The American Law Journal

09/17/2020

It's Constitution Day! Visit the National Constitution Center's page to learn more about the ratification of this document, key to our republic.

https://constitutioncenter.org/

06/15/2020

In a 6-3 opinion by the Supreme Court today: Gay, transgender workers are protected by federal law forbidding discrimination on the basis of s*x according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. **Watch our Emmy-nominated "Legal History of LGBT Rights in 5 minutes."

The justices held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII, beside protecting against workplace discrimination because of race, also prohibits discrimination “because of s*x.” The question was whether that means only that women may not be treated worse than men, and vice versa, or that it also forbids discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. The combined cases are Bostock v. Clayton v. County, Georgia.

This is the feature report from The American Law Journal program "Will Gay Marriage Be the Law of the Land?" that was nominated for an Emmy award in the Mid-...

05/04/2020

Today at 10:00 a.m. ET, for the first time in the history of the Court, the public can listen live to Supreme Court arguments. C-Span and others are carrying the audio, but for a list of cases and the ability to listen, go to the site below. Live arguments are expected to continue to May 13. The Court has been extremely reluctant for this type of public access, providing only recently audio files after the argument. Will this open the door to live video in the future?

The high court begins two weeks of oral arguments — the first time the proceedings will have live audio and the first occasion on which the arguments themselves will be conducted by phone.

04/23/2020

The Supreme Court issued an opinion today on an important environmental issue: Does the Clean Water Act require the federal government to regulate some groundwater pollutants that make their way into navigable waters such as oceans and rivers? The justices say yes, meaning an EPA permit is required of any entity that has “any addition” of any pollutant from “any point source” to “navigable waters" despite efforts for less regulation. No loopholes, no free passes.

03/30/2020

The American Bar Association fact checks who has the power to quarantine and issue "stay home" orders.

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2020 — The American Bar Association has posted an ABA Legal Fact Check that answers a question that has been raised frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic: Who has the legal authority to order such stringent actions as quarantines and stay at home directives.

03/16/2020

Today from the Press Office of The Supreme Court: "The Supreme Court is postponing the oral arguments currently scheduled for the March session (March 23-25 and March 30-April 1). The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances.

The Court will hold its regularly scheduled Conference on Friday, March 20. Some Justices may participate remotely by telephone. The Court will issue its regularly scheduled Order List on Monday, March 23 at 9:30 a.m. The list will be posted on the Court’s Website at that time"

In keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19, the Supreme Court is postponing the oral arguments currently scheduled for the March session (March 23-25 and March 30-April 1).  The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of ...

03/12/2020

Just announced, effective immediately the Supreme Court building is closed to the public*. According to CNN and other news outlets "a Court spokesperson said the decision to close was made out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees. The building will remain open for official business, and case filing deadlines are not extended. The Court will continue to work but justices are not scheduled to take the bench in person for oral arguments until March 23."
*Since the public will not have access to attend the arguments, the "Fix the Court" advocacy group says "the Court should at a minimum permit the public to listen to a livestream of argument audio from its website." Introduced in February of this year, H.R. 6017, the Twenty-First Century Courts Act, would require among other things same-day audio at SCOTUS within one year, live SCOTUS audio within two. The circumstances facing the Court today may well result in live audio.

The US Supreme Court building will close to the public beginning Thursday afternoon until further notice.

01/16/2020

In an attempt to protect contract workers in California, the state passed a bill that may have effectively killed the gig economy. Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) forces companies operating in California to hire and pay taxes and benefits to employees previously classified as 1099 contractors. Technology companies including Uber, Lyft and Grubhub are fighting the bill, while other companies have laid off many of their contractors. New York, New Jersey and other states are looking at similar bills.

If you do not live in California, you might not have heard of Assembly Bill 5. But, if you are a gig worker, you should be paying close attention.

01/15/2020

RICHMOND — Both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly passed the Equal Rights Amendment Wednesday, fulfilling a promise that helped Democrats seize control of the legislature and marking a watershed moment in the nearly century-long effort to add protections for women to the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans who blocked passage for years say action is too late to change U.S. Constitution.

01/15/2020

The case in which the justices already agreed to hear arguments and decide is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. The gun association challenged the city’s rules that barred licensed gun owners from transporting their guns to shooting ranges and second homes outside New York City.

Two other petitions filed in the high court:

Daniel v. Armslist: Armslist is a free classified website for purchasing fi****ms and other hunting equipment. The website was sued after a man used a firearm purchased from an individual who listed on the site shot his wife and two of her coworkers. The victim had obtained a protective order against her husband and he was prohibited from purchasing a gun.

Re*****on Arms Co. v. Soto: Re*****on has asked the high court to reverse a Connecticut Supreme Court decision that allowed the families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to sue the gun manufacturer. Typically, gun manufacturers have federal immunity protecting them from suits resulting from the criminal act of others using their products. However, the immunity is revoked if the knowingly violates a state or federal law. Sandy Hook Families claims Re*****on violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by depicting the gun used in the shootings as a weapon of war in multiple advertisements.

A majority of the justices have shown no appetite for revisiting the Second Amendment. But keep an eye on these two petitions recently filed in the high court.

01/14/2020

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the most significant education cases in decades: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Centering around a modest tax-credit scholarship program in Montana, Espinoza could have major ramifications for educational-choice programs across America, which help nearly half a million students attend private schools.

In deciding Espinoza, the Court has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses. In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry, even if other justifications seem neutral.

Thirty-seven states still have Blaine Amendments on the books. The Supreme Court now has a chance to get rid of them for good.

01/13/2020

This term, the justices have heard at least one blockbuster case every month. That pattern is likely to continue in the next four argument sessions this year. Before taking a look forward at the term’s second half, here’s a quick look back at key cases already argued and awaiting the justices’ final decisions. Those decisions could be announced any day now.

Here's what to keep your eye on as the Supreme Court begins the second half of a potentially historic term, plus a few cases you may have missed in 2019.