The Supreme Court issued several high profile decisions on Thursday.
The nation’s highest court made rulings on religious tax exemptions, reverse discrimination and gun manufacturer liability for violence. Here is a breakdown of the day’s decisions.
9-0: Religious Tax Exemption
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that prevented a Catholic charity from receiving a religious tax exemption.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court blocked Catholic Charities Bureau from an exemption to pay into the state’s unemployment compensation system, arguing the organization primarily does secular work.
Catholic Charities appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and a group of 19 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the group’s case, the Center Square previously reported.
The First Liberty Institute, a religious nonprofit, also fled an amicus brief in support of the group’s case. Ryan Gardner, counsel for first liberty institute said he was pleased to hear of the high court’s decision.
“We applaud the Justices for again affirming unanimously that the First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to engage in religious exercise defined by the manner dictated by their sincere religious beliefs rather than the government’s preferences,” Gardner said.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin ruling Thursday.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court which said the Wisconsin court “imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines” that violated the First Amendment to the constitution.
9-0: Majority Group Discrimination
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a heterosexual woman who said she was discriminated against at her place of work on the basis of sexuality.
The high court challenged a circuit court precedent that held Marlene Ames must supply “background circumstances to support the unusual suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
The court’s decision opens the door for future lawsuits based on workplace discrimination from members of majority groups. Now, members of majority groups are not required to supply background circumstances to sue their employer.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the doctrine requiring background circumstances to prove discrimination.
“Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts,” Thomas wrote.
9-0: Gun Manufacturer Liability
Smith and Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Mexico can’t sue American gun manufacturers for arms trafficking and cartel violence in Mexico.
The court pointed to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from most civil lawsuits.
Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, included Tennessee-based Smith & Wesson, alleging they knowingly violated state or federal laws in the sales of firearms. The suit sought $10 billion in damages.
The Mexican government argued American manufacturers “aided and abetted” the trafficking of guns into the country because the manufacturers did not carefully scrutinize those buyers to which they sold.
“The complaint does not pinpoint – as many aiding and abetting cases do – that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
“In asserting that the manufacturers intentionally supply guns to bad-apple dealers, Mexico never confronts that the manufacturers do not directly supply any dealers, bad-apple or otherwise,” Kagan wrote.
8-1: Relief From Judgement Timeline
Blom Bank Sal v. Honickman
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to prevent groups from vacating court judgements in order to amend an original complaint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson only partly agreed with the court’s judgement.
A group of victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas between 2001 and 2003 sued BLOM bank on charges of aiding and abetting Hamas-affiliated customers by providing financial services.
A district court dismissed the case, finding the group lacked evidence of a direct liability between Hamas-affiliated customers and the bank.
The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint after the ruling was issued and the time to amend passed. They were ultimately barred from amending because they did not show “extraordinary circumstances” in the argument.
A circuit court reversed the decision of lower courts which did not allow the plaintiffs to amend a complaint and the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
In a written opinion of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said circuit courts’ approach “conflates this order of operations” and dilutes well-established standards of porving “extraordinary circumstances to amend a complaint after a ruling is made.
9-0: Foreign Arbitration Award
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp.
The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously against the need for a defendant to have “minimum contacts” in order to prove jurisdiction of a foreign entity in legal proceedings within the United States.
The court relied on the provisions already listed in the Foreign Services Immunity Act which sets a baseline for the level of jurisdiction a court has when dealing with foreign affairs.
The court reversed a lower court’s decision which imposed additional requirements on the companies represented in the suit due to their connections with the Republic of India.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the court and argued that Congress already enumerated its requirements for jurisdictional guidance in the FSIA.
“In the narrow instances where Congress did not want for immunity and jurisdiction to be coextensive with the enumerated exceptions, it said so,” Alito wrote.
Dismissed: ADA Compliance for Blind Patients
Labcorp v. Davis
The Supreme Court dismissed a case arguing that Labcorp’s self-check-in kiosks did not accommodate for visually impaired or blind people, despite Labcorp still offering in-person check-in options.
The patients claimed Labcorp’s kiosk violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and sought potential damages of up to $500 million.
A district court certified the suit and expanded the ruling to “all legally blind individuals in California who visited a Labcorp patient service center in California” and were denied “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to Labcorp’s failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals.”
Labcorp argued this decision went too far in its inclusion of all legally blind individuals, considering the company offered alternative options to accommodate blind individuals who could not use the kiosk.
Circuit courts upheld the district court’s original decision. Labcorp brought the case to the nation’s high court where it was dismissed as “improvidently granted.”
While the high court dismissed the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion on the merits of the decision.
Kavanaugh said allowing the ruling to stand threatens large liabilities for businesses that are the targets of costly lawsuits.
“That reality in turn can coerce businesses into costly settlements that they sometimes must reluctantly swallow rather than betting the company on the uncertainties of trial,” Kavanaugh wrote.
