supreme court » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’
June 25, 2014 0

One Year After Shelby, Voters Are Getting Wet

Today marks the one year anniver­sary of Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the land­mark Vot­ing Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), essen­tially gut­ting the heart of the legislation.voting-rights-amendment-act-2014

Sec­tion 5 of the VRA requires fed­eral gov­ern­ment approval for any elec­tion law changes—issues rang­ing from polling site loca­tions to redraw­ing con­gres­sional dis­trict lines—in juris­dic­tions with a his­tory of dis­crim­i­na­tory vot­ing prac­tices. But one year ago, the Supreme Court held uncon­sti­tu­tional the for­mula used to deter­mine which states and local­i­ties would have to sub­mit their vot­ing changes to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, find­ing its ori­gins in vot­ing sta­tis­tics and statutes from decades past too atten­u­ated to jus­tify present day fed­eral intervention.

In Shelby, Chief Jus­tice Roberts cited advances in minor­ity vot­ing and reg­is­tra­tion in the cov­ered juris­dic­tions, not­ing that African Amer­i­can turnout sur­passes white turnout in some of the pre­vi­ously cov­ered states.

But Jus­tice Gins­burg, in her pow­er­ful dis­sent, analo­gized strik­ing down key parts of the VRA to “throw­ing away your umbrella in a rain­storm because you are not get­ting wet.” In essence Jus­tice Gins­burg pre­dicted that, with­out the pro­tec­tions of the VRA, voter sup­pres­sion prob­lems would rain down on those for­merly cov­ered juris­dic­tions once more.

Indeed, a new report by the Lead­er­ship Con­fer­ence on Civil and Human Rights sug­gests that the skies remain omi­nously over­cast. Moments after the Supreme Court announced its deci­sion, Texas imple­mented voter ID and redis­trict­ing laws pre­vi­ously held invalid under Sec­tion 5. Alabama and Mis­sis­sippi sim­i­larly moved for­ward with voter ID laws pre­vi­ously held at bay. Weeks after the deci­sion, North Car­olina acted to elim­i­nate same-day voter reg­is­tra­tion, restrict early vot­ing, and enact one of the tough­est voter ID laws in the country.

Vir­ginia fur­ther tight­ened a voter ID law pre­vi­ously approved by the Depart­ment of Jus­tice in a more lenient form. Around the coun­try, leg­is­la­tors con­tinue to intro­duce new bills that threaten to restrict the right to vote.

The impact of these laws on minor­ity vot­ers remains to be seen, and some face legal obsta­cles before going into effect. Recent fed­eral court deci­sions in Wis­con­sin and Penn­syl­va­nia inval­i­dat­ing voter ID laws demon­strate that avenues may remain for fed­eral enforce­ment of vot­ing rights. And efforts are ongo­ing to revive Sec­tion 5 through lit­i­ga­tion and through new leg­is­la­tion. But the devel­op­ments in the one year since Shelby County serve as an impor­tant reminder that the right to vote remains ten­u­ous and must be vig­i­lantly pro­tected, par­tic­u­larly with­out the safe­guards of Sec­tion 5.

On this one-year anniver­sary of Shelby, take action and urge Con­gress to restore Sec­tion 5 by pass­ing the Vot­ing Rights Amend­ment Act of 2014.

Tags: , , , , ,

May 14, 2014 0

From The Archives: ADL’s Involvement In Brown v. Board

Sat­ur­day, May 17th marks the 60th anniver­sary of Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion, the land­mark Supreme Court deci­sion that ruled racially seg­re­gated pub­lic schools “inher­ently unequal” and ordered the deseg­re­ga­tion of America’s pub­lic schools. ADL-brown-amicus-brief

Act­ing on its man­date “to secure jus­tice and fair treat­ment to all cit­i­zens alike and to put an end for­ever to unjust and unfair dis­crim­i­na­tion,” in Octo­ber 1952 ADL’s National Com­mis­sion resolved to encour­age fed­eral and state leg­is­la­tors “to sup­port leg­is­la­tion to insure the great­est pos­si­ble pro­tec­tion of civil rights and equal­ity of oppor­tu­nity for all in the fun­da­men­tal fields of employ­ment, edu­ca­tion and housing.”

The next month, ADL filed an ami­cus brief in Brown, argu­ing that because African Amer­i­can chil­dren were “dis­ad­van­taged by the seg­re­gated pub­lic school sys­tem of Topeka” the Court should “dis­avow the ‘sep­a­rate but equal’ doc­trine as it has been applied to pub­lic edu­ca­tional institutions.”

ADL’s brief noted a lower court’s find­ing that seg­re­ga­tion “irrepara­bly dam­ages the child,” and argued that “that which is unequal in fact can­not be equal in law.” The brief’s final argu­ment read:

Legally imposed seg­re­ga­tion in our coun­try, in any shape, man­ner or form, weak­ens our pro­gram to build and strengthen world democ­racy and com­bat total­i­tar­i­an­ism. In edu­ca­tion, at the lower lev­els, it indeli­bly fixes anti-social atti­tudes and behav­ior pat­terns by build­ing inter-group antag­o­nisms. It forces a sense of lim­i­ta­tion upon the child and destroys incen­tive. It pro­duces feel­ings of infe­ri­or­ity and dis­cour­ages racial self-appreciation.

