The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

The CIVIL RIGHTS MONITOR is a quarterly publication that reports on civil rights issues pending before the three branches of government. The Monitor also provides a historical context within which to assess current civil rights issues. Back issues of the Monitor are available through this site. Browse or search the archives

Key Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Rights

Among the key civil rights cases decided by the Supreme Court during the 2004 term were decisions involving the interpretation of Title IX, the federal sentencing guidelines, the juvenile death penalty, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Supreme Court Preserves Right to Challenge Subtle Forms of Age Bias  

The Supreme Court held March 30 that employers may be liable for age discrimination when they use practices that, while appearing neutral, actually disproportionately harm older workers.

The case involved the interpretation of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects workers above age 40 from discrimination by any employer with more than 20 employees.

The Court's main ruling in Smith v. City of Jackson makes it clear that older workers need not prove intentional discrimination in order to prevail under the ADEA, thus resolving a split in the federal courts. Some lower courts had interpreted the ADEA more narrowly, imposing a much higher standard of proof for age discrimination than is required for other types of discrimination.

"This is a major shot-in-the-arm in our fight to eliminate age discrimination in the workplace," said AARP Senior Attorney Laurie McCann when the decision was handed down. "Most employers are not going to throw out smoking gun evidence that they are discriminating against older workers."

A more subtle form of age discrimination—disparate impact—was in question in the Jackson case. It involves employment policies or practices that are on the surface neutral in that they do not mention age, but in fact fall more harshly on older workers. An example would be a school district announcing a policy that it would not hire any new teachers with more than 10 years of teaching experience.

Older workers still have a high threshold to prove their claims, because the ADEA, unlike the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans sex, race, or religious discrimination, offers employers a defense in age bias cases "where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age."

While ruling with the Jackson plaintiffs—a group of police officers over age 40 who claimed that the city of Jackson gave larger increases to employees under age 40—on the legal issue, the Court nonetheless dismissed their case, 8-0, because their employer had an "unquestionably reasonable" explanation for their policy.

Joining Justice John Paul Stevens in the main holding of the case were Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.

Three justices—Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony M. Kennedy—would not have permitted disparate impact claims under the ADEA. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in the decision.

Supreme Court Holds that Title IX Prohibits Retaliation

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled March 29 that Title IX prohibits retaliation against individuals who protest sex discrimination.

The decision in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education addressed the claim of Roderick Jackson, a teacher and coach who was fired from his coaching position at Ensley High School in Birmingham, Alabama for complaining about unequal treatment and access to service and facilities for his team.

"This decision is a slam dunk victory for everyone who cares about equal opportunity," said Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, when the decision was announced. "The Court has confirmed that people cannot be punished for standing up for their rights. This protection is not just critical for Title IX, but also for other bedrock civil rights laws."

At Ensley High, only the boys' team could use the school's new gym; have access to ice for their injuries and other key services; and have the use of proceeds from concession and ticket sales from their games.

When Jackson protested these conditions to the school board, he was fired. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that his suit could not proceed because Congress did not intend Title IX to address retaliation claims.

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded programs. While the statute has been silent on the subject of retaliation, the federal government had interpreted it in the past to cover retaliation claims.

"The Court's ruling is a win-win for schools and students," said Jackson. "Knowing that we are protected against retaliation, people like my students and me will be more likely to come forward if we see discrimination. That will give schools notice of problems and a chance for students and administrators to work together to fix them. That's what I really wanted when I started this process."

Writing for the Jackson majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, "Congress enacted Title IX not only to prevent the use of federal dollars to support discriminatory practices, but also 'to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.' This objective would be difficult to achieve if persons complaining about sex discrimination did not have effective protection against retaliation."

Joining Justice O'Connor in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy joined.

The case will return to federal district court in Birmingham, where Jackson will have the chance to prove that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints.

Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Executions are Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court ruled March 1 that the Constitution bars the execution of offenders who were younger than 18 when their crimes were committed.

Referring to "contemporary standards of decency," the Court held 5-4 that imposing the death penalty on juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

The ruling in Roper v. Simmons, which arose out of a Missouri case, overturns the death sentences imposed upon about 70 juvenile offenders. It also sweeps aside a precedent it established in 1989, when a different lineup of justices upheld capital punishment for 16 and 17-year old offenders.

When the Court refused to hear a similar case in 2002, four of the justices who formed the majority in Roper—John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer— dissented, calling the practice of executing juveniles "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

Writing for the Roper majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that outlawing the death penalty for juveniles was a natural conclusion in light of the Court's 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that the execution of the mentally retarded was unconstitutional.

In Roper, the Court found, as in Atkins, "objective indicia of national consensus," in this case, "the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of its practice."

This evidence demonstrated that society viewed juveniles as "categorically less culpable than the average criminal," making imposition of the death penalty an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment.

"When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties," the majority stated, "but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."

According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), 31 states ban the execution of juvenile offenders. Of the remaining states, only 12 have juvenile offenders on death row.

"The stark reality," according to the Court, was that "the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." While not controlling, the Court found the "overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty" to be "respected and significant confirmation" of the majority's decision.

"Today the United States joins the international family, at least when it comes to the issue of the juvenile death penalty," said NCADP's David Elliot. "The company we have kept in recent years —Saudi Arabia, China, Congo, Iran and Pakistan, all countries that have executed juvenile offenders since 1990—is not savory, to say the least. With today's ruling, we affirm that we can do better."

Supreme Court Ends Judicial Debate over Sentencing Guidelines

In a two-part decision on January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the current federal sentencing system violates a defendant's right to trial by jury, while at the same time directing federal judges to "take [federal guidelines] into account" when imposing sentences.

Under the ruling, federal judges will have the discretion to decide whether to impose a sentence either harsher or more lenient than the guidelines' ranges, but may be subject to reversal if an appeals court determines the sentence to be "unreasonable."

The Court's decisions in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan close the debate within the courts over the sentencing guidelines, sparked by the Court's decision in June 2004 in Blakely v. Washington. In its 5 to 4 decision in Blakely, the Court held that any facts leading to a sentence beyond that prescribed by the sentencing guideline maximum must either be decided beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Otherwise, the Court held, there would be a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

In the wake of Blakely, a number of lower federal courts had issued divergent opinions on the application of the decision to the federal sentencing system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Booker, held the federal sentencing guideline system unconstitutional. The Second Circuit, in Fanfan, certified the question to the Supreme Court after the district court, relying on Blakely, concluded that it could not follow the federal guidelines.

On August 2, 2004, the Supreme Court granted expedited review for these two cases to determine the fate of the federal guidelines system. Both cases were heard on October 4, 2004, the first day of the new Court term.

Given the outcome in Blakely, the decision to invalidate the federal sentencing system was widely anticipated by court watchers. But the remedy adopted by the Court had not been proposed by any party.

Only one of the nine Justices—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—voted both to hold the current sentencing system unconstitutional and to retain the guidelines in advisory form.

The same grouping that had formed the majority in Blakely—John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ginsburg-held that current administration of the sentencing guidelines violated the defendant's right to jury trial by giving judges the right to impose sentences based on facts the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another group of five justices—Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist—voted to uphold the guidelines in voluntary form.

While the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights did not take a position on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines in the wake of Blakely, the coalition has stated that it wants to ensure that civil rights concerns remain at the heart of the debate, recommending specifically that any sentencing guideline reforms ensure balance in sentencing; preserve judicial discretion; and redress racial disparities.