On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal immigration law that made it easier for children of U.S. citizen mothers to obtain citizenship than children of U.S. citizen fathers.

Per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the citizenship of children born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent who is a citizen of another nation is decided differently depending on whether the U.S. citizen parent is the child’s mother or father. A child of a U.S. citizen mother would automatically become a U.S. citizen as long as the mother had lived in the U.S. for one year. However, a child of a U.S. citizen father would only automatically become a U.S. citizen if the father had lived in the U.S. for five years before the child was born, and if at least two of those years had occurred after the father had turned 14.

In an 8-0 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the Court held that such a “gender line” was “incompatible” with the Equal Protections Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in November 2016 when the court heard the case.

Luis Ramón Morales-Santana has lived in the U.S. since he was 13. When Morales-Santana was born, the requirement was that fathers needed to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before the child was born, five of which had to be after the age of 14–as opposed to the current requirement of five years in the U.S., including two after age 14.

His father, José Morales, moved to the Dominican Republic just 20 days before turning 19 and, therefore, did not meet the earlier requirement of living in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14. Without his father satisfying that requirement, Morales-Santana was not considered a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government attempted to remove Morales-Santana from the country in 2000 based on several criminal convictions.

Morales-Santana asserted that the U.S. government’s refusal to grant him citizenship violated the Equal Protections Clause because it hinged on gender based classification of his parentage. Had Morales-Santana’s mother been a U.S. citizen and lived in the country for one year, he would have already been considered a citizen.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the court in which she explained that laws granting or denying benefits based on the sex of a parent are subject to “heightened scrutiny.”

Before 1940, Ginsburg said, standards for citizenship of children born abroad were rooted in two gender based assumptions. “In marriage, husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the natural and sole guardian of a nonmarital child,” Ginsburg wrote, describing those assumptions. Children of married parents derived their citizenship status from their fathers, while children of unwed parents derived their citizenship status from their mothers.

The Nationality Act of 1940 eliminated fathers’ sole control over children’s citizenship, instead allowing either married U.S. citizen mothers or fathers to pass citizenship on to their child. The Act also codified unwed mothers’ ability to pass citizenship on to their child, but did not do so for unwed fathers since mothers were regarded as children’s sole guardians in cases in which the parents were not married.

The U.S. government argued that when a child is born to unwed parents, the mother is the only legally recognized parent at the child’s birth; the father is acknowledged after the fact. Ginsburg explained that, according to the U.S. government’s argument, the lengthier residency requirement for U.S. citizen fathers is warranted due to the “‘competing national influence’ of the alien mother.”

However, Ginsburg wrote that the assumption is based on “the long-held view that unwed fathers care little about, indeed are strangers to, their children.” Such a characterization, she says, “no longer passes equal protection inspection.”

The Court held that the gender-based distinction violated the equal protection clause, but did not decide whether the requirement for U.S. citizen mothers should be applied equally to fathers.

Ginsburg said Congress had made an exception for unwed mothers, but not for unwed fathers. Therefore, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to decide whether the standard for unwed mothers should be extended to unwed fathers.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules Gender-Based Citizenship Requirement is Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has all the qualities of your favorite grandma: 83 years old, looks great in glasses, makes borderline inappropriate political comments.

The Supreme Court justice came under intense scrutiny this week after publicly criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump not once, not twice, but three times, calling him a faker, inconsistent, and chastising him for his ego, all while reaching for her passport so she could move to another country pending his inauguration.

Trump did not take it well.

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

RBG isn’t the first to let her doubts about Trump bleed out into newsfeeds, but this is different from the typical political figure because as a SCOTUS justice, she is, by definition, supposed to avoid being political. Despite common knowledge of Ginsburg’s liberal tendencies, her position as a justice calls for objectivity and removal from the political sphere when making court decisions, and many think she may have crossed the line.

Even the @NYTimes and @WashingtonPost Editorial Boards condemned Justice Ginsburg for her ethical and legal breach. What was she thinking?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

Her comments led to a huge debate by legal ethicists and judges nationwide and there is a legitimate fear of a Bush v. Gore sequel, in which Ginsburg would have to recuse herself because she has demonstrated a clear bias against one of the parties.

But on Thursday, RBG did take a couple steps back from the fight. She said in a statement,

On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them…Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.

Still, it seems like these two won’t be fast friends if he does make it to the White House.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recuse Me, What Did You Say?: RBG and Donald Trump Go Head-to-Head appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Tenors Crash ‘O Canada’ With “All Lives Matter” Lyrics

A member of the quartet singing group, The Tenors, decided it was a good idea to change up the lyrics to the Canadian national anthem at the MLB All-Star game in San Diego.

