SCOTUS busy Thursday

Post Reply New Topic

The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work because she is straight.

The unanimous ruling could make it easier in some parts of the country for people belonging to majority groups to bring such “reverse discrimination” claims. It overturns precedent in some lower courts that says someone from a majority group has to meet a higher bar than someone from a minority group for a case to move forward.

Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, after a lesbian woman obtained a promotion she had applied for. She was later demoted, and her old position was taken by a gay man

Writing for the court, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the test had no basis in the text of Title VII or cases that have interpreted it.

"We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs," she wrote.

Ames had worked at the department since 2004, but the dispute arose after she began reporting to a lesbian woman in 2017. She was denied the promotion she sought two years later and demoted soon after that.

The state says Ames was demoted because new leadership in the agency wanted to restructure its operations to focus on sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames had led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, according to the state’s court papers.

Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, the state has pointed out.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Catholic Church-affiliated charitable groups, saying they were wrongly denied religious exemptions from a Wisconsin tax that funds unemployment benefits.

The justices ruled unanimously that the state's decision unlawfully discriminated against the groups on the basis of religion under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.

The court rejected a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that said that the groups operating under the Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior were not sufficiently religious in purpose. The state already provided exemptions for religious institutions.

The First Amendment has long been interpreted to exempt religious entities from taxation.

Writing for the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the importance of the government remaining neutral when it comes to different religions.

"When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny," Sotomayor said. But Wisconsin had "transgressed that principle," she added.

The groups involved in the case — Headwaters, Barron County Developmental Services, Diversified Services and Black River Industries — primarily serve developmentally disabled people. Their programs are open to non-Catholics.

The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission had concluded the charitable groups were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” under state law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2024 upheld the state commission’s finding, saying the groups’ activities were mostly secular in nature and that they do not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials.”

The Wisconsin unemployment compensation system was set up in 1932 to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs. Similar programs in other states and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act also include religious exemptions.

The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers accusing them of aiding and abetting gun violence.

The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from legal liability.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the opinion, acknowledged the gun violence problem, but said Mexico had failed to make allegations that would surmount those liability protections in claiming the companies aided and abetted the unlawful sale of guns.

"The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," she wrote.

The 2021 lawsuit accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are frequently recovered at Mexican crime scenes.

The Mexican government said the aiding and abetting allegations meant that the companies were not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico was seeking up to $10 billion in damages.

The case at the Supreme Court involved two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully had claims against them tossed out.

A federal judge initially ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico’s specific claims.

The case reached the Supreme Court following increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders after the election of President Donald Trump, who has cited drug trafficking and gang violence in Mexico amid his crackdown on undocumented immigrants.