Archives for December 2011

Najah Farley

Last week, SCOTUS agreed to hear the Department of Justice challenge to SB 1070, Arizona’s comprehensive immigration law. According to commentators, it is likely that the government could be successful in challenging the immigration law, especially with regard to the challenged provisions of SB 1070 which require state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop and require that law enforcement officials determine the immigration status of arrestees. Two other challenged provisions criminalize undocumented immigration, making it a crime for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law and allows the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe they have committed a deportable offense. [Read more…] about SCOTUS takes on Arizona’s SB 1070

 Peter Dunne

In recent weeks, much has been made of the various attacks  GOP presidential candidates have launched upon the federal judiciary. Term limits, Senate hearings and even impeachment have all been touted as possible methods to reign in our supposedly “out of control” courts system.

The movement to curb judicial power currently has no greater champion than Newt Gringrich. Riding high in the polls, Mr. Gringrich seeks not so much to restrict the power of judges as to simply ignore it. He has suggested that should he become President, he may refuse to enforce court orders which are, in his opinion, not faithful to the Constitution. [Read more…] about Conversations with the Courts: Is Newt Gringrich Right?…(but for the Wrong Reasons)

Anne King

As Peter Dunne pointed out in his post last week, December 2011 has seen several significant milestones for LGBT rights, both in the US and internationally.

Count among those events the December 6 opinion by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Glenn v. Brumby, which held that discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity is sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Vandiver Glenn was a state government employee fired after informing her supervisor she was transitioning from male to female.  (She had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and had started the process of transitioning several years previously.)  The reason given for termination was that Glenn’s gender transition was “inappropriate,” “a moral issue,” and “would make coworkers uncomfortable.” [Read more…] about 11th Circuit Decision is a Landmark for LGBT Workplace Rights — And Shows That Equal Protection Sex Discrimination Doctrine is Still Alive and Well

Marshall Thompson

The trial of Bradley Manning continues after taking a few sensational turns last week. We discussed on this blog a few months ago how Manning’s charges for allegedly leaking classified information to Wikileaks could amount to capital punishment, so the stakes could not be higher.

The first surprise was that Manning was transgender. The stress for a U.S. soldier who was either gay or transgender under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy would have been intense. Some experts say the goal behind this defense would be sentence reduction. [Read more…] about Strange Developments in Manning Trial

Billy Corriher 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals finally recognized that a supervisor’s use of the word ‘boy’ to refer to black employees is sufficient evidence of racism. It was the third time the court ruled on the case since a reprimand from the Supreme Court  for finding that ‘boy’ was not evidence of discrimination. Last week’s ruling overturned a three-judge panel’s 2010 decision rejecting the evidence as insufficient, even under the Court’s guidance: “Although . . . The disputed word will not always be evidence of racial animus, it does not follow that the word, standing alone, is always benign.” The Court said the meaning may depend on “context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.” [Read more…] about Court finally says ‘boy’ comments are racist

David Yin

I recently asked my Facebook network which Supreme Court justice, modern or historical, would they elect to partner with on a Constitutional Law final exam, assuming the justice had taken the class with them that semester. John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Robert Jackson, and William Brennan were predictable choices as powerful writers and influential molders of constitutional thought. Scalia, well-known for his bombastic style yet clear exposition of facts and law, was popular. Clarence Thomas received no votes. Perhaps it is to be expected that among the constellation of judicial stars, Thomas would pale in popularity–his legacy, after all, has yet to be defined. No doubt for others his judicial philosophy, hewing tightly to original intent and historical understanding, leaves progressive-minded comrades ill at ease. Yet if a motivating factor for unpopularity is Thomas’ silence at oral argument, I would ask my friends to reconsider.

Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court in October 1991. On February 22, 2006, Thomas posed a question during oral argument, and has stayed silent ever since. His silence has been the subject of much commentary and speculation, and perhaps inevitably, ridicule and accusations of un-intellectualism. This disparaging category of charges is unfair, and deserves some scrutiny. [Read more…] about In Defense of Clarence Thomas