Supreme Court decisions reinforce and expand civil rights

By Marjorie R. Esman
Contributing Columnist
decision instant loan
With two recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court is showing that it will continue to ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties at least in some important contexts . While divided, the Court has sent clear messages that discrimination will not be tolerated, that everyone’s rights are equal, and that the courts will continue to protect those who are vulnerable and at risk of wrongful discrimination.

First, in a federal lawsuit against Texas officials, the court established the important principle that violations of the federal fair housing law can be evaluated based upon their impact and not just their intent. In other words, practices that appear neutral on their face can now be found unlawfully discriminatory if they have a discriminatory consequence. The facts of the case — Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive overnight personal loans Communities Project — involved tax credits for housing development, which had been awarded more in Black, inner-city communities than in white communities. While seemingly neutral or even beneficial, this practice had the effect of keeping low-income housing out of white neighborhoods, thereby perpetuating continued racial segregation. By a 5–4 margin, the Supreme Court held that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits these seemingly race-neutral practices that ultimately discriminate, even without proof of intentional discrimination.

Housing discrimination has been at the foundation of racial inequality in the U.S. But with passage of the Federal Housing Act of 1968 those in the housing business have been required to engage in practices that don’t discriminate, and that are racially neutral. This case establishes that “neutral” may still be discriminatory, meaning that housing patterns will now be evaluated based on their consequences regardless of their intent. While a narrow victory over harsh dissents, in the end equal protection prevailed, and communities across this country will have to ensure that housing practices don’t, even unintentionally, wrongfully discriminate.

Perhaps more courageous, because it created a new Consti­tu­tional right, was the 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Ruling that same-sex couples have the same rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses to marry the person of their choosing, the Court continued its decades-long recognition that matters of marriage and family are deeply personal fundamental rights that cannot be denied absent a compelling governmental interest. This important ruling has already cleared the path for thousands of couples to marry, has provided enhanced protections for children across the U.S. who may now have two legal parents instead of just one, payday loans bbb accredited and most importantly, it provides clear and continued support for the simple prospect that everyone’s rights are equal.

With the clearly established right to marry, LGBT people still lack basic protections from other forms of discrimination in most of this country. There are no federal laws protecting them from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Louisiana lacks such laws statewide, although the cities of New Orleans and Shreveport have municipal ordinances that go a long way towards protecting residents of their communities. If someone can be “married on Sunday and fired on Monday,” equality remains a long way off. That battle remains to be won, but the recognition by the highest court in the land that equal means equal will go a long way towards ensuring better protections in the future.

Less encouraging was the Supreme payday advance lodi ca Court’s ruling on a death penalty case from Oklahoma, although it left open the ultimate question of the constitutionality of the death penalty. In Glossip v. Gross, the Court unfortunately upheld the legality of the execution drug midazolam despite the fact that people have suffered enormously after that “drug” (really a way to kill people) is administered. Again this was a 5–4 ruling, and although it allowed the use of that chemical to continue, the dissent made it clear that the larger issue of the death penalty in general remains open for review.

The death penalty is the ultimate and irreversible denial of a person’s rights. It’s well documented that the death pen­alty is administered unfairly in the U.S. along racial and socio-economic lines, and law enforcement officers largely agree that it is no deterrent to violent crime. cash advance batesburg sc The death penalty wastes millions of tax dollars each year, money that could be better spent on education, rehabilitation and other programming. At the end of the day, the death penalty is inhumane and barbaric and inconsistent with the idea of democracy and a civilized people.

Here in Louisiana, Caddo Parish has the ignominious distinction of being one of the country’s leaders in sentencing people to death. Louisiana doesn’t need that disgrace.

With the same resolve and courage the Supreme Court had when it ruled on housing discrimination and same sex marriage, we encourage the court to consider the legitimacy of the death penalty and to come to the only right conclusion, as quickly as they can. Abolish it, as soon as possible!

This article originally published in the August 17, 2015 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.