Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
©2015 Anti-Defamation League 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 www.adl.org [email protected]
IN THE COURTS: ADL’S CURRENT LEGAL DOCKET FEBRUARY 2016
Page | 2
Table of Contents
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ......................... 3
2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ...................................... 3
FILED AND AWAITING DECISION IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ...................... 6
THE APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS ... 8
2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS .......................... 8
FILED AND AWAITING DECISION ............................................................................ 13
IN APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS ....................................................................... 13
DECISION KEY
Favorable to ADL
Contrary to ADL Decision on other
grounds Favorable and
contrary portions of
the decision
Page | 3
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Tanco v. Haslam (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Bourke v. Beshear (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
These cases challenge Ohio's, Tennessee’s, Michigan’s, and Kentucky’s Marriage Bans,
state constitutional amendments that define marriage as exclusively between one man and
one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations that recounts
how discriminatory laws targeting disadvantaged groups have long been justified by
religious and moral disapproval, an argument that has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The brief also argued that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that
religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can
recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for
themselves. The Court held that that the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize marriages lawfully
performed in other jurisdictions.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities
Project (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
The case focuses on Dallas, Texas, where the State of Texas approved the construction of
affordable housing along racial lines. Over a period of years, a Texas housing agency
reinforced residential segregation by consistently approving affordable housing in
African American neighborhoods instead of fairly distributing that housing across all
communities to promote integration. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a key provision
of the Fair Housing Act. Enacted in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s tragic
assassination in 1968, the Fair Housing Act is our nation’s key tool to eradicate housing
discrimination and promote more inclusive neighborhoods. The Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project case raises the
question whether the Fair Housing Act prohibits not just intentional bigotry but also
unjustified practices that disproportionately exclude or harm people based on race,
ethnicity, religion, family status, or other characteristics covered by the Act. This
principle, known as the “disparate impact” standard, has been the law of the land for over
four decades. In fact, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
issued regulations that again confirm this approach. ADL joined an amicus brief filed on
behalf of a coalition of organizations. The brief provided evidence (based in caselaw and
social science) supporting the arguments that segregation continues to generate grave
social harms; that conversely, integration conveys benefits that accrue both to individuals
and to society as a whole; and that disparate impact claims are a fundamental tool in
making progress toward integration. The Court held that the Act protects victims of
discrimination, even where they cannot prove an intent to discriminate.
Discrimination
Housing
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Page | 4
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
This case involves the right of American citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their
place of birth on their passports, rather than just “Jerusalem.” Despite a 2002 law
directing the Secretary of State, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal
guardian, to record the place of birth as Israel, the State Department manual currently
provides that the passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem must say “Jerusalem,”
reflecting official U.S. government policy regarding the unresolved status of Jerusalem.
Following the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the case back to the lower
court for review on the merits, ADL again led an unusually broad-based coalition of other
Jewish organizations, in addition to the Association of Proud American Citizens Born in
Jerusalem, Israel, in filing an amicus brief which argued that “a passport is not a
statement of foreign policy,” but rather simply involves a ministerial act “a means of
identifying and differentiating citizens” based on information they provide. Therefore the
statute does not implicate the Executive Branch’s foreign policy power and it was within
the power of Congress to legislate regarding the issuance of passports. ADL also argued
that denying Jerusalem-born American citizens to identify Israel as their place of birth on
their passports is discriminatory as that is a right presently accorded to American citizens
born in territories not even recognized by the United States.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
At issue in this case is whether or not employees must be the ones to broach the topic of
religious accommodations in the workplace, even if it an obvious accommodation. The
plaintiff in this case, a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf/hijab, applied for a sales
position at Abercrombie & Fitch. During the interview, there was no discussion about if
or how the applicant’s hijab would be acceptable under the store's "Look Policy."
Although the plaintiff scored high enough to be hired, Abercrombie reduced the score
and failed to hire her. ADL’s brief emphasized the importance of Title VII's protection
against religious discrimination, explained how the Tenth Circuit's rule undermines both
Title VII's central purpose and its central "bilateral cooperation" mechanism, and urged
the Court to take care not to endorse customer preference as a component when
considering undue hardship.
