Three major Supreme Court cases were decided this week on different but important topics. I’ve broken down what happened in these cases, and what they may mean for the communities that they impact.
New Protections For LGBT+ Workers
Last Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in the cases Altitude Express v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT workers on the basis of their sexuality. Before this ruling, only 21 out of 50 states had laws prohibiting discrimination based on “sexual orientation or gender identity”. The 6-3 majority ruling came as a surprise to many as the current Supreme Court has been labeled “conservative”, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Gorsuch joining the more “liberal” justices, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, wrote the opinion for the majority, stating that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex”, discrimination based on sexuality is included within discrimination based on sex. Justice Gorsuch stated that “an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex”. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does include protections for “religious employers”, and Justice Gorsuch also stated that the “First Amendment allows religious groups latitude in their employment decisions”, so those employed by institutions such as religious private schools may still face hiring or other workplace discrimination. While this case was a landmark ruling for the LGBT+ community and the first case to specifically address transgender equality, trans people and the LGBT+ community are still in danger of discrimination–the Trump Administration continues to press a rollback of Obama-era regulations that protect trans people from discrimination in healthcare settings.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline will cross Appalachian Trail
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline will be able to cross the Appalachian Trail with a 7-2 majority in United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. The pipeline would run for 600 miles through West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Because the Appalachian Trail is on federal land, the central question of the case was if any federal agency had the ability to grant the permit for the pipeline. Under the Obama administration, the US Forest Service requested regulators to find alternate paths for the pipeline that would not cross the Trail; however, this was reversed by the Trump administration, and the Forest Service approved a permit that would allow the pipeline to cross under the trail in 2017. In response to the ruling, Dominion Energy, the company developing the pipeline, stated that “for decades, more than 50 other pipelines have safely crossed the Trail without disturbing its public use”. However, other environmental organizations have expressed concern for both the environment and those living in Appalachia–in response to the ruling, The Southern Environmental Law Center stated that “this unnecessary pipeline will not only harm the mountains, forests and waterways in its path – it will also disrupt the lives of the people living and working along its 600-mile long route and lock a new generation into decades more of fossil fuel consumption.” Despite the SCOTUS ruling, the Pipeline still faces three other cases in court to determine the validity of the permit, and according to NPR, is still awaiting permits from other agencies.
Protection for DREAMers
On Thursday, The Supreme Court blocked the Trump Administration’s effort to dismantle the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program in a 5-4 ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
In a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle, DACA recipient Valerie Blanco said “I’m shaking. I have no words…I was not expecting this. I thought it was going to go the other way.”
The program has provided temporary legal status to over 700,000 people (referred to as DREAMers) who were brought to the United States before the age of 16 under the conditions that they graduated high school and/or were honorably discharged from the military, and additionally passed a background check. Those who are eligible can renew their status every two years. This decision rebukes the administration’s 2017 decision to eliminate the program on the basis that it was “illegal and unconstitutional”.
The decision was more so based on the Trump Administration’s methods of rescinding DACA, rather than the program itself–Chief Justice John Roberts stated that “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies….the wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on ‘a reasoned explanation for its action.’ ” For this reason, the protection under this ruling may only be temporary if the Trump Administration provides a more “convincing” justification for rescinding the program, and more direct action will be needed at the local, state, or federal level to protect DREAMers from deportation.
Looking Ahead
Within the next week, there is expected to be a decision regarding abortion rights; specifically, SCOTUS will consider a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals in the case of a medical emergency.
- How can you be a better advocate for survivors this semester? An Interview with the Every Voice Coalition - August 7, 2020
- How are environmental racism and COVID-19 connected? - July 28, 2020
- What is Happening in Portland? - July 21, 2020