WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS CASES WILL THE NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HELP DECIDE?Two new justicesJudge John Roberts, Jr. and Judge Samuel Alito were confirmed to lifetime appointments on our Supreme Courtand will have an immediate impact on civil rights with the votes they cast. The Supreme Court has already determined which cases it will hear over the next year, and a number of important civil rights cases are included. Following is a list of key civil rights cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in the 2006-07 year.
DISABILITY RIGHTS
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is a federal law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination. Over the past few years, however, states have argued that state agencies should not have to comply with all parts of the law. The Supreme Court initially agreed with the states and exempted them from some parts of the ADA; more recently it has upheld other provisions. Next term, the Supreme Court will consider whether states must comply with the ADA by making prisons accessible for inmates with disabilities.Tony Goodman is an inmate in the Georgia State Prison System who has paraplegia and uses a wheelchair. Despite his disability, prison officials placed Mr. Goodman in a cell so narrow he could not turn his wheelchair around in it. The state prison also failed to provide properly accessible shower and toilet facilities or accessible routes to the prison law library and chapel. Representing himself in court, Mr. Goodman alleged that the State of Georgia violated the ADA by discriminating against him in the provision of public services. The lower court held that state prisons did not have to comply with the ADA. When the Supreme Court reconvenes in the fall, the Justices will decide whether to uphold the lower court's decisionfurther limiting the ability of people with disabilities to be free from discriminationor whether to build on the reasoning in their more recent cases and require state prisons to comply with the ADA.
Goodman v. Ray, No. 02-10168, 2004 WL 2157192 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2004) cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 2266 (May 16, 2005) (No. 04-1236). Facts from: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 1-5, Goodman v. Georgia, 125 S. Ct. 2266 (May 16, 2005) (No. 04-1236).
Brian Schaffer is a middle school student in Maryland who requires special education to succeed in school. Asserting their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), Brian's parents brought suit against his school, claiming that the educational program the school developed for him was inadequate. In the Schaffers' case, as in many special education cases, the party who has to prove their case has a disadvantage, and the party who only has to defend their actions has an advantage. Often a school system may have more information, experience and resourcesmaking it easier for the school to bear the burden instead of parents. The IDEA does not indicate whether the school board must prove its plan is adequate, or merely defend against a parent's claim that it is inadequate. Next term, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents or schools have the burden of proof in an IDEA hearing. Its decision will impact the ability of all students with disabilities to hold their school systems accountable and to protect their right to a free and appropriate public education.
Weast v. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 1300 (Feb. 22, 2005)(No. 04-698).
LGBT RIGHTS
Many American law schools have non-discrimination policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. To abide by these policies, some law schools prohibit employers who engage in these types of discrimination from participating in school-sponsored career services programs. Because the U.S. military excludes potential service men and women who are openly gay, military recruiters are not permitted to recruit on campus at these schools. To discourage law schools from barring military recruiters, Congress passed the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal funding to research projects at any university that prohibits military recruiters from recruiting on campus. Next term, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Solomon Amendment is Constitutional, or whether universities have a protected free speech right to protest discrimination by refusing to sponsor military recruiting on their campuses. The Court's decision will determine whether law schools and other institutions may protest discrimination without retaliation from the federal government. The decision will also reveal the Court's commitmentor lack of commitmentto gay rights.Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, 390 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 1977 (May 2, 2005) (No. 04-1152).
RACIAL JUSTICE
John McDonald, a Nevadan real estate developer who is African-American, entered into contracts with Domino's Pizza to build four restaurants in the Las Vegas area. There is evidence that McDonald was the only African-American ever hired by Domino's to build restaurants in the American Southwest. Unfortunately, Domino's real estate negotiator for the area refused to execute Domino's obligations under the contracts, telling McDonald she didn't like dealing with "you people." She also implied to local bank officers that McDonald was "dishonest and untrustworthy." These statements, combined with Dominos failure to provide financing to the restaurants as promised, led McDonalds company into bankruptcy and caused him significant personal distress and financial harm.McDonald sued in federal court accusing Domino's of violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute prohibiting racial discrimination in private contracts. Dominos claims that because McDonald's companyrather than McDonald personallywas the party named in the contracts, McDonald is not entitled to a trial on his discrimination claim. Next term the Supreme Court will decide whether to allow McDonald's suit and protect this important remedy available to people to challenging racial discrimination. A vote against McDonald would significantly limit the rights available to people who experience racial discrimination while engaging in private business.
McDonald v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12176 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 1928 (April 25, 2005)(No. 04-593). Facts from: Brief of Respondent in Opposition at 1-5, Dominos Pizza Inc. v. McDonald, 125 S. Ct. 1928 (April 25, 2005)(No. 04-593).WOMENS RIGHTS
In 2003, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law prohibiting any abortion provider from performing an abortion on a woman under 18 until 48 hours after her parents received written notice of the procedure in a letter delivered to them personally. According to Supreme Court precedent, any law that restricts abortion is unconstitutional unless it contains an exception to protect the health of the mother, and does not interfere with a woman's ability to obtain an abortion so severely that it places an "undue burden" on her right to choose. Abortion providers and reproductive rights advocates in New Hampshire used these standards to invalidate New Hampshire's laweven before it took effectby showing that the law would likely impose this burden in a "large fraction of cases."New Hampshire officials argue, however, that the law cannot be invalidated before it takes effect, unless there is "no set of circumstances" where the law would be valid. Under this standard, reproductive rights advocates could not challenge New Hampshire's law until after it had been applied in a particular case. That standard is applied in other contexts, but most courts agree that it does not apply to abortion laws. Next term, the Supreme Court will decide which standard applies when courts evaluate abortion laws. In so doing, the Court will decide not only whether New Hampshire's parental consent law is constitutional, but whether the important "undue burden" and "health" tests can be used to protect a woman's right to choose before a restrictive law takes effect.
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Heed, 390 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2004), cert. granted sub nom., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 125 S. Ct. 2294 (May 23, 2005)(No. 04-1144).
WORKERS RIGHTS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national originbut it applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. While working at a restaurant, Jenifer Arbaugh was sexually harassed and assaulted by one of the owners. She sued under Title VII, and a jury found in her favorawarding $40,000 in damages. After the jurys finding however, the restaurant owners claimed the case never should have proceeded because the restaurant employed fewer than 15 people. The lower court agreed with the employer, and threw Arbaugh's case out of court despite the jury verdict.Courts disagree about whether an employer's size must be proven specially to a judge as a "jurisdictional" element, or must merely be proven to a jury as part of a worker's case. Next term, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 15-employee requirement is a special "jurisdictional" question or just another fact of the case. A Supreme Court finding that the requirement is "jurisdictional" will make it more difficult to bring civil rights claims against small employers because a plaintiff-unfriendly process applies to "jurisdictional" elements. Other federal civil rights lawssuch as the ADA, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Actare also enforceable only against employers with a minimum number of employees. The Supreme Court's decision in this case, therefore, will influence the outcome of cases brought under all these civil rights laws. A new justice on the Supreme Court will face this important opportunity to protect civil rights in the workplace.
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 380 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 2246 (May 16, 2005)(No. 04-944).
OTHER RESOURCES
Many Supreme Court decisions protecting civil rights are decided by a narrow margin: click here to learn about past decisions where one Justice's vote made the difference.
[1] For example in Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) the Supreme Court held that state employers could not be forced to pay lost wages or damages in employment discrimination suits brought under the ADA, even when they discriminated. But, in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), the Court ruled that states should be forced to make their courthouses physically accessible to people with disabilities.
[2] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).