2020 in Review: Civil Rights at the Supreme Court
As we wrap up 2020, here is a list of ten major Supreme Court decisions on civil rights issues this year. These decisions implicate rights across a broad range of fields: voting, abortion, LGBTQ, religion, immigration, police misconduct, and the Second Amendment.
In HERNANDEZ V. MESA (Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court barred a Bivens lawsuit against a Border Patrol agent for fatally shooting a 15-year-old Mexican boy on Mexican soil from across the border in Texas. A Bivens lawsuit is a lawsuit that allows plaintiffs to sue federal officials for constitutional violations in very limited circumstances. In Hernandez, the Supreme Court held that foreign nationals may not bring Bivens actions for harm that occurs on foreign soil—even when the official causing that harm is on American soil, and even though Americans on foreign soil may bring a Bivens claim. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (April 6, 2020), the Supreme Court granted the RNC’s request to stay (block) a District Court’s order that had extended the deadline for absentee ballots to be submitted in Wisconsin’s elections from April 7 to April 13. The district court had granted the extension due to concerns that the COVID-19 crisis had created a “huge backlog” of requests for absentee ballots that would make it difficult for many voters to receive and postmark their absentee ballots by April 7. The Supreme Court disagreed, maintaining absentee ballots had to be postmarked by April 7—thereby effectively changing election rules on the eve of an election, which long-standing precedent forbids. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent predicted the order would result in “massive disenfranchisement.” You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF NEW YORK (April 27, 2020), the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on handgun owners transporting their firearms outside the city, which effectively prevented gun owners from bringing their guns to target ranges outside of NYC. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, but rather held that the case was moot, because New York law had since changed to give the gun owners exactly what they wanted: gun owners can now bring their guns outside the city. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In BOSTOCK V. CLAYTON COUNTY (June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Right Act—the statute that prohibits discrimination in employment on the bases of race, gender, and certain other “protected classes”—also protects employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status, despite the fact Congress obviously did not intend the statute to capture discrimination on these bases when the statute was originally drafted and enacted in 1964. Fewer than half of all states had previously prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (June 18, 2020), the Supreme Court held that Trump’s effort to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—which was created by Obama in 2012, and which protects undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children (“dreamers”) to apply for protection from deportation—was unlawful. The Court ruled that, while the Trump Administration unquestionably has the power to end the program, the way the administration went about attempting to end the program was “arbitrary and capricious,” and thus unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC V. GEE, GEE V. MEDICAL SERVICES LLC (June 29, 2020), the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that placed restrictions on doctors who perform the procedure. In particular, the law required doctors who perform abortions in Louisiana to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of the place where the abortion is performed. The Court had previously struck down virtually identical laws in 2016, in a case called Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and the Court essentially ruled that Louisiana’s laws looked too similar to the laws it had previously struck down and constituted an “undue burden” on the right to abortion. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In ESPINOZA V. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (June 30, 2020), the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that had held, in essence, that Montana’s tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from favoring one religion over another, or any religion over secularism. The Supreme Court held that not only did the law not violate the Establishment Clause, but that not providing tax credits for religious schools would actually be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from discriminating against religion. While the government is not required to subsidize private education, the Court held, it cannot subsidize only secular private schools once it decides to do so. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER AND PAUL HOME V. PENNSYLVANIA (July 8, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had authority under the Affordable Care Act to establish rules exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees. The decision comes six years after the Court’s famous decision in 2014, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a very similar case that foreshadowed this outcome. You can read the opinion here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In TAYLOR v. RIOJAS (November 2, 2020), the Supreme Court held that Trent Taylor, an inmate who was kept in disgusting and unsanitary conditions in a Texas prison, could proceed with his Section 1983 claim against the officials responsible for his confinement. The Supreme Court held that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity because existing law “clearly established” that the conditions Taylor was forced to endure were terrible enough to violate his his Eight Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. The opinion is significant because the Court has drastically expanded the scope of qualified immunity in recent years, and this decision bucks that trend. You can read the opinion here. You can read KLLF’s in-depth coverage of the decision here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.
In ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK V. ANDREW CUOMO (November 25, 2020), the Supreme Court struck down an executive order issued by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, which directed the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red “zones” in New York based on the severity of the COVID-19 outbreaks and to impose correspondingly severe restrictions on gatherings and activity within each zone. The Appellants—the Roman Catholic Diocese and Agudath Israel, an orthodox Jewish organization—challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, arguing that they each have places of worship among the affected zones—notably Brooklyn and Queens—and that the restrictions, which have had the effect of canceling or else limiting capacity at various religious services, ultimately burden their members more than the general public. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the executive order unfairly singled out religious organizations. You can read the opinion here. You can read KLLF’s in-depth coverage of the lower courts’ decisions here. You can read more about the case at SCOTUSblog here.