Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
SCOTUSblog: Wednesday round-up, June 17, 2020
Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Wed, June 17th, 2020 6:58 am
Wednesday round-up
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that last night the court temporarily blocked the execution of Ruben Gutierrez, a Texas inmate who arguesthat the state’s refusal to allow him to have a spiritual advisor of his choosing by his side in the death chamber violates his First Amendment rights and a federal law that protects the religious rights of inmates. For The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin reports that “Mr. Gutierrez’s case provides the court an opportunity to set a nationwide standard for the religious rights of prisoners about to die.”
Mark Sherman explains at AP why the assignment of Monday’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the court held that federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees, to Justice Neil Gorsuch left court-watchers “scratching their heads, … but not because the appointee of President Donald Trump might have been expected to side with his conservative colleagues in dissent”: “Gorsuch’s opinion was his second for [the] October [argument session] while three of his colleagues wrote nothing.” For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes reports that “those who saw oral arguments in the cases now collectively known as Bostock v. Clayton County knew that Gorsuch seemed key”: The advocates for the employees “passed up an appeal to fairness or equality in favor of arguing that the broad text of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act already protected their clients.”
At The Employment Law Group, R. Scott Oswald writes that the battle of “gay and trans employees … will continue on two fronts: To consolidate and extend this huge victory, in the workplace and beyond, and to defend it against a growing wave of religious-liberty claims, which will target their rights disproportionately.” Melissa Gira Grant at The New Republic points to “the precedent this decision sets extends beyond employment law, possibly to any law barring discrimination on the basis of sex.” In an op-ed at Newsweek, Kristen Waggoner argues that “{i}nstead of embracing its role as the law’s interpreter, the Court’s majority has expanded its role to retroactive author and editor.” According to Kevin Williamson at National Review, the court’s reasoning is “not jurisprudence,” but “magical thinking.” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps observes that “[a]ll three opinions insisted that they were only analyzing the meaning of words, with no reference to the justices’ political or moral views on gay rights[, b]ut beneath the verbal jousting, the two sides were expressing dueling views of what sexual orientation and gender mean, and how society should assess them.” Kate Anderson warns in an op-ed at The Washington Times that the decision “could pose numerous dangers for women and girls.” Additional commentary comes from David Cortman at the Daily Caller, Michael Bobelian at Forbes, Walter Olson at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Maureen Collins at The Christian Post and Ross Runkel in a video at his eponymous blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in Harris.]
At E&E News, Niina Farah reports that Monday’s decision in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, in which the court held that the Forest Service had the authority to grant a right of way for a natural gas pipeline through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail, “removed one hurdle for developers of the Atlantic Coast pipeline, but the natural gas project remains in legal limbo as a host of other obstacles stand in the way of construction.” Ellen Gilmer and Alexandra Yetter report at Bloomberg Law that “[t]he case focused on a technical legal question about which agency has authority to allow crossings of the Appalachian Trail, but came to symbolize a broader debate over the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure across the country.” At PERC, Jonathan Wood suggests that the opinion in Cowpasture River “may have set an important precedent for the management of federal lands in other contexts.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
{snip}
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 17, 2020, 6:58 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/wednesday-round-up-529/
Posted Wed, June 17th, 2020 6:58 am
Wednesday round-up
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that last night the court temporarily blocked the execution of Ruben Gutierrez, a Texas inmate who arguesthat the state’s refusal to allow him to have a spiritual advisor of his choosing by his side in the death chamber violates his First Amendment rights and a federal law that protects the religious rights of inmates. For The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Jess Bravin reports that “Mr. Gutierrez’s case provides the court an opportunity to set a nationwide standard for the religious rights of prisoners about to die.”
Mark Sherman explains at AP why the assignment of Monday’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the court held that federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees, to Justice Neil Gorsuch left court-watchers “scratching their heads, … but not because the appointee of President Donald Trump might have been expected to side with his conservative colleagues in dissent”: “Gorsuch’s opinion was his second for [the] October [argument session] while three of his colleagues wrote nothing.” For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes reports that “those who saw oral arguments in the cases now collectively known as Bostock v. Clayton County knew that Gorsuch seemed key”: The advocates for the employees “passed up an appeal to fairness or equality in favor of arguing that the broad text of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act already protected their clients.”
At The Employment Law Group, R. Scott Oswald writes that the battle of “gay and trans employees … will continue on two fronts: To consolidate and extend this huge victory, in the workplace and beyond, and to defend it against a growing wave of religious-liberty claims, which will target their rights disproportionately.” Melissa Gira Grant at The New Republic points to “the precedent this decision sets extends beyond employment law, possibly to any law barring discrimination on the basis of sex.” In an op-ed at Newsweek, Kristen Waggoner argues that “{i}nstead of embracing its role as the law’s interpreter, the Court’s majority has expanded its role to retroactive author and editor.” According to Kevin Williamson at National Review, the court’s reasoning is “not jurisprudence,” but “magical thinking.” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps observes that “[a]ll three opinions insisted that they were only analyzing the meaning of words, with no reference to the justices’ political or moral views on gay rights[, b]ut beneath the verbal jousting, the two sides were expressing dueling views of what sexual orientation and gender mean, and how society should assess them.” Kate Anderson warns in an op-ed at The Washington Times that the decision “could pose numerous dangers for women and girls.” Additional commentary comes from David Cortman at the Daily Caller, Michael Bobelian at Forbes, Walter Olson at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Maureen Collins at The Christian Post and Ross Runkel in a video at his eponymous blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in Harris.]
At E&E News, Niina Farah reports that Monday’s decision in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, in which the court held that the Forest Service had the authority to grant a right of way for a natural gas pipeline through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail, “removed one hurdle for developers of the Atlantic Coast pipeline, but the natural gas project remains in legal limbo as a host of other obstacles stand in the way of construction.” Ellen Gilmer and Alexandra Yetter report at Bloomberg Law that “[t]he case focused on a technical legal question about which agency has authority to allow crossings of the Appalachian Trail, but came to symbolize a broader debate over the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure across the country.” At PERC, Jonathan Wood suggests that the opinion in Cowpasture River “may have set an important precedent for the management of federal lands in other contexts.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
{snip}
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Wednesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 17, 2020, 6:58 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/wednesday-round-up-529/
