Does Religion Give You License To Discriminate? | Trump Demands Ginsburg & Sotomayor Recuse Themselves From Cases Relating To Him

February 25, 2020

In a “wide-ranging” news conference in New Delhi today, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP said that JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBURG and SONIA SOTOMAYOR should recuse themselves from any Trump-related cases. He also responded to Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent in which she noted his administration has a habit of turning to SCOTUS for help after losing in lower courts. In her dissent she wrote, “Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each.” She said the Supreme Court was partly to blame because it has been all too quick to help the Trump administration in its times of need.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline crossing the Appalachian Trail to deliver gas from West Virginia through Virginia to North Carolina. The Supreme Court has to decide whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was correct when it said the Forest Service isn’t entitled to granting a right of way for the pipeline, citing a federal law that bars agencies from authorizing pipelines in “lands in the National Park System.” Some of the justices toyed with the idea of the trail being different than the earth beneath it, thereby allowing it to pass under national park land.

David Savage with the Los Angeles Times reports on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case involving Philadelphia’s termination of a contract with Catholic Social Services over the group’s refusal to place foster children with same-sex couples. Savage writes, “The case could lead to a major change in church-state law. The justices said they would consider overruling a 1990 opinion that held that people could not claim a special exemption from the law based on their religious beliefs. Then, the court said general and neutral laws should be upheld, so long as they did not target people because of their religion. That opinion, in Employment Division of Oregon vs. Smith, was written by the late JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA. It once reflected the view of most conservatives that religious minorities, like the Amish or the Seventh Day Adventists, were not entitled to be exempted from ordinary laws…In the past decade, however, Scalia’s opinion has been challenged by conservative Christians who object to laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or that require employers or pharmacies to provide contraceptives.”

Mark Joseph Stern with Slate also looks into the new case out of Philadelphia concerning the policy that bars the referral of foster children to religious agencies that won’t work with same-sex couples. He said, “That case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, is an ideal vehicle for this assault on LGBTQ rights.”

Ian Millhiser with Vox takes a look at the history of the First Amendment’s free exercise law to help us better understand the context behind the Supreme Court’s new case on whether people with religious objections can ignore a law. Millhiser points out, “It is very likely, moreover, that the Court will use Fulton to significantly expand the rights of religious objectors. Shortly after Scalia died in 2016, JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO penned an opinion endorsing an expansion of religious objectors’ rights, and that opinion was joined by CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS and JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS. Those three justices are now joined by two conservative Trump appointees, Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch. While it is unclear just how far the court will go in Fulton, it is now likely that there are five votes to hold that organizations like CSS may discriminate against same-sex couples.”

“The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the parents of a Mexican youth who was shot to death in Mexico by a US Border Patrol agent standing on American soil cannot try to sue the agent in US courts for damages. The ruling is a win for the agent and the United States government, who argued the case should not be allowed to go forward. The decision will make it harder for individuals to sue federal officers when their constitutional rights are violated.” Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole with CNN report on the 5-4 ruling in which justices split along ideological lines.

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared open to reinstating $4.3 billion in punitive damages against Sudan in lawsuits accusing it of complicity in the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people.” Andrew Chung with Reuters reports, “Eight justices heard about an hour of arguments in an appeal — filed by people injured and relatives of people killed in the attacks — of a 2017 lower court ruling that blocked the plaintiffs from collecting the punitive damages imposed against Sudan alongside about $6 billion in compensatory damages. JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH did not participate in the case.”

The Supreme Court today denied a new sentencing hearing for an Arizona prisoner convicted of two brutal murders nearly three decades ago. JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH wrote the 5-4 decision from which all liberal justices dissented. Lawyers for the Arizona man had argued that he suffered from severe abuse as a child — something that wasn’t considered when he was sentenced to die for killing two people. The lawyers also argued he should have been sentenced by a jury, not a judge. Richard Wolf with USA Today reports.