Federal Judiciary

Court protects against retaliation

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

In two separate rulings, the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that federal law barring workplace discrimination protects workers against retaliation if they complain about bias on the job.  One of the decisions involved the 1866 civil rights law — so-called Section 1981 — that gives minorities the same rights to contract that whites have — and the other involved a part of the federal law against age bias that protects federal government employees. The cases were CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431), decided by a 7-2 vote, and Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321), decided 6-3.

In the last of three rulings Tuesday, the Court ruled that a 1985 Alabama law on the power to fill vacancies on county commissions had never actually been in effect, so it did not represent a change in election machinery under the Voting Rights Act when the state Supreme Court struck it down after it had been used in one election. A state law struck down by the state’s highest court was invalid from the outset, so the law switching to special election instead of appointment by the governor did not bring about a change in election law under the Act, and the governor was free to resume the practice of appointment to fill commission vacancies, the Court ruled. The case was Riley v. Kennedy (07-77), decided on a 7-2 vote.

The Court granted no new cases for review.  In one of its orders, it asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the federal government’s views on whether Americans have a right to sue the present government of Iraq for harms done to them by the former regime of Saddam Hussein. The government in lower courts had opposed such lawsuits. The case is Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, et al. (07-1090).

In another order, the Court refused to review the conviction of former Illinois Gov. George H. Ryan, Sr., for a racketeering conspiracy and other crimes growing out of his handling of state contracts when he was Illinois secretary of state. He is serving a 78-month prison sentence. His appeal, joined by a close associate convicted with him, Lawrence R. Warner, complained of a “cascade of errors” by the judge during their trial. Among legal issues their appeal raised was the standard trial judges are to use for removing a juror and substituting a new member in the midst of jury deliberations. The appeal was Warner, Ryan v. U.S. (07-977).

Among other issues the Court chose to bypass were these:

** Whether the Court would spell out the kind of proof it takes to show that churches and other religious organizations have been denied equal right to use their land as secular institutions have, under a 2000 federal law.  Lighthouse Institute, et al., v. Long Branch, N.J. (07-1111).

** Whether federal courts must enforce a commercial agreement that requires individual consumers to go to arbitration in a dispute over a purchase of goods or service, if state law bars such enforcement.  The Court denied review of three cases on the issue; the lead case was T-Mobile USA v. Laster, et al. (07-976).

** Whether an individual who has been released from prison, and thus cannot pursue a habeas challenge to his sentence, is barred from making the same claim under an 1871 civil rights law. Royal v. Durison (07-1056).

** Whether a federal judge has the authority to order a foreign company to send witnesses to the U.S. to answer questions in a trademark dispute, when that company’s only contact with the U.S. was to file for a trademark.  Rosenruist-Gestao v. Virgin Enterprises (07-1214).

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on May 27, 2008 (boomark / email).