© Copyright 2013, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
- Language
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
civil rights cases in the supreme court
More than 10.000 documents for civil rights cases in the supreme court
-
Does federal funding disqualify faith-based groups from using religious criteria in employment decisions and policies - an allowance they enjoy under both civil-rights law and Supreme Court rulings in cases not involving federal funding? Leave aside the fact that existing civil-rights law and Supreme Court rulings support religious hiring rights, and that only one federal court, a district court in Mississippi, has ruled that religious employment discretion is forfeited with the acceptance of government funds.
-
Nearing the fifteenth birthday of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), most commentators believe that its overall effects have been disappointing. By this point, there is a standard set of explanations for the ADA's failures: the Supreme Court's limiting decisions relating to the definition of disability, the limits of antidiscrimination law, and the economic failures of the accommodation mandate. This Article challenges the assumption, nearly universal until now, that these explanations and recommendations apply equally to the entire ADA. Through a first-ever quantitative analysis of Title II and III cases, this Article shows that these cases -- unlike title I cases -- fare relatively well in the courts compared with other civil rights statutes. This Article suggests that the maj...
-
Clause 1. Cases and Controversies; Grants of Jurisdiction . Claus... too far to extend the jurisdiction of the Court generally to cases arising under the Constitution,... able to request advisory opinions of the Supreme Court. This intent of the Framers was early effec... case arises only when a party asserts his rights "in a form prescribed by law." "By cases and cont... that entitles them to a percentage of any civil penalty assessed for violation, have been held to ...
-
.92 I. Introduction In 2009, the Supreme Court decided Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case on appeal from the Eighth Circuit.1 In Gross, the Court found that the mixed-motive burden-shifting standard first announced in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins2 is never available to ADEA plaintiffs, and that a plaintiff must instead "prove . . . that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action. Part VI discusses a number of early cases that address the impact of Gross: two widely-cited Seventh Circuit opinions applying Gross to a § 1983 claim and an ADA claim; a Fifth Circuit mixed-motive Title VII case finding that Gross does not preclude mixed-motive Title VII retaliation claims;5 and four mixed-motive Title VII ret...
-
... UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. FOR THE THI... our review of orders remanding removed cases to state courts. That is only partially true. Ordi... on appeal or otherwise, except [in civil rights cases]." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, thee Supreme Court has explained that the only remands that can...
-
In the 2009-2010 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it matters whether a criminal defense lawyer correctly counsels a client about the fact that the client faces deportation as a result of a guilty plea. Under prevailing constitutional norms in almost every jurisdiction, a lawyer does not have a duty to tell her client about many serious but "collateral" consequences of a guilty plea. Yet, in every jurisdiction that has considered the issue, that very same lawyer will run afoul of her duties if she affirmatively misrepresents a collateral consequence—every jurisdiction, that is, except Kentucky. The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently held that when there is no duty to warn about a consequence because it is collateral, misadvice about that same consequence is not a consti...
... issue of constitutional informational rights in the guilty-plea context. 11 Its decision will ... about collateral consequences in criminal cases. 13 Effective-assistance-of-counsel jurisprudence... registration, post-sentence involuntary civil commitment as a "sexually violent predator," the l...
-
INTRODUCTION Without doubt, the Supreme Court's most prominent decision so far under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts has been Citizens United v. FEC.1 This 5-4 decision, striking down corporate campaign spending limits against a First Amendment challenge2 and overruling two earlier Supreme Court precedents,3 has been the subject not only of sustained academic commentary and editorial criticism4 but also of controversial criticism from President Obama in his 2010 State of the Union speech in the presence of a number of Supreme Court Justices.5 Critics have condemned Citizens United as the decision of an "activist" Supreme Court, while supporters have cheered the Court for correcting earlier errant precedent in conflict with the First Amendment.6 As Barry Friedman has pointed...
... for the overruling of precedent in future cases or (2) Congress to overrule Supreme Court statutor... to overturning a key portion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), widely considered a crown jewel of the civil rights movement, and overruling earlier cases goin...
-
In June, 2009, the US Supreme Court issued a controversial 5-4 decision involving the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee "because of such individual's age." Gross v. FLB Financial Services Inc was a mixed-motives disparate treatment case, in which both discriminatory and legitimate factors allegedly accounted for FBL's decision to demote a 54-year-old employee. Speaking for the five conservative Justices, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the argument that the analytical formula that applies in mixed-motives cases brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act also applies in ADEA cases. Details of the case are presented.
-
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court begins a new term today with the most important civil rights agenda in years on the horizon and amid intensified scrutiny of the relationship between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his fellow conservatives. If last term's blockbuster cases involving immigration and President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act centered on the reach of the federal government's powers, this term offers a chance to cast the 21st century meaning of the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.
