From: Breaking Legal News
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday in a challenge to the
landmark Voting Rights Act, exempting a small Texas governing
authority from a key provision of the civil rights law but
side-stepping the larger constitutional issue. The court, with only
one justice in dissent, avoided the major constitutional questions
raised in the case over the federal governments most powerful tool
to prevent discriminatory voting changes since the mid-1960s.The
law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a
history of discrimination in voting to get approval in advance of
making changes in the way elections are conducted.The court said
that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in
Austin, Texas, can opt out of the advance approval requirement,
reversing a lower federa...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
US Supreme Court issues first ruling to limit Voting Rights Act
The 8-1 ruling by the US Supreme Court Monday on the Voting Rights
Act has been greeted with a mixture of relief and praise from many
civil rights groups and liberal commentators. acircItacircs fair to
say this case was brought to tear the heart out of the Voting
Rights Act, and today that effort failed,acirc said Debo Adegbile,
lead attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. But
a closer examination of the decision and the political context in
which it was made reveals that the court has opened the door to
gutting the most fundamental US civil rights law, whose passage in
1965 marked a watershed in the struggle against institutionalized
racial discrimination.In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility
District Number One v. Holder, a local utility district in Austin,
Texas sued ...
Supreme Court Ruling Opens Federal Courts to More Class Actions
In a significant blow to business, the Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday that certain class actions barred or limited by state
laws may proceed in federal courts. A 5-4 majority of the Court
held that the federal class action rule, Civil Procedure Rule 23,
trumped a New York law prohibiting class actions that seek to
recover statutory penalties or minimal recoveries. The case
presented a classic civil procedure conundrum that only law
professors could love, and produced splintered voting and unusual
alignments of the justices.
White firefighters win Supreme Court appeal
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New
Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their
race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
endorsed as an appeals court judge. The ruling could alter
employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove
discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.New
Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no
African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to
be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court
said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to
avoid a lawsuit from minorities.The ruling could give Sotomayor's
critics fresh ammunition two weeks before her Senate confirmation
hearing. Conservatives say it shows she is...
Court hears arguments about cross on park land
The Supreme Court appeared divided between conservatives and
liberals Wednesday over whether a cross on federal park land in
California violates the Constitution.Several conservative justices
seemed open to the Obama administration's argument that Congress'
decision to transfer to private ownership the land on which the
cross sits in the Mojave National Preserve should take care of any
constitutional questions."Isn't that a sensible interpretation" of
a court order prohibiting the cross' display on government
property? Justice Samuel Alito asked.The liberal justices, on the
other hand, indicated that they agree with a federal appeals court
that ruled that the land transfer was a sort of end run around the
First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of
religion.Justice Anthon...
Judge's ruling ready in Calif. gay marriage case
The first word on whether California's same-sex marriage ban passes
scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution is scheduled to come down
Wednesday when a federal judge issues his ruling in a landmark
case.Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has reached a decision
on whether to uphold or overturn the voter-approved ban known as
Proposition 8 and plans to publish his opinion in the afternoon,
court spokeswoman Lynn Fuller said.His verdict comes in response to
a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San
Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement
on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.Proposition 8, which
outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state
Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in
November 200...
