Supreme Court takes case involving refusal to serve gay couples
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new clash involving religion and the rights of LGBTQ people in the case of a Colorado web designer who says her religious beliefs prevent her from offering wedding website designs to gay couples.
The high court said Tuesday it would hear the case of Lorie Smith. The Denver-area designer offers graphic and website design services and wants to expand to wedding website services, but she says her Christian beliefs would lead her to decline any request from a same-sex couple to design a wedding website. She also wants to post a statement on her website about her beliefs. Doing those things, however, would run afoul of a Colorado anti-discrimination law. Smith had argued the law violates her free speech and religious rights.
The Supreme Court said in taking the case that it would look only at the free speech issue. It said it would decide whether a law that requires an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The case is expected to be argued in the fall.
Smith’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, said in a statement after the court agreed to hear the case that “Colorado has weaponized its law to silence speech it disagrees with, to compel speech it approves of, and to punish anyone who dares to dissent.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the Supreme Court has consistently held that anti-discrimination laws like the one in his state apply to all businesses selling goods and services.
“Companies cannot turn away LGBT customers just because of who they are,” Weiser said in an emailed statement. “We will vigorously defend Colorado’s laws, which protect all Coloradans by preventing discrimination and upholding free speech.”
In a 2-1 ruling last year, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Smith’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling throwing out her legal challenge. The panel said Colorado had a compelling interest in protecting the “dignity interests” of members of marginalized groups through its law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
The law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, is the same one at issue in the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips that was decided in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court said at the time that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias against Phillips after he refused to bake a cake for two men who were getting married. But it did not rule on the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to LGBTQ people.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom represented Phillips and represents Smith.
Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Maine vaccine mandate
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear arguments in a lawsuit that sought to challenge Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health workers.
Justices did not explain their decision in court papers on Tuesday. The court had already turned down two emergency applications that sought to stop the mandate from going into effect.
The vaccine requirement in Maine went into effect in October. Unnamed workers sued the state to try to require religious exemptions from the vaccine law.
Supporters of the rule have pointed out that Maine has required health facilities to make sure workers are vaccinated against other diseases for decades.
Supreme Court rejects Epstein sex abuse accuser’s lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision throwing out a lawsuit filed by a woman who accused billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her when she was a child.
Courtney Wild’s lawsuit claimed Florida federal prosecutors failed to consult victims more than a decade ago when reaching a secret plea deal with Epstein, who died in jail in New York in 2019.
The high court said Tuesday it would not consider the case. As is typical, the court did not comment in turning away the case, which was included on a list of cases the court said it would not take. The Biden administration had urged the justices not to hear the case.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Wild in April 2020, saying a lower court had correctly thrown out her lawsuit.
Wild’s lawsuit revolved around a secret plea negotiation with Epstein that spared him serious federal charges and permitted him to plead guilty to lesser state prostitution-related charges in Palm Beach County, Florida. Epstein spent 13 months in jail while being allowed to go to his office almost daily, paid financial settlements to victims and was registered as a sex offender.
The lawsuit claimed the deal was never discussed with any of his victims in violation of the Crime Victims Rights Act.
Epstein was later charged federally in New York. He was accused of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash for massages and then molesting them at his homes in Florida and New York. He was found dead in jail on Aug. 10, 2019, at age 66. A medical examiner ruled his death a suicide.
A federal judge in Florida initially ruled that prosecutors violated the victims’ rights law and asked for recommendations from both sides on what to do about it. But after Epstein died the lawsuit was dismissed.
The Associated Press does not name sexual abuse victims without their permission. Wild has given numerous interviews and discussed her experiences with Epstein publicly at length.
Supreme Court won’t take Dakota Access Pipeline case
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to consider an appeal of a lawsuit over the Dakota Access Pipeline, meaning that an ongoing environmental review of the pipeline will continue.
Dakota Access, which is controlled by Texas-based Energy Transfer, appealed a lower court ruling that affirmed the need for a more thorough environmental study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bismarck Tribune reported.
The Corps issued an easement for the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing in 2017, but a federal judge concluded in 2020 that a prior environmental analysis of the line was inadequate and revoked the permit. The outcome of the new environmental review, which the agency began in September 2020, will determine whether the Corps reissues the permit.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is concerned that the pipeline could break and that an oil spill could ruin its water supply. The line passes under the Missouri River upstream from its reservation. The tribe first sued over the pipeline five years ago.
Energy Transfer and the Corps maintain the line is safe.
The Supreme Court justices did not offer any rationale Tuesday on why they declined to take the case. The court typically selects about 100 cases a year out of thousands of requests.
The pipeline has operated since 2017 and was the target of large protests in south-central North Dakota during construction.
