Abercrombie & Fitch wants its employees to look a certain way. Company employees decided not to hire Samantha Elauf, a well qualified 17-year-old Muslim girl, because they felt the black head scarf she wore to her job interview did not fit their “look” policy. Yesterday, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the … Continue reading Religious Rights in the Workplace
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases, the final oral arguments scheduled this Term. Thanks to all who indulged my predictions for this Term. It’s been a fun, but at times rocky ride. I will have a more in depth review of my past predictions and success/failure rate this summer. I … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Glossip v. Gross and Mata v. Holder
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, which asks whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Kingsley v. Hendrickson
Turning to the other big case of the week…. Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Gross, a challenge to the three-drug lethal injection protocol Oklahoma uses for its executions. The challengers argue that the procedure violates the ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” found in the Eighth Amendment of the … Continue reading The Supreme Court and Firing Squads
What did we learn from yesterday’s oral arguments in the historic same-sex marriage cases? The basic take-away seems to be that the issue looks a lot harder inside the Supreme Court than it does outside. The run of success for the cause of same-sex marriage—in state legislatures and referenda, in state courts and the lower … Continue reading Oral Arguments in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases—What Did We Learn?
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the historic case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage cases, which ask two questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?, and 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Same-Sex Marriage Cases
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a consolidation of cases that ask the Court to consider two key questions about same-sex marriage: Is there a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? And are states required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states? Because of the landmark nature of this case, … Continue reading Oyez Covers Same-Sex Marriage Arguments
Sorry, it’s taken me awhile to analyze the Michigan v. EPA, which the Supreme Court heard back on March 25. The case asks whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. I predict a 5-4 decision in favor … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in EPA Cases
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, which asks (1) whether the government’s “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, applies only to real property and not to … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in one case on Tuesday, McFadden v. U.S., which asks whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue – a substance with a chemical structure that is “substantially similar” to a schedule I or II drug and has a “substantially similar” effect on the user … Continue reading Predicting the Winner in McFadden v. US