Supreme Court 2020s: on Civil Rights
Ketanji Brown Jackson:
Upheld program for disadvantaged small businesses
In Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense, Judge Jackson considered an equal protection challenge under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to a provision of the Small Business Act that established a business development program for
socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.
Judge Jackson rejected the challenge, holding that the plaintiff's facial challenge required showing that "no set of circumstances" existed under which the challenged provision would be valid,
or that the provision lacked "any plainly legitimate sweep," and plaintiff failed to meet that high bar.
Source: Cong. Research Service on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Mar 14, 2022
Ketanji Brown Jackson:
Nomination endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign
The Supreme Court has historically played an outsized role in affirming the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and other marginalized communities. After a careful review of her record, it is clear that Jackson's demonstrated fidelity to the
principles of our Constitution instills confidence that she will continue Justice Breyer's legacy as a champion of equality. The Human Rights Campaign is proud to support Jackson to be the newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Source: Human Rights Campaign on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
Ketanji Brown Jackson:
Served on board for school that condemned LGBTQ people
She once worked as an adviser for a Baptist school in the Maryland suburbs that had a mission statement against LGBTQ people and abortion. Jackson said. "I was not aware that the school had a public website or that any statement of beliefs was
posted on the school's website at the time of my service. My service on the advisory school board primarily involved planning for school fundraising activities for the benefit of enrolled students."
Source: Washington Blade on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings
Feb 25, 2022
Brett Kavanaugh:
In the eyes of government, we are just one race here
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have opposed racial preferences in the past. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's views are more complex. As a lawyer in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, he worked on an amicus brief
in the Supreme Court case, Rice v. Cayetano. Rice challenged the constitutionality of a rule permitting only native Hawaiians to vote in elections for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that allocates benefits to them.
Kavanaugh and his co-counsel argued it was unconstitutional to use race as a voter qualification. In an article in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that the court should follow a constitutional principle laid out by Justice Antonin Scalia in a case
involving racial preferences in employment. "Under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here," Scalia wrote.
Source: National Law Journal on 2022 SCOTUS Affirmative Action
Jan 24, 2022
Neil Gorsuch:
Ruled against claimants in employment discrimination cases
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have not ruled on affirmative action cases as appellate judges. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have opposed racial preferences in the past while
Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are viewed as generally supportive.Civil rights groups were worried about Gorsuch when he was nominated to the high court mainly because of his rulings in employment discrimination cases that
often went against claimants, and an article he wrote in 2005 in the conservative National Review. In that article, he took a narrow view of civil rights impact litigation, writing that "American liberals have become
addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box" as the chief means for their social agenda.
Source: National Law Journal on 2022 SCOTUS Affirmative Action
Jan 24, 2022
Nancy Pelosi:
Ending LGBTQ job discrimination a victory for our democracy
By a vote of 6-3, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. It upheld rulings from lower courts that
said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.The transgender case ruled on by the court involved Aimee Stephens, who was dismissed from her job at a Michigan funeral home two weeks after she told the company she was
transgender. Her boss explained she failed to follow the dress code.
The Trump administration had urged the court to rule that Title VII does not cover cases like these. "The ordinary meaning of 'sex' is biologically male or female; it does not
include sexual orientation,"
Democratic leaders also praised the decision, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calling it "a victory for the LGBTQ community, for our democracy and for our fundamental values of equality and justice for all."
Source: NBC News on 2020 SCOTUS rulings
Jun 15, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022