Today, ADL con­tin­ues to com­bat dis­crim­i­na­tion in schools and advo­cate for edu­ca­tion equity. On its 60th anniver­sary, we rec­og­nize the Brown deci­sion as a mon­u­men­tal leap for­ward in the ongo­ing fight for equal education.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

March 25, 2014 1

The Hobby Lobby Case — It’s Not Okay To Discriminate In The Name of Religion

This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argu­ments in two con­sol­i­dated cases where own­ers of for-profit, sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions chal­lenge the fed­eral Afford­able Care Act’s (ACA) con­tra­cep­tion man­date as a vio­la­tion of their reli­gious free­dom rights.

The names of the two cases are Sebe­lius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Con­estoga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Sebe­lius. hobby lobby

The ACA requires cov­ered employ­ers to pro­vide a full range of pre­ven­ta­tive health care and screen­ing ser­vices, includ­ing con­tra­cep­tives and birth con­trol, in their employer-sponsored health care plans. Refer­ring to the con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age as a “man­date” is actu­ally a mis­nomer because employ­ers have the option of pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance. And that tax is often less expen­sive than pro­vi­sion of employee health insurance.

How­ever, rec­og­niz­ing reli­gious sen­si­bil­i­ties sur­round­ing con­tra­cep­tion and abor­tion, the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion worked hard to accom­mo­date dif­fer­ing reli­gious views. The so-called ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date does not apply to non-profit reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions (like a church or syn­a­gogue) and religiously-affiliated orga­ni­za­tions (like church-affiliated schools) can eas­ily opt out of the require­ment by sign­ing and fil­ing a one-page form.

The fervently-religious own­ers of Hobby Lobby, a large chain of arts and crafts stores that employs over 13,000 peo­ple at over 500 loca­tions, brought suit against the man­date because they object to cer­tain forms of con­tra­cep­tion. The Tenth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals upheld their chal­lenge, decid­ing that the fed­eral Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (RFRA) applies to cor­po­ra­tions and that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date sub­stan­tially bur­dens the own­ers’ reli­gious practice.

The own­ers of Con­estoga Wood, a com­pany that employs hun­dreds of peo­ple that makes cab­i­nets and other wood­work­ing prod­ucts, sim­i­larly object, on reli­gious grounds, to pro­vid­ing con­tra­cep­tives to their employ­ees. How­ever, in this case, the Third Cir­cuit Court of Appeals, in con­trast to the Tenth Cir­cuit, decided that for-profit sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions can­not engage in reli­gious speech and are there­fore not pro­tected under the RFRA.

RFRA requires the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to demon­strate a com­pelling inter­est where it “sub­stan­tially bur­dens” a person’s reli­gious exer­cise. ADL strongly sup­ported the enact­ment of this 1993 statute, which was intended to be a shield against reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion. But in this case, the own­ers of Hobby Lobby and Con­estoga are attempt­ing to use RFRA as a sword – giv­ing them license to impose their reli­gious beliefs on oth­ers. That under­mines the pur­pose of the statute, and turns reli­gious free­dom on its head. There is no doubt that RFRA could not have been enacted into law if it had been antic­i­pated that it would later be used by cor­po­rate own­ers to thwart anti-discrimination laws or the reli­gious free­dom of com­pany employees.

ADL joined a coali­tion brief with a diverse group of more than two dozen faith-based orga­ni­za­tions. The brief, pre­pared by Amer­i­cans United for Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State, argues that apply­ing the con­cep­tion reg­u­la­tions to the cor­po­ra­tions does not sub­stan­tially bur­den reli­gion. For-profit cor­po­rate enti­ties do not prac­tice reli­gion. And because the legally dis­tinct cor­po­ra­tions would actu­ally pay for and pro­vide the com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance, any reli­gious bur­den on their own­ers is min­i­mal. Not to men­tion that the own­ers have the option of their cor­po­ra­tions pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive insurance.

The brief fur­ther asserts that Amer­i­cans do not lose their reli­gious free­dom when they estab­lish for profit busi­nesses. But the reli­gious beliefs of these employ­ers should not be imposed on third par­ties – their employ­ees – and the own­ers’ rights can­not trump the reli­gious rights of their employees.

It would be hard to over­state the stakes for reli­gious lib­erty and equal­ity in these two cases. The Amer­i­can work­force is highly diverse. Allow­ing sec­u­lar cor­po­rate own­ers to restrict access to afford­able con­tra­cep­tives on the basis of reli­gion dis­crim­i­nates against women and lim­its their equal­ity and inde­pen­dence. Approval of this action by the Court would also be a grave blow to reli­gious free­dom in this coun­try – and open the door to the specter of work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion and for-profit com­pa­nies deny­ing cov­er­age for other essen­tial med­ical ser­vices that some own­ers might deem reli­giously offen­sive, such as blood trans­fu­sions, psy­chi­atric care, and vaccinations.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,