Elonis v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
At issue in this case is the standard for determining when a statement crosses the line
from protected speech to a "true threat." The defendant in the case posted threatening
statements on Facebook, including one about wanting to kill his estranged wife and dump
her body in a creek to make it look like a rape. He later said that he did not mean the
statements as a threat, but rather as a rant. ADL's brief argued that true threats should be
unlawful, regardless of whether the State can prove that the speaker intended the
statements as a threat.
Civil Liberties
First Amendment
Discrimination
Religious
Accommodation
Discrimination
Passport
Designation
Page | 5
Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
At issue in this case was Alabama’s redistricting plan after the 2010 census. When
Alabama redrew its district lines the drafters created supermajorities in majority-minority
districts, sometimes creating districts that were more than 75 percent black. The Alabama
Democratic Conference and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus filed lawsuits arguing
that, in drawing the district lines the way it did, Alabama unconstitutionally engaged in
racial gerrymandering and diluted minorities’ political power in other districts. ADL
urged the Supreme Court to strike down the redistricting plan as unconstitutional, arguing
that because the State subordinated traditional race-neutral redistricting principles to race-
based considerations, the Court should analyze the redistricting plan with the highest
level of scrutiny. ADL argued that Alabama’s plan should be struck down because it was
not narrowly tailored to fit the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
Holt v. Hobbs (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
This case challenges an Arkansas prison’s decision to deny an observant Muslim the right
to observe his faith by wearing a short beard. The Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) requires the State to offer a compelling reason
for denying a prisoner’s request to accommodate a sincerely-held religious belief, but
courts around the country have applied the standard differently. ADL joined a coalition of
religious organizations urging the Supreme Court to “apply uniform, rigorous standards
before accepting that prison officials have properly denied a prisoner of sincere belief the
religious accommodation he or she seeks.”
Religious Freedom
RLUIPA
Civil Liberties
Voting Rights
Page | 6
FILED AND AWAITING DECISION IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Zubik et al. v. Burwell et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)
This case involves a second challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception
mandate, which generally requires employers to provide employee health insurance
inclusive of prescription contraception coverage. Religiously-affiliated organizations
challenged a provision of the mandate, which actually accommodates their free exercise
of religion by allowing them to opt out of providing contraception coverage. Under the
accommodation, such organizations are required to file a one-page form with the
Department of Health and Human Services. After the form is filed, they have no
responsibility for the coverage. Rather, an insurance company or third party pays for and
administers it. However, petitioners argue that the filing requirement violates their rights
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). ADL’s amicus brief focuses on
RFRA’s “substantial burden” requirement. It argues that petitioners have failed to
demonstrate that filing form is a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.
Rather, they have merely asserted subjective offense of their religious beliefs, which
should not be conflated with objective substantial burdens on religious exercise. The brief
further argues that assessment of substantial burden should also include impact on the
rights of others. In this case, striking down the opt-out provision would deny women
access to affordable contraception, but at most alleviate indirect and minimal burdens on
the petitioners. Balancing these interests, the Court should reject the petitioners’ claim.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)
In 2013, Texas passed a law that created substantial obstacles to accessing abortion by
including medically unnecessary requirements for clinics and health care providers. This
case challenges those provisions. ADL joined with the National Women’s Law Center
and 47 other organizations on an amicus brief that highlights the negative impact that the
restrictions at issue in this case have on women’s economic security and equal
participation in social and economic life. These include significant, and in some cases,
insurmountable, costs that threaten women’s financial well-being, job security, workforce
participation, and educational attainment. Such costs have a particularly harmful impact
on low-income women, women of color, women in low-wage jobs, and women who
already have children. These effects deprive women of equal dignity promised by the
Constitution, unduly burdening women’s reproductive decision-making.
United States v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015) In 2014 President Obama issued an executive order, Deferred Action for Parents of
Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which extended deferred action to certain
undocumented immigrants. Texas and twenty-five other states challenged the executive
order in federal court and the district court issued an injunction, which the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld. ADL signed onto this brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to
hear the case. The brief argues that the injunction harms millions of individuals who have
either been in the United States since they were children or who are the parents of
American citizens or lawful permanent residents, as well as the broader communities in
Discrimination
Immigration
Civil Liberties
Reproductive
Freedom
Civil Liberties
Reproductive
Rights
Page | 7
which they reside. It further argues that lifting the injunction would allow people access
to better jobs, improving their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of other
community members.
Fisher v. University of Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
This case concerns the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at
Austin. The Court is being asked to decide whether the Fifth Circuit's re-endorsement of
the University of Texas' use of race in a holistic undergraduate admissions process can be
sustained under the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. ADL again urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the
University of Texas' admissions policy, saying that the policy does not impose quotas,
assign people to categories based on their race, or use race as a determinative factor in
making admissions decisions. Rather, its consideration of race as only one factor in a
holistic review of each application is a proper means to achieve a diverse student body.
Evenwel v. Abbott (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
At issue in this case is whether states may use total population—as opposed to number of
registered voters or number of citizens of voting age—to draw district lines. Following
the decennial census in 2010 the Texas Legislature adopted a redistricting plan that
created roughly proportionally-sized state senate districts with regard to total population,
including registered voters, eligible voters, and people who are ineligible to vote. While
the districts had roughly the same total population, the district sizes varied with regard to
other metrics. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the redistricting plan violated the one
person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. ADL joined an amicus brief
arguing that barring states from using total population to draw district lines could unfairly
exclude current and potential voters from the democratic process and would lead to
underrepresentation of groups disenfranchised by discriminatory voting laws.
Civil Liberties
Voting Rights
Discrimination
Affirmative
Action
Page | 8
THE APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS
2015-2016 DECISIONS FROM APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS
Liberty Ridge v. McCarthy (State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department, 2015)
Liberty Ridge Farm owners Cynthia and Robert Gifford refused to allow the
complainants in this case, a lesbian couple, to hold their wedding at the Farm. The New
York State Division of Human Rights and the Administrative Law Judge determined that
owners of a wedding venue that operates as a place of public accommodation under New
York's anti-discrimination law cannot discriminate on the basis of customers' sexual
orientation because of the owners' religious beliefs.
Liberty Ridge Farm appealed the ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals. In their
opening brief, Appellants argue that enforcing the nondiscrimination law against them is
unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause and the compelled speech doctrine. ADL
submitted a brief urging the court to affirm the Division’s decision and reject arguments
that religious or moral disapproval is a legitimate basis for discrimination against
minority groups.
Commonwealth v. Michael Walters (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)
At issue in this case is whether a person violates the Massachusetts stalking statute by
posting threatening comments or photographs on social media. ADL’s brief argues that
true threats—whether online or in person—fall outside First Amendment protections.
The brief further argues that, in the Internet age, threats online can be just as damaging as
threats issued face-to-face, and that a defendant need not necessarily specifically draw the
victim’s attention to threatening posts online for them to be unlawful.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)
The complainants in this case, a gay couple, were denied the opportunity to order a cake
for their wedding reception by a Denver-area bakery with a policy and history of refusing
to sell baked goods for occasions celebrating same-sex relationships. The Colorado Civil
Rights Division held that this constituted sexual orientation discrimination in violation of
the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld
this finding and ordered the Cakeshop to change its policy and take various steps to
communicate the change.
The Cakeshop and its owner have appealed the Commission’s ruling to the Colorado
Court of Appeals. In their opening brief, Appellants argue that enforcing the
nondiscrimination law against them is unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause
and the compelled speech doctrine. ADL submitted a brief urging the court to affirm the
Commission’s decision and reject arguments that religious or moral disapproval is a
legitimate basis for discrimination against minority groups.
Civil Liberties
First Amendment
Discrimination
Public
Accommodation
Discrimination
Public
Accommodation
Page | 9
DeLeon v. Perry (U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Texas’ Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined
marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of
a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only
ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the
state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of
marriage for themselves..
Conde v. Rius-Armendariz (U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit, 2015)
This case challenges Puerto Rico’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Brenner v. Armstrong (U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Florida’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Al Falah Center v. Township of Bridgewater (U.S.C.A. 3d Circuit, 2014) At issue in
this case is a claim by a Muslim congregation in Bridgewater, NJ that the municipality
adopted a land use ordinance to block conversion of a former banquet facility, purchased
by the Congregation, into a mosque. The Interfaith Coalition on Mosques (ICOM)’s
amicus brief contends that the township’s conduct violates the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which safeguards the religious freedom of
houses of worship and other institutions in the land-use context by requiring courts to
apply a strict standard for reviewing laws that substantially burden religious exercise.
ICOM was formed by the Anti-Defamation League in 2010 to assist Muslim
communities confronting opposition to the legal building, expansion or relocation of their
mosques.
Henry v. Himes (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Ohio’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined
marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of
a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only
ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the
state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of
marriage for themselves.
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Religious Freedom
Discrimination
SETTLED
Discrimination
Marriage equality
[post Obergefell]
Discrimination
Marriage equality
[post Obergefell]
Discrimination
Marriage equality
[post Obergefell]
Page | 10
Tanco v. Haslam (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Tennessee’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Bourke v. Beshear (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Kentucky’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenges Michigan’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 22 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)
The Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, was brought by four same-sex couples who sought
marriage licenses in Nevada and four more couples who had been married in California
and Canada and sought recognition of those marriages in Nevada. The Hawaii case,
Jackson v. Abercrombie, contested the constitutionality of both the state’s ban on same-
sex marriage and its recognition of civil unions only. The two cases were combined into a
single appeal. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 29 organizations arguing that
overturning the marriage bans not only would ensure that religious considerations do not
improperly influence what marriages the two states can recognize but also would allow
religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.
United States v. Miller (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014) The Defendants in this case challenged the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and
James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA). The Anti-Defamation League filed
an amicus brief on behalf of 40 nationally-prominent civil rights, human rights, religious,
educational, and law enforcement organizations urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit to uphold the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and to
affirm that it applies to cases in which the religiously-motivated violence involves
victims and perpetrators who share the same faith. The brief was the first coalition brief
filed in any challenge to the constitutionality of the HCPA.
Hate Crimes
Religious
Freedom
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Page | 11
Wolf v.Walker (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenged Wisconsin’s Marriage Ban, a state law that defined marriage as
exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition
of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that
religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can
recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for
themselves.
Baskin v. Bogan (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenged Indiana’s Marriage Ban, a state law that defined marriage as
exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition
of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that
religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can
recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for
themselves.
Duncan v. New Hampshire (New Hampshire Supreme Court, 2014)
At issue in this case was the New Hampshire Education Tax Credit Program, which
authorizes New Hampshire businesses to redirect up to 85% of taxes owed as donations
to K-12 “scholarship organizations,” which pay for tuition at private religious and secular
schools. In addition to undermining separation of church and state, the Program directs
public funds to private religious and secular schools that discriminate against students
and teachers. ADL’s brief focused on this discrimination issue arguing that the Program
violates the New Hampshire constitution because its minimal anti-discrimination
prohibitions allow public financing of private schools that discriminate against students
and teachers on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability
and other personal characteristics.
Bostic v. Schaefer (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenged Virginia’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 20 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Kitchen v. Herbert (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)
This case challenged Utah’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined
marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of
a coalition of 26 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only
ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the
state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of
marriage for themselves.
Bishop v. Smith (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Discrimination
Marriage equality
Church-State
Separation/
Discrimination
Establishment
Clause
Page | 12
This case challenged Oklahoma’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that
defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on
behalf of a coalition of 26 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would
not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which
marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the
definition of marriage for themselves.
Page | 13
FILED AND AWAITING DECISION
IN APPELLATE AND STATE COURTS
Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers (Washington State Supreme Court, 2016)
Arlene’s Flowers’ owner Barronelle Stutzman refused to sell flowers to a gay couple,
Ingersoll and Freed, for their wedding. A Washington Superior Court ruled that the florist
violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when she denied service to the couple and
said that the defendants’ refusal based on her religious opposition to same sex marriage
is, as a matter of law, a refusal based on Ingersoll and Freed’s sexual orientation in
violation of the Washington anti-discrimination law.
Arlene’s Flowers appealed the ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court. ADL
submitted a brief in support of the couple urging the court to affirm the lower court’s
decision and reject arguments that religious or moral disapproval is a legitimate basis for
discrimination against minority groups.
Freedom From Region Foundation v. New Kensington-Arnold School (U.S.C.A. 3rd
Circuit, 2015)
This case involves a challenge to a six-foot tall, 2000-pound Ten Commandments
monument displayed at the local public high school, in violation of the First Amendment.
A student's mother claims that she changed her daughter's school so they could avoid
seeing the display. ADL's amicus brief argues that changing schools to avoid the display,
as well as the child and parents' earlier interactions with the display, are exactly the type
of harms that the Establishment Clause prohibits.
Lund v. Rowan County (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2015) At issue in the case are the opening prayer practices at public meetings of the Rowan
County, N.C. Commission. Based on the record in the case, the opening prayers are given
by County Commissioners on a rotating basis and are exclusively Christian. Furthermore,
in many instances residents attending meetings are asking by Commissioners to join in
the prayer. ADL's brief argues that these practices violate the minimal legislative prayer
requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Greece v. Galloway decision
and coerce religious worship in violation of the Establishment Clause to the First
Amendment.
Serna v. Texas Department of State Health Services (Western District of Texas, 2015)
At issue in this case is whether Texas' Vital Statistics Unit may refuse to issue a birth
certificate for a child born in the United States because the parents requesting the birth
certificate do not have proper documentation to be in this country. Under the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, children born in the United States are
automatically, by virtue of their birth here, American citizens. ADL filed a letter brief in
support of the Plaintiffs arguing that Texas does not have the authority effectively to
eliminate birthright citizenship and the rights that flow from being born in the United
States of America, including the right to have a birth certificate issued. The brief
Discrimination
Immigration
Church-State
Separation
Establishment
Clause
Church-State
Separation
Establishment
Clause
Discrimination
Public
Accommodation
Page | 14
argues that refusal to issue birth certificates to children of undocumented immigrants
effectively creates an underclass of citizens who will have difficulty enrolling in school,
accessing health care, obtaining lawful employment, enlisting in the military, marrying,
and accessing many other rights.
Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District (Supreme Court of Texas, 2015)
In this case, the Texas Supreme Court will consider whether the display of bible verses
and religious symbols on run-through banners prepared by public high school
cheerleaders is unconstitutional. The content of these banners is approved by school
officials and the district provides the cheerleaders with a field to display the messages
prior to the football team running through the banners. ADL joined a coalition of faith-
based and civil rights groups in arguing that the school sponsored banners violate the
Establishment Clause of First Amendment because they constitute government
advancement, endorsement and coercion of religion.
Hart v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)
Richardson v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)
At issue in these cases is the constitutionality of a North Carolina school vouchers
program called the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Although secular and religious
private schools are eligible to receive vouchers under the program, close to three quarters
of participating schools are religious. As a result, the program effectively diverts
millions of public-education-fund dollars to religious schools, many of which infuse
religion into their curricula; discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of
religion, disability and other grounds; and are subject to minimal academic standards.
