Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Analysis: Supreme Court update
There is no dramatic sit-in demonstration planned by this weekend’s March on Washington for the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was there, during the 1987 March on Washington, that one of the movement’s largest and most intense moments of direct action was staged.
Thousands of gay civil rights supporters stood together at the bottom of the court’s entrance and systematically defied police orders to stay off the court’s open gathering plaza. In protest of the high court’s 1986 decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, upholding state laws prohibiting consenting same-sex sexual relations, hundreds of the demonstrators stepped onto the plaza, sat down, and were arrested.The 2009 March plans no such demonstration directed at the U.S. Supreme Court. In large part, that is because the high court has since reversed itself on Hardwick. It ruled, in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas decision, that state “sodomy laws” were unconstitutional. It also ruled, in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, that state laws cannot be based on animus towards gay people.
But the Supreme Court has not become a reliably hospitable place for LGBT people. And while gay legal groups do not –so far– see any cases before the court that they intend to become involved in this session, there are scattered cases involving LGBT issues.
The Supreme Court refused during its official opening day orders Monday to hear the appeal of a Michigan school district which was seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parents of a student who was being repeatedly harassed as a “queer” and “faggot.” The 6th Circuit federal appeals court ruled in January that the case, Hudson Area Schools v. Patterson, should proceed to trial.
Court records indicate other students repeatedly harassed the Patterson student, calling “queer,” “gay,” and “faggot,” writing anti-gay slurs and drawings on his books and locker, and urinating on his clothes. Despite the Patterson student seeking help from school officials, the harassment escalated with a student sexually assaulting him in a locker room.
The assailant was eventually dismissed but the coach in charge of the locker room later commented to the Patterson son and others in the locker room that they should “not joke around with guys who can’t take a man joke.”
Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the school’s appeal, the parents’ lawsuit will now be heard in a federal district court in Detroit.
Religious crusades
The Supreme Court also refused Monday to hear an appeal from an Episcopal Church in Los Angeles that sought to break away from the national denomination because the denomination allowed the consecration of a gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The St. James parish in the diocese of Los Angeles broke away from the denomination in 2003 and tried to take the church property with them. But the denomination fought the parish’s efforts to take the property, and the California Supreme Court agreed.
By refusing to hear the St. James Parish appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court has left the ruling of the California court intact. But the California decision affects no other states, and, importantly, there are similar cases percolating in other states.
For instance, the entire Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, has a lawsuit underway attempting to acquire church property with its separation. And, the Supreme Court’s refusal of St. James v. Episcopal Diocese does not preclude it from taking up a similar case from another state.
There are several cases reaching the high court now that test the government’s power to regulate or support the behavior of people and entities who offer religious or other First Amendment justifications for their actions.
In Choose Life v. Illinois, an anti-abortion group petitioned the state for the right to have its motto “Choose Life” stamped onto a series of automobile license plates. By state law, the group needed two things to make that happen: several thousand signatures from residents willing to buy license plates with the specialized slogan, and approval from the general assembly.
Choose Life got 25,000 signatures –a number that “far exceeded” the minimum required, according to court documents. But the plan was shot down in a legislative subcommittee. The anti-abortion group filed a lawsuit, arguing that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals ruled that the state had a “reasonable rationale that messages on specialty license plates give the appearance of having the government’s endorsement, and Illinois does not wish to be perceived as endorsing any position on the subject of abortion.” The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the group’s appeal of that decision.
The court also refused Monday to hear an appeal, Frazier v. Smith, from the parents of a Florida public high school student who refused to stand in class during the pledge of allegiance. The school policy said that was OK, but only if the student, Cameron Frazier, brought in a written request from his parents asking that he be excused from participating.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s that a state cannot force students to recite the Pledge. But Cameron refused to even stand and his parents sued, saying the requirement to stand also violated his First Amendment rights. The 11th Circuit split the baby: It said the school could not require students to stand during the pledge but that it could require parental permission for students who chose to exercise their right not to stand.
Cases involving the pledge are springing up all over the country, many testing whether the words “under God” violate the constitutional rights of students who don’t believe in god.
A federal judge in New Hampshire last month ruled that federal law does not require anyone to recite the pledge and that a state law requiring school children to recite it was “a civic patriotic affirmation, not a religious exercise, and inclusion of the words ‘under God’ constitutes, at most, a form of ceremonial or benign deism.”
2009 Keen News Service
Deep in Austin, yes two straight heterosexual attorneys, conservatives by action, are preparing a Supreme Court challenge to Prop 8, in a machiavellian fashion.
