Court makes it easier to claim
'reverse discrimination'in employment,
in a case from Ohio
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.
The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.
"By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson wrote.
The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."
Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."
Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court.
Federal agencies have moved quickly to implement Trump's vision and shift priorities to reflect that mission, including rooting out discrimination against members of majority groups.
The head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for enforcing workplace anti-discrimination laws, has pivoted the agency to focus on eliminating "all forms" of race discrimination, including those stemming from DEI initiatives.
At the same time, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has moved to deprioritize cases involving discrimination against transgender workers, saying she rejects the idea that "civil rights exist solely to remedy harms against certain groups."
Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances.
But Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
___
Associated Press writer Claire Savage contributed to this report from Chicago.
Court sides with Catholic charity
in religious-rights case over
unemployment taxes
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a unanimous ruling in a religious rights case, finding that a Catholic charity in Wisconsin can't be required to pay unemployment taxes when other religious groups are exempt.
The high court said the state's tax decisions created an advantage for groups with a more overtly religious tone in their daily work, a violation of the First Amendment.
"It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'" Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. "There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one."
Wisconsin argued the Catholic Charities Bureau has paid the tax for more than 50 years and doesn't qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn't involve religious teachings. Much of the groups' funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers.
Catholic Charities, though, said that it qualifies because its services to people who are disabled, low-income or elderly are motivated by religious beliefs and that the state shouldn't be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the group, heralded the ruling as a major victory for religious liberty. "It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel.
The ruling is expected to allow the Catholic charity to pull out of the state's unemployment system in favor of one operated by the faith.
The ruling could have wider effects around the country. Many states have tax exemptions for religious organizations and some big employers, like hospital systems, that have religious affiliations. "It's awfully hard to read the tea leaves into the future, but this ruling could have seismic implications," said tax attorney Lance Jacobs, with the firm Forvis Mazars.
The group Freedom From Religion condemned the ruling. "Treating religiously affiliated nonprofits the same as all other nonprofits is not a violation of the First Amendment," co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said.
The charity appealed to the justices after Wisconsin's highest court ruled against it. President Donald Trump's administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charities.
The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.
The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.
Court blocks Mexico's $10B lawsuit alleging
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed.
The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime.
Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law.
But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. "It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion.
Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages.
Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. "There are two trials," she said. "We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know."
The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock.
Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year.
The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market.
The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence.
The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. "This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel.
A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices.
That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings.
Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed.
The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle.
The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice," he said.
___
Associated Press writer Fabiola Sánchez in Mexico City contributed to this story.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a unanimous ruling in a religious rights case, finding that a Catholic charity in Wisconsin can't be required to pay unemployment taxes when other religious groups are exempt.
The high court said the state's tax decisions created an advantage for groups with a more overtly religious tone in their daily work, a violation of the First Amendment.
"It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'" Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. "There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one."
Wisconsin argued the Catholic Charities Bureau has paid the tax for more than 50 years and doesn't qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn't involve religious teachings. Much of the groups' funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers.
Catholic Charities, though, said that it qualifies because its services to people who are disabled, low-income or elderly are motivated by religious beliefs and that the state shouldn't be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the group, heralded the ruling as a major victory for religious liberty. "It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel.
The ruling is expected to allow the Catholic charity to pull out of the state's unemployment system in favor of one operated by the faith.
The ruling could have wider effects around the country. Many states have tax exemptions for religious organizations and some big employers, like hospital systems, that have religious affiliations. "It's awfully hard to read the tea leaves into the future, but this ruling could have seismic implications," said tax attorney Lance Jacobs, with the firm Forvis Mazars.
The group Freedom From Religion condemned the ruling. "Treating religiously affiliated nonprofits the same as all other nonprofits is not a violation of the First Amendment," co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said.
The charity appealed to the justices after Wisconsin's highest court ruled against it. President Donald Trump's administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charities.
The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.
The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters.
Court blocks Mexico's $10B lawsuit alleging
US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed.
The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime.
Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law.
But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. "It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion.
Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages.
Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. "There are two trials," she said. "We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know."
The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock.
Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year.
The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market.
The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence.
The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. "This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel.
A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices.
That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings.
Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed.
The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle.
The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice," he said.
___
Associated Press writer Fabiola Sánchez in Mexico City contributed to this story.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
