Yes, the court said in a 5-4 ruling in Seila Law vs. In dissent were Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.ĭid Congress violate the separation of powers and the president’s executive authority when it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010 as an “independent bureau,” which would be led by a director who was appointed by the president but could not be fired except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the court, said the discriminatory policy violates the 1st Amendment and its protection for the free exercise of religion. The Montana Supreme Court had blocked the $500 grants on the grounds that the state’s constitution, like those of most states, forbids giving tax money to churches or their affiliates. That is unconstitutional discrimination based on religion, the court said in a 5-4 ruling in Espinoza vs. May a state exclude church schools from a state-sponsored tuition aid program that supports students in other private schools, or does that exclusion amount to unconstitutional discrimination against religion? In dissent were Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Jeff Sessions and his questionable claim that the policy was illegal from the start. While Trump could change policies, his administration did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, the court said in Department of Homeland Security vs. He said that while the president had the legal authority to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, his administration failed to give a reasoned explanation for ending a policy that encouraged about 700,000 immigrants to register with the government to obtain work permits and avoid deportation. No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented.ĭid Trump lawfully repeal the Obama-era order that shielded young immigrants who were brought to this country as children? He agreed that lawmakers in 1964 may not have intended to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer employees, but he said the court relies on the words of the law, not the aims of the lawmakers. Justice Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion in Bostock vs. And the court decided that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination based on sex. It says employers may not fire or refuse to hire employees based on their race, religion, sex or national origin. Yes, the court said in a 6-3 ruling citing the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kavanaugh.ĭo the federal civil rights laws protect LGBTQ employees from discrimination in the workplace nationwide? In dissent were Justices Thomas, Alito, Neil M. The chief justice concurred in the outcome based on precedent: The court had struck down a nearly identical Texas law in 2016. Breyer, joined by the three other liberal justices, said the admitting privileges rule would do more harm than good for pregnant women because it would likely result in the closing of all but one of the state’s abortion providers. No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling in June Medical Services vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |