Civil Rights

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

Initially, the Supreme Court indicated these two affirmative action cases would be argued and considered together, since they concern similar questions. But after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who until recently served on Harvard’s board of overseers, was confirmed, the Court announced it would hear the cases separately, though on the same day, allowing Justice Jackson to participate in the UNC case.

Despite the fact that for 40 years the Supreme Court has said that educational institutions are allowed to take race into account as one factor in admission decisions with some caveats, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) for doing just that.

SFFA alleges that Harvard’s admissions policy discriminates against Asian Americans in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Harvard admits that it does consider race as one factor in admission, they assert that their policy strictly adheres to rules for race-based admissions laid down in the Supreme Court’s 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which has guided universities in their efforts to maintain a qualified and diverse student body. Both the district court and the First Circuit ruled for Harvard.

SSFA argues that the admissions policies of the University of North Carolina discriminate against White and Asian American applicants, in violation of both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (unlike Harvard, UNC is a public university and covered by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee). Like Harvard, UNC admits that it considers race among many other factors in admission decisions but follows the requirements for race-based admission set forth in Grutter. After a seven-year legal battle in the district court, the UNC policy was upheld — a decision affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.

Oral argument: October 31, 2022 

Why we’re watching: These cases could decide the fate of the precedent set in the Supreme Court’s Grutter decision. NCJW supports and works for equal opportunity for all in the public and private sectors through policies and programs that support diversity, equity, and inclusion, such as affirmative action.

Decision: On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled that both the Harvard College and UNC affirmative action policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Court’s five other conservative justices. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the Harvard case and strongly criticized the majority opinion’s reading of the 14^th Amendment. In her dissent in the UNC case, Justice Jackson also delivered a strong rebuke to the majority’s interpretation of the clause and cautioned that stark “race-based gaps” still exist today.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 

Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, a Colorado graphic design company, wanted to begin designing wedding websites but not for same-sex couples. Her plan to post a notice on her website to that effect violated a Colorado law that prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other characteristics, and from publishing any communication that says or implies that the business excludes certain customers or patrons. When Smith sued claiming that the law violated her artistic free speech rights under the First Amendment, the district court and, later the Tenth Circuit, sided with the state of Colorado. The Supreme Court will decide whether a public accommodation law that prohibits or requires communication violates an artist’s right to free speech and expression.  

Oral argument: December 5, 2022

Why we’re watching: This case could allow business owners who are engaged in expressive activities to claim religious-based exemptions from laws protecting civil rights. NCJW believes that all forms of discrimination must be eliminated and supports the enactment, enforcement, and preservation of laws and regulations that protect civil rights and individual liberties for all. 

Decision: In a 6-3 decision, issued on June 30, Justice Gorsuch overruled the lower court, ruling that the First Amendment barred Colorado from forcing Lorie Smith from creating “expressive designs” with which she disagrees. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that this was the first time in history that the court allowed a business open to the public to refuse service to members of a protected class.

Groff v. DeJoy

Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who works for the US Postal Service (USPS), refused to work on Sunday because of his religious beliefs and practices. USPS initially offered to find other employees to swap shifts with him, but eventually began disciplining Groff when he did not work, leading to his termination. Groff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that USPS did not reasonably accommodate his religion. The district court ruled against Groff, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling from 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, that defined how an employer could demonstrate “undue hardship” with regard to whether or not it accommodated an employee’s religious practice per Title VII. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, and Groff is asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 1977 ruling.

Oral Argument: April 18, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW believes that employers should respect and accommodate workers’ religious beliefs and practices in most cases.

Decision: In a unanimous decision on June 28, the Court overturned the Third Circuit’s decision against Gerald Groff, requiring employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. The Court modified but did not reverse past precedent when it comes to determining when such accommodation would not be required.

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

 A deaf student, Miguel Perez, was assigned an aide by his Michigan school district who was not trained to work with deaf people and did not know American Sign Language (ASL). When it came time to graduate from high school, Miguel Perez’s parents were informed that their child did not meet the requirements for a diploma. Perez sued the school district for violating the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) as well as the IDEA (Individuals with Disability Education Act), among other laws. The family reached a settlement under the IDEA to pay for Miguel’s education at a deaf school, post-secondary education assistance, but the administrative judge threw out the ADA claim on the grounds that he lacked authority to hear the case. Perez then sued the school system under the ADA in federal district court, which dismissed the case without hearing arguments due to the IDEA settlement — a move that was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Perez is asking the Supreme Court whether a family must exhaust all administrative proceedings under the IDEA before pursuing a claim under the ADA, and whether settling, as Perez’ family did, counts as exhausting his claims.

