pointed Senate Judiciary Committee testimony last week.

From The Wall Street Journal:

My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me.

At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.

I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

It’s notable that Kavanaugh chose two Murdoch-owned media outlets to make his case: Fox News for his TV interview and Wall Street Journal for his op-ed.