Supreme Court Cases - News & Opinion on Latest Rulings

In three cases argued last week—Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC—the Supreme Court confronted this question: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of [an] individual’s … sex” forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help efforts to rein in police seizure of property from criminal suspects. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion in favor of Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana. Police seized Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help efforts to rein in police seizure of property from criminal suspects. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion in favor of Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana. Police seized Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

In an 8-1 decision on Tuesday, the US Supreme Court issued a mostly procedural ruling against Florida's death penalty system, ultimately requiring that the state change how it issues death sentences. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, came down to procedure. Florida law requires that a jury merely recommend whether a death sentence should be applied in a capital case, with the judge making the final decision on the sentence. The US Supreme Court, in a decision that overturned the Florida Supreme Court, ruled that this scheme violates the Sixth Amendment because it takes away the defendant's right to have his sentence based on a jury's verdict.

In my previous column, I took issue with liberals who take a “purist” view of financial regulation—who believe it’s wrong to appoint regulators or elect lawmakers who take campaign contributions from the financial industry, or who’ve worked in that industry in the past, or who won’t pledge never to work for it in the future. The idea is to keep regulation free of corrupting influence, but in fact their position makes it less likely that we regulate the industry well. I wrote about three of the reasons in my last column: If you worry too much about purity, you lose the inside knowledge of the industry that can make regulators more effective, as well as a personal connection with firms that can actually increase the likelihood they’ll comply with the rules.

In a major defeat for the National Rifle Association, the Supreme Court decided this week not to take up a challenge to one of the toughest gun-control statutes in America, a law on the books in Highland Park, Illinois.

In a powerfully written dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the thinking of some of her fellow justices after the court dismissed a case involving a police officer fatally shooting a fleeing suspect in Texas. According to Sotomayor, it was a case of “shoot first, think later.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a fourth dispute over the Affordable Care Act in five years, as the high court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the objections from faith-based hospitals, colleges, and charities—led by female Catholic organization Little Sisters of the Poor—to the law’s mandate to cover contraceptive care for employees. The case will likely be argued this winter.