ADL joined an amicus brief arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court should
affirm a lower court decision, which ruled that the program did not serve a public purpose
in violation of the North Carolina State Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Kelly, Bratlie & Shdeed (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court,
2014)
This case challenges a judge’s jury instructions pursuant to a prosecution under the
Massachusetts Hate Crimes Penalties Act, where the judge instructed the jury to
determine if the defendants acted intentionally and deliberately in assaulting the victim
because of his race but didn’t instruct that the defendants’ bias motive also be a
“predominant” or “substantial” reason for the assault. ADL’s brief urges the Court to
uphold the judge’s jury instructions and not insert a “predominant” or “substantial” factor
test which would weaken protections for hate crimes victims and communities across the
Commonwealth.
LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education (Colorado Supreme Court, 2014)
Larue v. Douglas County School Board challenges Colorado’s school voucher program
that allows state funding to flow to parochial schools. While the Supreme Court has
interpreted the U.S. Constitution to permit similar programs in other states, the
Church-State
Separation
Government
funding
Hate Crimes
Jury Instructions
Church-State
Separation
Government
funding
Church-State
Separation
Establishment
Clause
Page | 15
Colorado’s constitution contains a No-Aid Clause that more explicitly prohibits direct
and indirect state funding of religion. The ADL and a coalition of religious groups from
multiple faiths argue that Colorado’s No-Aid Clause and the U.S. Constitution’s Religion
Clauses are not synonymous, and that the former reflects Colorado’s considered
judgment that government funding of religion threatens religious liberty. Accordingly,
the brief urges the Colorado Supreme Court to find that the voucher program violates the
state constitution.
Arce v. Huppenthal (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)
At issue in this case is Arizona law HB 2281, which bars public schools from 1)
promoting the overthrow of the government; 2) promoting resentment towards a race or
class of people; 3) designing programs primarily for students of a particular ethnic group;
and 4) advocating ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. The
legislative history of the bill makes clear that its intent was to dismantle the Tucson
Unified School District’s Mexican-American Studies program (MAS), despite the
program’s success in closing the educational achievement gap for Latino students. After
passage of the law, the State Superintendent ordered the school district to dismantle the
MAS program. MAS staff and students filed suit. ADL joined a brief written by the Chief
Earl Warren Institute for Law and Social Policy, which argues that the lower court erred
in failing to consider fully how the law violates equal protection guarantees.
Discrimination
Education
Page | 16
INDEX OF CASES FILED/DECIDED IN 2015-2016 Civil Liberties Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
Commonwealth v. Michael Walters (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2015)
Elonis v. United States ((U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
Evenwel v. Abbott (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)
Zubik et al. v. Burwell et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016
Discrimination Al Falah Center v. Township of Bridgewater (U.S.C.A. 3d Circuit, 2014)
Arce v. Huppenthal (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)
Baskin v. Bogan (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)
Bishop v. Smith (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)
Bostic v. Schaefer (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2014)
Bourke v. Beshear (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Bourke v. Beshear (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
Brenner v. Armstrong (U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit, 2014)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)
Conde v. Rius-Armendariz (U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit, 2015)
DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
DeBoer v. Snyder (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
DeLeon v. Perry (U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit, 2014)
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
Fisher v. University of Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Henry v. Himes (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
Ingersoll & Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers (Washington State Supreme Court, 2016)
Kitchen v. Herbert (U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit, 2014)
Liberty Ridge v. McCarthy (State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial
Department, 2015)
Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Serna v. Texas Department of State Health Services (Western District of Texas, 2015)
Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie (U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit, 2013)
Tanco v. Haslam (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Tanco v. Haslam (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project (U.S.
Supreme Court, 2014)
United States v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
Wolf v.Walker (U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit, 2014)
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
Hate Crimes
Commonwealth v. Kelly, Bratlie & Shdeed (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2014)
United States v. Miller (U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit, 2014)
Separation of Church and State Duncan v. New Hampshire (New Hampshire Supreme Court, 2014)
Freedom From Region Foundation v. New Kensington-Arnold School (U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit, 2015)
Hart v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)
Page | 17
Holt v. Hobbs (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education (Colorado Supreme Court, 2014)
Lund v. Rowan County (U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit, 2015)
Richardson v. North Carolina (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2015)