|
|
|
Feminist Court Watch
Supreme Court Cases to Watch
Virginia v. Black, No. 01-1107
This case will determine whether a Virginia law that prohibits
cross burning violates the First Amendment. The law states that
cross burning is illegal only when there is an intent to intimidate
present. If this statute is found to violate the First Amendment,
similar statutes protecting individuals from hate crimes or gender
based violence may also be at risk.
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1118
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1119
In these 2 companion cases, the Supreme Court will determine whether
the forcible blockading, invasions, destruction of property, and
physical attacks orchestrated by Scheidler, Operation Rescue, and
their co-conspirators against women's health care clinics qualify
as extortion under the Hobbs Act and whether these attacks can be
enjoined under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act. The jury, federal district judge, and panel of the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals have all ruled in favor of NOW. Women's
rights advocates fear that a victory by the anti-abortion extremist
defendants in this case will embolden those who would attack abortion
clinics.
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, No. 01-1368
This case will determine whether state employees are protected
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which guarantees employees
12 weeks of unpaid leave to address family or medical problems.
Passed as a result of vigorous lobbying and work by the women's
rights community, the FMLA is a key step towards women's equality
in the workplace because it allows women, who are still overwhelmingly
responsible for family care, to address their family obligations
without losing their jobs. When the FMLA was passed, lawmakers clearly
intended that its provisions would apply to state employees. However,
in the intervening years, a series of remarkably conservative 5-4
decisions by the Supreme Court have dramatically curtailed the federal
government's ability to protect state employees from discrimination
on the basis of religion and disability. If the Court rules that
the FMLA cannot protect state employees, it will be the first time
these reactionary "state's rights" arguments have been
applied to a statute based on protection against gender discrimination.
If the state is successful in claiming immunity, the result could
be a wave of attacks on other protections against gender discrimination
such as the Equal Pay Act.
Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102
This case questions the constitutionality of Texas’ sodomy
law, which makes oral or anal sex between same-sex partners –
but not opposite-sex partners – a crime. The first question
before the court is whether the law is unconstitutional because
it punishes homosexual couples and not heterosexual couples, which
will test similar same-sex-only sodomy laws that exist. The second
constitutional question is whether the law is a violation of the
right to privacy, calling into question all sodomy laws and the
Supreme Court's own prior decision on this issue. If the Supreme
Court decides the right to privacy argument in favor of the plaintiffs
and rules that all sodomy laws are unconstitutional, that ruling
will strengthen the right to privacy in general, which in turn will
help protect the right to reproductive freedom.
Gratz v. Bollinger, No. 02-516
Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241
These two related cases challenge the University of Michigan's
policy of using race as a "plus factor" like geographic
diversity, athletic talent, musical talent, or alumni connections
in its admission decisions in order to increase the diversity of
its student body. In its last opinion on affirmative action and
school admissions, which occurred in 1978, the Supreme Court approved
this type of "plus factor" program. Since 1978, several
liberal Supreme Court justices have been replaced by much more conservative
jurists. The current Court is hostile to civil rights and affirmative
action. States that have banned affirmative action in their universities
(California and Texas) have seen a tremendous decrease in the number
of minority students. If the University's program is ruled unconstitutional,
it could have drastic results for the higher education opportunities
of all minorities.
|
