If you were going to bet on the outcome of a Supreme Court case—much less the Court’s reasoning—you should avoid the Fisher case. It’s anyone’s best guess.
For the second time the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions policy is unconstitutional in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Continue reading
Obergefell v. Hodges will be celebrated and condemned internationally.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kennedy the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. All state laws and court decisions banning same-sex marriage are now invalid. Continue reading
Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments, a couple days late this week:
Second Circuit
E.M. v. New York City Dept. of Ed., No. 11-1427 (July 11, 2014) (in IDEA case, concluding that district court improperly concluded that IEP was adequate by relying on retrospective evidence extrinsic to the IEP).
Fourth Circuit
Lefemine v. Wideman, No. 13-1629 (July 11, 2014) (reversing determination that successful plaintiff in 1983 First-Amendment case was not entitled to attorney’s fees). Continue reading
Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:
First Circuit
Snyder v. Gaudet, No. 12-1422 (June 25, 2014) (In 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of equal protection because city applied zoning restriction differently to Snyder than to prior owner, granting qualified immunity to defendants because right was not clearly established): Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action ruling should be viewed through the lens of public employment not just public universities.
In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the Supreme Court held 6-2 that voters may by ballot prohibit affirmative action in public universities admission decisions. While this case was limited to the use of race in public university admission decisions, Michigan’s constitutional amendment also prohibits the use of racial-preference in state and local government employment and contracting. Presumably, these provisions are also constitutional. As NCSL’s Affirmative Action: State Action chart describes, a number of states prohibit the use of affirmative action in local government employment and contracting.
In 2003 in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, Continue reading
Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:
Sixth Circuit
Seventh Circuit
Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:
Third Circuit
Fourth Circuit
Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:
Seventh Circuit
Ninth Circuit
A County ordinance provides that waste generated in the County can be disposed at only a single location — a publicly owned landfill:
The dumping or depositing by any person at any place other than at the designated facilities of any acceptable waste generated within the County is prohibited.
The County crafted the ordinance to further many public benefits: to conserve resources, to prevent pollution, and to protect the public health, safety, and well-being. For the public landfill, the ordinance also ensured a revenue stream.
But for a private landfill operator located just two miles from the County line, the ordinance was a real problem. The ordinance led to a significant decrease in its business.
The operator sued the County. It argued that the County ordinance violates the dormant-commerce clause and the equal-protection clause of the federal constitution. Is the operator correct?
In Sandlands C&D LLC v. County of Horry, No. 13-1134 (Dec. 3, 2013), the Fourth Circuit ruled against the operator. It upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the County.
Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330, 346 (2007), the court ruled that Continue reading