Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
The Supreme Court ruled today per curiam that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court erred when it determined that the "Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" was responsible for properly administering a pension plan for the employees of Catholic Schools Trust.
The Supreme court has decided against hearing a workplace accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist, but hints that it may revisit employer accommodation standards in the future.
This decision is a good primer on the actual harm element requirement needed in order to have standing in Federal Court.
When jurors are selected for trial in Federal court, they are asked to adopt the phrase "so help me God." What happens when they take that oath too seriously?
The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear arguments in two employment cases involving whether teachers in Catholic Schools can file lawsuits in pursuit of employment non-discrimination rights. The Court has consolidated St. James School v. Biel and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, both on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, which decided the teachers could sue.
The Solicitor General of the United States, Noel Francisco, has recommended that the United States Supreme Court agree to consider a Sabbath accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist.
The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, concerning a Montana state legislative program that allowed individuals to receive up to a $150.00 tax credit for money that they could donate to one of several K-12 scholarship funds.
There's an old adage that bad facts make bad law, and in this case, given political exigencies, there was little to no chance that the Court would have found that the cross must be removed from public property. While we had previously anticipated that denying the case based on standing would have been the "easy answer," the Court issued a ruling today that addressed the cross on the merits. Now our attention turns to whether there is collateral damage to the substance of the Establishment Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause that guarantees religious freedom is much weaker than most people realize. While freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and even the establishment clause are subject to highest "strict scrutiny" levels of protection, the free exercise of religion receives the lowest level of protection – the "rational basis test."
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 3, 2019, in a case (Fort Bend County v. Davis) involving whether a court may hear a discrimination case where the plaintiff fails to raise all charges in an initial EEOC complaint. The Court found that the Title VII’s rules are procedural, not jurisdictional, and as such procedural defenses need to be raised early in a case.