Remember the CSSC challenge to Prop 8. Gloria Allred, straight hetero, and her law firm delivered to weak and failed anti-Prop 8 brief.
I think that we need more gays in law schools and less in classrooms.
As someone who has financially supported the case in NH and others, I would like to clarify. The reporter is correct, the theocratic judge in NH sought to have his cake and eat it too. In a nod to the SCOTUS he ruled no federal law can impose the pledge but tried to say NH’s local jurisdiction doing exactly the same thing is mere ceremony. There is no way this can stand and we are appealing.
It is a sad commentary on the political ideologies of our judiciary. He should know that ruling was untenable and that it made him out to be a judge chasing an ideology, someone not fit for the bench. I see this as bad as a judge ruling favorably on a family member’s case in clear violation of precedent.
Oh well, knuckle dragging theocrats are slowly being seen for what they are.
Randy, I don’t see deists as a religious group. They are “athiest light”. They basically couldn’t fathom how the universe was created so left open the option of a non-personal god, who has long left the scene and has no impact on the world anymore. A mere vestige of doubt, in my opinion. Over the years it has been dangerous, even life threatening, to admit disbelief and I think this is where Deism found its most strength.
Jujubees: no school i would willingly attend is run like a military! I don’t know what you mean by that. If you mean there are rules students must abide by, then why don’t you call our society Martial Law? I don’t see a difference.
I was one of the students who did not stand up for the illegal theocratic pledge. I argued with my parents, teachers and fellow students about it. I would have refused to stand even if they required a note from my parents which I would not give on principal. They knew me well enough to not challenge this.
Think about it: a young person knows that forcing kids to lie about our country (we are not, by constitution, “under god”…thanks McCarthy) has to first get his parents to say it is ok to refuse to lie? That is ridiculous and it will have to be re-addressed in a case that has better facts to support the correct outcome.
the pledge is illegal and Nedow will help us get it back to the original. It is simply child abuse to continue to force this on kids whose family’s don’t accept it or who do not themselves. They already have a very slim chance to not be brainwashed.
I wonder if everyone realizes “under god” was added in the middle of the last century in response to hyped up fear of communisim. All those efforts have been discredited but since our politicians fear the god-fearing voters, it will take some time to go back to our original god less pledge and our original godless motto.
The use of the statement, “The Supreme Court has not become a reliably hospitable place for LGBT people” as a lede in the left column is disingenuous at best. Nothing in this article demonstrates that the Supreme Court has become an inhospitable place for LGBT people. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986 (23 years ago); Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas occurred afterwards and could be used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has become a hospitable place for LGBT people, as could the court’s rejection of the school’s appeal in Hudson Area Schools v. Patterson. The quoted statement is not supported in the article and the other cases in this article aren’t even relevant.
I thought two prominent attorneys were preparing to petition the US Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8. No mention was made of it in this article.
Thanks for this! I hope to see more of these “updates” in the future.
“God” is deist? I doubt they have a name for a supreme being. Even so, deists are a small religious group, who believe in the supernatural based on their interpretation of natural evidence, not a book.
It’s far more likely that “God” is the Christian name for god, that Christians simply don’t care if anyone else accepts. It’s not just about atheists. What about people who call their god “G-d”? or “Allah”? Or “Bhagwan”? Or “Waheguru”? etc.
Is it ceremonial when witnesses take the oath to tell the truth? Is it ceremonial when congress and the president take their oath of office? Words have meanings. This is why we make people say them.
It seems to me that in refusing to hear the various appeals cited, the court is acknowledging — even if only by default — that the lower courts got it right. While it would be nice to have a legal opinion that reaches as high as the Supreme Court, I’m glad to see that there was no attempt to reverse clearly reasonable decisions. On the standing for the pledge thing, there is another point of view, and it has nothing to do with the pledge. To a certain extent a school is run like the military — if kids don’t do what they’re told, everything gets out of hand. Certainly we don’t want to turn out a bunch of robots, but I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable for a kid to bring in a permission slip that says he/she doesn’t have to stand, when they need one before they can even get an aspirin for a headache! I’m sure some disagree, I just think more damage is done by tolerating rebellion for rebellion’s sake, rather than a matter of principle.
“benign deism”? What kind of masqueraded bullshit for religion is that? What nonsense. Religion is religion and “God” comes out of that. How silly. The kid should be able to sit and he or she should be able to not say the pledge if he/she wants, naturally. It’s only insecure chuckleheads who need full participation in this archaic, outdated, transparent tradition.