The decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, is powerful in its plainspoken logic and clear-eyed view of equality: "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."
And the court's opinion is notable for the ideological coalition comprising the six-justice majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch -- both Republican-appointed justices who typically side with the court's conservative bloc -- joined the four generally liberal Justices, all appointed by Democratic presidents (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh -- all conservative appointees -- dissented.
The opinion also stands as a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration, whose Justice Department argued in the Supreme Court last year that the law does not protect gay and transgender people against discrimination. The Trump administration took the wrong side of the law and, ultimately, history. And it is impossible to ignore that today's ruling was authored by Gorsuch -- whom Trump himself nominated to the court in the first place.
Within the next few weeks, the court will likely deliver more rulings that could have seismic impact on national public policy. And those decisions will tell us much about the court itself -- most importantly, whether it can rise above the pronounced partisan and ideological division that has defined it in recent years.
The court is scheduled to release opinions on all remaining cases argued during this term by the end of June. Three especially consequential cases remain undecided.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The court is expected to determine whether President Donald Trump has legal authority to rescind DACA, a 2012 executive action by President Barack Obama that allowed certain undocumented immigrants (dubbed "Dreamers") who came to the United States under age 16 to apply for protection from deportation. This ruling will impact roughly 700,000 people who had active DACA protections in September 2017, when the Trump administration announced its intent to end the program.
Louisiana abortion law. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a major opinion on abortion when it decides on the constitutionality of a Louisiana law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Opponents of the law argue that it unduly restricts access to abortion, noting that it would leave only one doctor in the entire state licensed to provide abortions. Proponents counter that the law promotes legitimate health and safety concerns. The Louisiana law is virtually identical to a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, and could require the court to articulate under what circumstances it will depart from established precedent.
Trump's tax returns. The dispute over congressional and prosecutorial subpoenas to private financial firms seeking Trump's tax returns impacts one person directly -- Trump -- but it has major implications for our constitutional balance of powers. The court is expected to determine the scope of congressional power to issue subpoenas in furtherance of its legislative function, and whether the President has "absolute immunity" from even being investigated criminally while in office. This decision will go a long way toward determining whether the president is, in fact, above the law.
Beyond the obviously high stakes posed by these cases, these next few weeks will be a defining stretch for the court itself. An undeniable partisan divide on the court exists and persists. A series of 5-4 rulings (with Roberts siding with the conservative bloc) will deepen the existing ideological divide and will undermine public confidence in the court as a non-partisan entity charged solely with interpreting the law, regardless of political implications. But if Roberts shows genuine independence, and if the court can reach sensible conclusions that cut across established fault lines, then public confidence may return. Watch the court carefully over the next few weeks. Much hangs in the balance.
Now, your questions:
Alicia (Minnesota): Could the fact that George Floyd and Derek Chauvin both worked at the same nightclub be relevant at trial?
The fact that Floyd and Chauvin worked at the same nightclub could become relevant and admissible at trial but it depends on whether more details emerge about their relationship. The club owner said Floyd and Chauvin "would have crossed paths" but she "wouldn't characterize them as knowing each other."
More facts could emerge. If, for example, additional evidence establishes some relationship between them -- particularly any hostility Chauvin might have felt toward Floyd -- then it certainly could become admissible to prove Chauvin's motive to hurt or kill Floyd. But in the absence of any such additional evidence, the fact that they worked at the same place is unlikely to be relevant at trial.
Christine (California): Is there any concern that, by charging a second-degree murder, prosecutors have overcharged the case against Chauvin and run the risk of an acquittal by the jury?
Minnesota state prosecutors have charged Chauvin with second-degree murder as the "lead," or most serious, charge. Under that charge, prosecutors must prove that Chauvin intentionally assaulted Floyd, resulting in Floyd's death (but not necessarily that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd). I believe the evidence supports a second-degree murder charge -- particularly the cellphone video that shows Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than eight minutes.
But the jury's decision will not be all or nothing solely based on that second-degree murder charge. Prosecutors also have filed lesser charges of third-degree murder (meaning the defendant committed "an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life") and second-degree manslaughter (meaning the defendant negligently "creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another").
The jury will vote separately on each of the three charges against Chauvin. So, even if the jury acquits Chauvin on the most serious second-degree murder charge, it still could find Chauvin guilty on either or both of the lesser charges. In a sense, prosecutors have built in a safety net, or a fallback provision, by charging the lesser offenses.
Victoria (Massachusetts): Could the Justice Department charge the officers in the Floyd case with a hate crime?
Possibly. The Justice Department announced that it has opened an investigation and "has made the investigation a top priority and has assigned experienced prosecutors and FBI criminal investigators to the matter."
There is a federal hate crime law, which applies where a defendant causes bodily injury to another person because of the person's race, color, national origin or other specified characteristics. So, the Justice Department would need to prove both that Chauvin wrongfully assaulted and killed Floyd and that Chauvin acted based on racial animus.
The Justice Department could also charge Chauvin with depriving Floyd of his civil rights. This charge requires proof that a person acting "under color of law" -- police officers certainly qualify -- willfully deprived a person of a civil right (here, the right to be free of unreasonable seizure). While racial motive can support this kind of charge, the law does not require prosecutors to prove a racial motive under this statute.
Three questions to watch this week:
1) Will Minnesota prosecutors begin to present evidence to a grand jury to indict the ex-officers in the Floyd case?
2) Will prosecutors in Georgia bring charges against the ex-officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta?
3) Will the Court of Appeals grant or deny former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn's motion to take the case away from the district court judge and compel dismissal?
"come" - Google News
June 16, 2020 at 04:54AM
https://ift.tt/3e5nYor
SCOTUS made a monumental ruling -- and there could be more to come - CNN
"come" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2S8UtrZ
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "SCOTUS made a monumental ruling -- and there could be more to come - CNN"
Post a Comment