Supreme Court Review
July 2, 2020
The United States Supreme Court has had a very busy and impactful session, from decisions involving DACA to the LGBTQ community. We sat down with ASU law professor, Paul Bender and attorney, Stephen Montoya to review the high-court’s session.
For more on the impactful rulings mentioned, check out some of our resources below on each of the four cases.
Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County, Georgia. After his employment was terminated, Bostock sued the county for discrimination because of sexual orientation. Bostock argued his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court reversed the decision of the 11th Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.”
June Medical Servies, a clinic in Shreveport, Louisianna, challenged Act 620 in court. ACT 620 required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed. The court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 5-4 ruling, holding ACT 620 was unconstitutional.
The Regents of the University of California sued DHS in the Northern District of California. The Regents alleged the decision to rescind DACA violated the APA and denied respondents’ right to equal protection and due process. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that DHS’s decision to end DACA did not properly follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Petitioners Kendra Espinoza and others are low-income mothers who applied for scholarships to keep their children enrolled in Stillwater Christian School, in Kalispell, Montana. The Montana legislature enacted a tax credit to individuals and businesses who donate to private, nonprofit scholarship organizations. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.