Civil Rights: What's At Stake for All Americans with a Supreme Court Vacancy
IndependentCourt.org - 7/15/05
A number of rights, freedoms, and legal safeguards protecting all Americans currently could further be eroded with future appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is critical that individuals are confirmed to the Court who are committed to protecting our rights and the fundamental principle of an independent judiciary. As shown by the narrowly decided cases below, long-settled areas of civil rights law would place many more fundamental rights at risk and leave vulnerable populations without any remedy whatsoever for civil rights violations.
Affirmative Action
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legality of affirmative action programs and the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and to promote racial diversity on campus.
Voting Rights
In Easley v. Cromartie (2001), by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by white voters to Congressman Mel Watt's congressional district and found they did not prove that North Carolina's legislature was motivated by race, not politics, in drawing the district. Congressman Watt is the current chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
In Chisom v. Roemer (1991), by a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Voting Rights Act's prohibitions against race discrimination apply to state elections for judges.
Cross-burning
In Virginia v. Black (2003), a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's law banning cross-burning. Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion, condemning cross-burning as a "particularly virulent form of intimidation" and a "symbol of hate."
Discrimination with Federal Funds
In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2004), Justice O'Connor wrote the 5-4 opinion that says schools cannot retaliate against an employee who protests against sex discrimination.
Capital Punishment
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), by a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that that the execution of people with severe mental retardation amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited under the Eighth Amendment.
Rights of Gays and Lesbians
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court ruled that state laws criminalizing consensual adult sex violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Five Justices joined the majority opinion, and Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion declaring that the laws violated the Equal Protection Clause. When these laws were on the books, states used them to justify discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in adoption, employment, and a host of other areas.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), by a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado measure that prohibited local anti-discrimination ordinances. Reversal of this decision could roll back hard-won local protections for LGBT people, and permit states to exclude them from the political process.
Immigrants' Rights
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional to indefinitely detain, perhaps for life, immigrants who face deportation but who cannot be returned to their native countries.
In INS v. St. Cyr (2001), a 5-4 majority rejected the government's argument that it could automatically deport lawfully admitted immigrants who pleaded guilty to certain crimes before strict new immigration laws took effect in 1997. Dissenters on the court would close the courthouse doors completely to immigrants who seek help in cases with such constitutional issues.
