The Supreme Court term begins this month, and, as of now, it does not appear to be as action-packed for religious liberty as this past term. However, at least one important case is in the hopper, and several are in the pipeline. And, of course, all is overshadowed by the presumed replacement of Justice Ginsburg
Outrageous! A professor at a major university “came clean” and admitted that she has been falsely claiming for years that she has “Black” blood. The brickbats came out, although it wasn’t entirely clear why. Because she had taken an affirmative action slot from someone who otherwise would have had it? Because she wasn’t one of
The majority opinion in Bostock was surreal. How could six very intelligent people say that discrimination on account of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? Justice Gorsuch reached that conclusion [delete] because, if an employer wouldn’t fire a man for sleeping with a woman but would fire a woman
Chief Justice Roberts has been the center of attention recently, whipsawing both liberals and conservatives with his various opinions. He sided with Justice Gorsuch and the four “liberals” on the bench in ruling that “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” and he wrote a somewhat baffling
The Supreme Court in Bostock v. Comstock County and two linked cases decided that, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed employment discrimination on the basis of “sex,” it included discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, freely admitted that the legislators in 1964 didn’t have
The Supreme Court has accepted a case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, that presents the question, among others, of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, issued in 1990, should be overruled. Smith held that, when a person challenges application of a law of general applicability on the ground that it restricts the person’s
The Supreme Court Will Consider Whether a State Can Deny a Tax Credit for Scholarship Contributions Solely Because Some Are Later Provided to Religious Schools
A state may not refuse tax credits for contributions solely because some resulting scholarships go to religious schools.
Justice Thomas in two concurrences to denial of cert excoriates the Court’s abortion case law.