Oral Arguments: January 18, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW works for comprehensive supports, opportunities, services, and policies that enable all children and youth to succeed in school. We do not believe a child and their family must exhaust their administrative remedies in order to bring claims under civil rights laws, including the ADA.

Decision: On March 21, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of Miguel Perez, agreeing that he can sue the school system for damages. They sent the case back to the lower court so that his litigation might continue.

Reproductive Justice

Haaland v. Brackeen

In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) which was a response to the fact that one-quarter to one-third of Native American children were placed in adoptive or foster families, primarily with non-Native families. The practice was documented to have harmed Native children and threatened the future of Native tribes. The Act provides for the welfare of Native children, requiring an active effort to provide services to at-risk families before removing a child and, in the event that a child is sent elsewhere, the Act preferences placing the child a member of their extended family or with a member of the child’s tribe. Three non-Indian parents in Texas sued in district court which found the ICWA unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed the lower court decision, but the full Fifth Circuit issued a divided opinion, leading to the Supreme Court appeal. Among the issues before the Court is whether the families have standing to bring the suit since they suffered no injuries and whether Congress had the authority to pass the ICWA. 

Oral Argument: November 9, 2022

Why We’re Watching: This case could have broader implications connected to the status and well-being of Native Americans as the outcome could have detrimental consequences for the state of Indian law, tribal sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native children, and reproductive justice for Indigenous communities across the United States. NCJW seeks to improve the quality of life for women, children, and families and supports laws and policies like the Indian Child Welfare Act, one of our nation’s key tools to protect the rights and culture of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families.

Decision: In a 7-2 decision issued on June 15, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress has the power to make laws governing Native American tribes and upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act which aims to keep adopted Native children within their families and tribes.

Health and Hospital Corp of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski

On behalf of her husband, a resident of a Medicaid-participating, state-run nursing home in Indiana living with dementia, Ivanka Talevski brought suit against the facility alleging that they violated the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA) by providing inadequate medical care, using unnecessary psychotropic drugs and chemical restraint, and improperly discharging and transferring him. A district court judge dismissed the case, finding that the FNHRA did not provide for the private right of action afforded under a law known as Section 1983, which allows citizens to seek relief from violations of rights or injuries. The Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling, saying that Section 1983 did allow for the suit. Although the Medicaid Act does not include a provision to allow individuals to enforce the law in court, people have relied on Section 1983 as an enforcement mechanism throughout Medicaid’s 50-year history. Beyond the particulars of the Talevski case involving the FNHRA and Medicaid, the Supreme Court, which took the appeal, must decide whether to stick with precedent and allow individuals to use Section 1983 to seek redress in cases where the specific statute doesn’t have its own right for individuals to sue for enforcement of the statute. 

Oral Arguments: November 8, 2022

Why We’re Watching: The outcome of this case will have an impact on access to reproductive and sexual health. An adverse outcome could significantly impede a Medicaid beneficiary or applicant’s right to enforce the act’s provisions (or any other social program’s provisions) when they are violated by the state.

Decision: On June 8, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to sue under Section 1983 when state officials or agencies violate constitutional or statutory rights. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the majority opinion.

Workers’ Rights

Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174

Truck drivers from Teamsters Local 174 went on strike to secure a better contract at Glacier Northwest, a company that provides ready-mix concrete to construction projects in Washington state. Some cement was spoiled during the strike, and Glacier sued the union under state tort law for intentional destruction of property. The Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the suit because they found it was not appropriate to apply state law to a labor dispute covered under the federal National Labor Relations Act. Their ruling followed longstanding Supreme Court precedent dating back to a 1959 ruling in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon that held that federal labor law preempts the application of state law to labor disputes. Glacier appealed, arguing that because damage had been done, the strike would not be protected by federal law in the first place. The Supreme Court may well revisit this 60-year precedent protecting unions from lawsuits when workers exercise their federally protected right to strike, which would seriously undermine the protection of labor rights.

Oral Argument: January 10, 2023

Why We’re Watching: NCJW has long supported the right of workers to organize and form unions to collectively bargain for better working conditions. This case has the potential to seriously erode the protection of labor rights, including the right for workers to strike.

Decision: On June 1, in an 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court reversed the Washington State Supreme Court decision and remanded the case. The opinion affirmed the overall power of the NLRB and the right to strike despite siding with Glacier. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson urged the lower court to dismiss the company’s complaint.