Tag: Supreme Court

Posted on

Senate Votes 53-47 To Bring SCOTUS Nominee To Final Floor Vote

Three Republican senators now say they will vote to approve Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (screen capture)
The U.S. Senate voted 53-47 to bring the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the US Supreme Court to the full Senate after the judiciary committee deadlocked with an 11-11 tie. Continue reading “Senate Votes 53-47 To Bring SCOTUS Nominee To Final Floor Vote”

Posted on

Supreme Court Will Hear Case Of Homophobe Refusing Services To Gays Who Never Asked For Them

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of a website designer who wants to advertise she won't create wedding websites for same-sex couples.
The U.S. Supreme Court (2021)
The Supreme Court has said it will hear the case of a Colorado website designer, Lorie Smith, who wants to be able to tell same-sex couples she won’t create a wedding website for them because it offends her religious beliefs. Note – No same-sex couple has asked Smith to provide services to them. Continue reading “Supreme Court Will Hear Case Of Homophobe Refusing Services To Gays Who Never Asked For Them”

Posted on

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Attempt To Block Release Of White House Docs

Donald Trump

The Supreme Court has rejected Donald Trump’s attempt to block the release of White House documents to the House committee investigating the violent January 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol building. Continue reading “Supreme Court Rejects Trump Attempt To Block Release Of White House Docs”

Posted on

Supreme Court Blocks COVID Vaccine Requirement For Large Businesses

The U.S. Supreme Court (2021)

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, has blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its COVID vaccine requirements for large private companies. However, similar regulations for healthcare workers at medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments have been allowed to go into effect. Continue reading “Supreme Court Blocks COVID Vaccine Requirement For Large Businesses”

Posted on

SCOTUS Declines To Hear Appeal For Anti-LGBTQ Florist

Gay couple dances after getting married
Gay couple dances after getting married
(stock image via Depositphotos)

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by anti-LGBTQ florist Barronelle Stutzman of Washington state who refused to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding.

Stutzman’s petition is listed on Friday’s orders list indicating the high court had denied certiorari, or refused to take up the case. No reason was given although the orders note that Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would have granted the petition to hear the case. In the Supreme Court, at least four justices have to agree to take up a case.

The decision means the ruling by the Washington Supreme Court will stand.

The sad story began in 2013 when Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed, longtime customers of Arlene’s Flowers owned by Stutzman, approached the florist for flowers for their dream wedding. Stutzman refused claiming doing so would violate her religious beliefs.

In 2017, the case had made its way up to the Washington state high court which ruled Stutzman had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ people in public accommodations. The florist was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

Stutzman appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 wherein SCOTUS vacated the lower court’s decision and asked the Washington court to review the case in light of a narrow ruling in the case of Jack Phillips, owner of the Colorado bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop.

A year later, in June 2019, the Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision finding there had been no animosity involved against Stutzman in the original ruling.

Today’s decision is the end of the road in terms of legal options for Stutzman.

“After Curt and I were turned away from our local flower shop, we cancelled the plans for our dream wedding because we were afraid it would happen again. We had a small ceremony at home instead,” Ingersoll told ABC News in a statement. “We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to experience the hurt that we did.”

Alphonso David, president of Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement, “The Supreme Court has once again said that critical nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people are legally enforceable and has set a strong and definitive precedent.”

Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for the virulently anti-LGBTQ legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, called the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case “tragic.”

This is the third high profile LGBTQ-related case addressed by the Supreme Court.

In June, SCOTUS issued a unanimous but very narrow ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) in Philadelphia which had refused to certify same-sex couples who applied to become foster parents.

The ruling was not the broad ‘license to discriminate’ anti-LGBTQ advocates had hoped for. Instead, the justices found in favor of CSS because the city hadn’t applied its own policy of exemptions uniformly. The decision only applies to CSS and its contract with Philadelphia.

And earlier this week, SCOTUS also rejected to hear an appeal by a Virginia school board seeking ban transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. That decision sets precedent regarding restroom discrimination in schools in at least five states.

(Source: ABC News)

Posted on

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s new voting restrictions in a 6-3 ruling today. From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona and signaled that challenges to new state laws making it harder to vote would face a hostile reception from a majority of the justices.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The new case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257, concerned two kinds of voting restrictions in Arizona. One required election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The other made it a crime for campaign workers, community activists and most other people to collect ballots for delivery to polling places, a practice critics call “ballot harvesting.” The law made exceptions for family members, caregivers and election officials.

Read the full article here.