Tag: SCOTUS

Why a graphic designer should not be compelled to produce websites for same-sex couples

Posted on

Dec. 16, Dale Carpenter, Dedman School of Law professor, SMU Dallas, for a piece arguing that Colorado should not be able to coerce web designer Lorie Smith to create online material for a gay couple in the celebrated 303 Creative case before the Supreme Court, because to do so would violate her right to freedom of expression. Published in the Boston Globe under the heading Is web design a form of free speech?:  https://tinyurl.com/yckmn88h

 

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case called 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which raises the question of whether the state of Colorado can force a graphic designer to create websites for same-sex weddings that she opposes. The argument revealed weaknesses in the government’s case, but also a court that may not give the petitioner everything she wants.

In the case, Lorie Smith proposes to create custom websites only for those weddings uniting a man and a woman. But Colorado’s public accommodations law (like those in 28 other states) prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in the sale of goods and services to the public.

Continue reading “Why a graphic designer should not be compelled to produce websites for same-sex couples”

A First Amendment for Everyone

Posted on

Dec. 3, Dale Carpenter, Dedman School of Law professor, SMU Dallas, for a piece supporting web designer Lorie Smith whose 303 Creative case — which is about Colorado attempting to compel her to create web designs for a gay couple — was the subject of oral arguments before SCOTUS Dec. 5. Published in the law blog The Volokh Conspiracy under the heading A First Amendment For Everyone: https://tinyurl.com/3jv7rkty

​

Over the past century the First Amendment’s protection of “the freedom of speech” has been interpreted to shield the reprehensible — White Supremacists and homophobes—as well as the admirable — the Black Civil Rights movement and the gay-rights cause. This jurisprudence reflects an American commitment to its own brand of classical liberalism in matters of conscience and expression.

On Monday, that commitment will be tested against another important one — equality under law — when the Supreme Court hears oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who holds traditional religious views about marriage, wants to create custom websites only for weddings uniting one man and one woman.

Continue reading “A First Amendment for Everyone”

Make no mistake, this is the ‘McConnell Court’

Posted on

June 30, Joseph Kobylka, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at SMU Dallas, for a commentary summing up the work of the 2021 Supreme Court term and how influencer Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shaped the membership and caused an abrupt turn in rulings toward the right. Published in The Hill under the heading Make no mistake, this is the ‘McConnell Court’: https://bit.ly/3uak07R

The Supreme Court’s just completed 2021 term marked a distinct turn toward the constitutional right and vision of the Federalist Society. There is no turning back, at least not in the near term. This is one of the youngest courts in over 100 years; its major constitutional decisions are likely to endure for a decade or more.

This is largely attributable to three most recent appointees: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. In tandem with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court has a stable five-person majority — six when Chief Justice John Roberts joins them — steering it on politically salient issues of constitutional law. Many will attribute this result to President Trump, but that would be wrong. This isn’t “Donald Trump’s Court”; it is a court largely made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). And, for better or worse, it has brought the jurisprudential style of nearly 70 years to a hard stop.

Continue reading “Make no mistake, this is the ‘McConnell Court’”

Happy 25th Anniversary to the Supreme Court Decision That Shaped the Internet We Have Today

Posted on

June 26, Jared Schroeder, associate professor of journalism at SMU Dallas and a specialist in Frist Amendment issues and co-author Jeff Kosseff, for an op-ed underscoring the impact 25 years ago when a Supreme Court ruling, Reno vs. ACLU, helped shape the Internet as we now know it. Published in Slate under the heading Happy 25th Anniversary to the Supreme Court Decision That Shaped the Internet We Have Today: https://bit.ly/3bzLiyb

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court told the government to keep its hands off the internet. Today, the internet is vastly different—and far more central to everyday life—than it was on June 26, 1997, but the court’s reasoning in Reno v. ACLU is more important than ever.

At the heart of the case was a massive overhaul of U.S. telecommunications laws that President Bill Clinton signed on Feb. 8, 1996. While much of the law involved local telephone competition, broadcast ownership, and cable television, one section—the Communications Decency Act—tried to prevent minors from accessing obscene and indecent material on the nascent internet.

Continue reading “Happy 25th Anniversary to the Supreme Court Decision That Shaped the Internet We Have Today”

Gorsuch made a mockery of textualism in discrimination case

Posted on

June 21, Lackland Bloom, professor of law at the SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, for a piece critical of Justice Gorsuch’s application of textualism in a recent ruling where he offered his opinion about discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Published in the Orange County Register and Southern California News Group affiliates. https://bit.ly/2V64f0l

​

The recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that discrimination based on sex under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 necessarily encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status, is not simply patently wrong as a matter of law — but rather dishonest and fraudulent.

Lengthy dissents written by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh explain in great detail why this is so. For those of you who do not have the time or the patience to read them, let me explain. The majority opinion, written by Justice Gorsuch, purports to apply textualist methodology in interpreting this provision of Title VII. It does not do so, at least as textualist methodology has been understood. . .

Continue reading “Gorsuch made a mockery of textualism in discrimination case”