Search

CASE AT A GLANCE Gerald Groff served as a rural carrier associate in the United States Postal Service. In this role, Groff was a noncareer employee who provided coverage for absent career employees. When the Postal Service started Sunday deliveries pursuant to an agreement with Amazon, Groff, a self-described evangelical Christian, refused Sunday shifts, citing his religious belief that Sundays were reserved for worship and rest. The Postal Service attempted to schedule around Groff's Sunday absences, but this created tension with Groff's coworkers and extra work for the postmaster. Ultimately, the Postal Service disciplined Groff for missing scheduled Sunday shifts. Groff sued, arguing that the Postal Service discriminated against him because of his religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964., Groff v. DeJoy Docket No. 22-174 Argument Date: April 18, 2023 From: The Third Circuit Introduction Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating [...]

The Supreme Court dealt yet another major blow to the Voting Rights Act this term in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. It was the second time in eight years that the Court sharply curtailed this extraordinary and iconic civil rights law. Between the earlier ruling and Brnovich, it's not clear how much of the Act remains. But it is clear that the ruling comes at a critical time for our nation, when voting rights are front and center in our democracy. Given our current political climate, the Brnovich ruling could substantially affect voting rights and election results in upcoming election cycles, and beyond., Brnovich involved two provisions that restricted how Arizona voters could cast their ballots. The first, the 'out-of-precinct policy,' required election officials to discard ballots by voters who voted in the [...]

Deborah Laufer, a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), discovered that Acheson Hotels did not say whether it offered accessible rooms or the option of booking an accessible room on its online reservation system or on third-party hotel reservation websites. Laufer sued Acheson, arguing that the failure violated federal regulations that require hotels to publicize such information. But Laufer did not intend to stay at an Acheson hotel; instead, she sued as a “tester,” a person who tests whether hotels comply with the ADA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There’s no doubt, this term was a whopper. With rulings overturning the 50-year-old fundamental right to abortion, significantly expanding gun rights, sharply curtailing the administrative state, and more, this relatively newly-comprised Court wrought swift and seismic changes to constitutional law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two plainclothes officers acting under federal authority wrongly identified James King as a criminal suspect when they saw King near a gas station that the actual suspect regularly visited. As the officers questioned and searched King, King thought they might be mugging him, and he attempted to flee. The officers caught King and severely beat him. King sued the United States for the officers’ torts under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and he sued the individual officers for violations of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his claims, but the Sixth Circuit revitalized his claims against the individual officers for violations of his constitutional rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. court case Kerry, Sec. of State v. Din which deals with the issue of a denied U.S. visa application for the defendant's Pakistani spouse due to "terrorist activities." It cites the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the defendant has a right to a judicial review of the U.S. government's decision to deny a visa application. The case also explores whether denial of the alien spouse's visa violates the defendant's constitutional right to marry.

The article presents an overview of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Topics include the way the act banned racial discrimination in private establishments under its Title II, how the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments during the Reconstruction period between 1865 and 1870 gave the U.S. Congress more authority to enforce civil rights, as well as court rulings and laws that revolutionized the way Americans thought about civil rights enforcement.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder which explores the authority of the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the preclearance requirement and the preexisting coverage formula in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. It notes the argument of Shelby County that the coverage formula is no longer rational in theory or practice. The significance of the case in the civil rights laws of the U.S. is also outlined.

The article examines the application of absolute immunity from liability to James P. Paulk, investigator for the district attorney, who falsely testified in his capacity as a complaining witness and secured indictments against Charles A. Rehberg. Facts of the case are provided involving Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Georgia. In the analysis, a comparison between Briscoe v. LaHue and Malley v. Briggs is presented with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1871.