Last term, the United States Supreme Court made several important decisions impacting civil rights in America. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, thereby taking away from many millions of Americans their fundamental constitutional right to bodily autonomy. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Court invalidated New York’s century-old law regulating concealed firearms.
As the Court’s new term begins the first week of October, it will be considering key cases impacting each of LDF’s four pillars: political participation, criminal justice, education equity, and economic justice. LDF will be participating in and actively monitoring the following cases sure to impact civil rights.
On October 4, LDF presented oral argument at the Court for the first time since our 2016 argument in Buck v. Davis. The case is Merrill v. Milligan, and it raises key questions about the Court’s commitment to continued enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Merrill arises out of the post-2020 congressional redistricting in Alabama. Continuing a longstanding pattern of discrimination, the state enacted a congressional map that provided Black voters with an opportunity to elect candidates of choice in only one of seven (14%) congressional districts, even though Black people comprise 27% of Alabama’s population. In November 2021, LDF filed a lawsuit on behalf of Black voters, challenging the map as a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it denied Black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
After a lengthy evidentiary hearing, a unanimous three-judge panel granted a preliminary injunction requiring the creation of a new congressional map that complied with the Voting Rights Act. The state appealed, and by a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court halted the district court’s ruling, thereby allowing the state’s discriminatory redistricting plan to remain in effect through 2022.
The Supreme Court will now take up the merits of the case. In so doing, it could issue a major new ruling about the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court has granted review in another major voting case, which could severely circumscribe the role of state courts as a check on gerrymandered state legislatures. Moore v. Harper arises out of North Carolina’s congressional redistricting after the 2020 Census. The Republican-controlled legislature adopted a map that would allow Republican voters to control elections in 10 of 14 congressional districts, even though the state is closely divided on partisan lines.
The North Carolina Supreme Court blocked this partisan gerrymander as inconsistent with the North Carolina Constitution, and ordered a new map drawn by court-appointed experts. Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to consider that ruling, because the North Carolina Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the proper interpretation of the North Carolina Constitution. However, the petitioners are seeking to advance the “independent state legislature” theory, which posits that the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution gives the state legislature, and not state courts, the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” federal elections. The independent state legislature doctrine is a dangerous theory, which could severely undermine voting rights litigation in state courts.
For over 40 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is legally permissible for universities to consider race as one of many factors in the admissions process. This precedent is critical to ensuring that our universities reflect our diverse society: due to severe and persisting inequalities in K-12 education, students of color generally have far fewer opportunities to amass the traditional credentials valued in the admissions process, even though they are fully qualified to be admitted and contribute to the university.
An organization that calls itself Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) has asked the Court to again revisit whether race may be considered in university admissions, in a pair of cases it brought challenging admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC). A ruling in SFFA’s favor could substantially reduce enrollment by Black students and other students of color at many of our nation’s leading institutions of higher learning.
LDF filed amicus briefs in both cases. In the Harvard case, we did so on behalf of the 25 student and alumni organizations we represented at trial and in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, whose representatives testified powerfully about the importance of a racially diverse student body. In the UNC case, LDF filed an amicus brief on behalf of ourselves and the NAACP, focusing on how SFFA sought to pervert the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. Oral argument in these cases is scheduled for October 31.
Read more about the cases here.
In Reed v. Goetz, LDF filed an amicus brief in support of Rodney Reed, a Black man on death row in Texas for a crime he likely did not commit. The brief argues that Mr. Reed was wrongfully denied post-conviction DNA testing that could help prove his innocence due to an improper statute of limitations ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief emphasizes the critical role DNA evidence can play in remedying racial discrimination. Of the 550 people exonerated at least in part as a result of DNA evidence, 80% have been people of color, and almost 65% have been Black.
In April 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Rodney Reed v. Bryan Goertz, reversing lower court rulings that had closed the courthouse doors on an effort by Rodney Reed, a Black man on death row in Texas, to access DNA evidence that could demonstrate his innocence. After being denied access to post-conviction DNA testing by Texas state courts, for a crime he likely did not commit, Mr. Reed filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arguing that the Texas courts had interpreted their state’s post-conviction DNA testing statute to deny his due process rights under the federal constitution. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Reed’s suit without considering the merits, incorrectly determining that the statute of limitations for filing such claims had passed.
In Cruz v. Arizona, LDF joined with LatinoJustice PRLDEF in filing an amicus brief in support of John Cruz, who is on death row in part because Arizona has flouted Supreme Court precedent about informing jurors when life without parole is the only alternative to a death sentence. The brief discusses the important role such information can play in limiting jurors’ reliance on racist stereotypes about future dangerousness when sentencing a defendant to death.
At issue in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is whether the Court will take the unprecedented step of creating a new constitutional right to discriminate. The petitioner, a website designer, refuses to provide services for same-sex weddings in violation of a Colorado public accommodations law. However, she claims she has a First Amendment right to decide which customers to serve.
In LDF’s amicus brief, we explain why the petitioner’s theory is foreclosed by the 1968 decision in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, a case litigated by LDF, in which the Court unanimously rejected a First Amendment exception to public accommodations laws for a business that wished to discriminate against Black patrons. As the Court has repeatedly recognized, governments have a compelling interest in enacting neutral public accommodations laws that prohibit businesses from engaging in discrimination.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted by Congress in 1978 due to a disproportionately high rate of forced removal of Native American children from their tribal homes and their tribes as a whole. At the time, research showed that nearly three-quarters of all Native children were being removed from their homes and communities and placed in non-Native homes with no connection to Native American cultures. The ICWA aimed to stop the disturbing practice by granting tribal governments a strong voice in child custody cases involving Native children when the child lives on the reservation and in other related instances.
In Haaland v. Brackeen, a consolidation of four related cases, the Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling by an appellate court that invalidated parts of the ICWA – ruling that certain provisions of the Act violate the 10th Amendment. The federal government petitioned the Supreme Court to consider the matter, which it will do in its upcoming term. Organizations like the ACLU and the American Bar Association have filed amicus briefs in support of the ICWA, asking the Court to uphold the existing law.