Correction: The Tenors altered O Canada lyrics in support of All Lives Matter. pic.twitter.com/Q0i6qqLB4Y

— Bill Cooney (@BillCooney) July 13, 2016

Awkward, right? Social media immediately lashed out against the obvious political act and the group has since issued a statement apologizing. An update revealed that the All Lives Matter singer acted alone. All Lives Matter is now said to be a countermovement working against Black Lives Matter. Sigh.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like the Red Cross Made A Racist Mistake?

Earlier this month, the Red Cross released posters for pool safety depicting ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’ ways to act around a pool. While pool safety is very important, the imagery used in this particular poster is very worrisome. Only children of color are shown as being unruly and uncool but white children are shown being safe and calm. Why? Because prejudice! People on social media were so ready to call them out:

Hey, @RedCross, send a new pool poster to @SalidaRec bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist pic.twitter.com/TY8MmFB3Qk

— John Sawyer (@JSawyer330) June 21, 2016

Seriously…did no one #AmericanRedCross see the #unconsciousbias in this ‘super racist’ pool poster https://t.co/Ks7xyMiGZx

— Star Jones (@StarJonesEsq) June 27, 2016

The Red Cross has since ceased production of the posters and issued an official apology. Yikes!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Today, hundreds of pro-choice supporters rallied in front of the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be heard today in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that will cause the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of Texas’s new controversial abortion laws. Given the high stakes nature of the case–it could set national precedent for abortion laws either way it goes–protestors set out for the Supreme Court this morning, and I headed over to check it out and grab some photos of the attendees.

The new Texas regulations place additional restrictions on abortion providers, many of which are viewed as unnecessarily burdensome. Proponents of the Texas law argue that they’re trying to protect women’s health; opponents argue that the laws are just backdoor attempts to prevent abortion access in the state. The Texas provisions fall under the category of “TRAP laws,” a.k.a. targeted regulations of abortion providers. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune describes the general purposes of the laws, stating that: “in most cases they compel abortion clinics to meet the architectural, equipment and staffing standards of outpatient surgical centers, and to be staffed by doctors who have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.” While those sound in theory like good ideas, they are excessive, medically unnecessary, and ultimately just make it harder for abortion providers to operate.

Despite the incredibly windy and blustery morning, the scene at SCOTUS today was crowded and enthusiastic. The event, which was organized by a number of pro-choice groups, featured men, women, and a few adorable dogs, as well as prominent pro-choice speakers. A common refrain from the crowd was “Stop the Sham,” a rallying cry that has also reverberated around social media in the form of a hashtag: #StoptheSham.

Rights don’t matter if you can’t access them. #WeWontGoBack #StopTheSham pic.twitter.com/mrDI8PWi2Q

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 2, 2016

I’m with you all in spirit!! #SCOTUS #stopthesham #WeWontGoBack https://t.co/EjVddYnGBZ — Wendy Davis (@wendydavis) March 2, 2016

Today the Court hears argument in #WholeWomansHealth, the most important repro rights case in 20 years #StopTheShampic.twitter.com/4qhUyGqxjC

— Notorious R.B.G. (@NotoriousRBG) March 2, 2016

And on a lighter, final note, no rally in front of the Supreme Court would be complete without some fantastic protest signs. Check out some of my favorites in the slideshow below:

Image courtesy of [Anneliese Mahoney via Law Street Media]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #StoptheSham: Scenes from the Pro-Choice Rally at SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Women’s History Month, and I think it’s pretty widely recognized that four great role models are the three sitting and one former female Supreme Court justices. As the only women ever on the highest court, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotamayor are pretty recognizably badass, regardless of their various ideologies. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor anchor the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, and consistently write some of the most on point and compelling decisions. O’Connor, despite having retired in 2006, continues to work as an activist. In fact, her startup non-profit iCivics was recently awarded a MacArthur Grant to continue its amazing work in American civics education.

Now these four ladies are obviously recognized and lauded on a near-daily basis. There are a lot of awards, speaking engagements, and the like. But I think they just got one of their coolest honors recently–a fan made a set of Legos called the “Legal Justice League” that depict the four justices.

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

How adorable is that? RBG even has her signature white collar, and Kagan’s hairstyle is spot on. Here’s another picture–look at them working!

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

Anyway, these are a great, sweet representation of some of the top female minds in American jurisprudence. The creator, Maia Weinstock, stated about her figures:

This set of custom-designed LEGO minifigures, U.S. Supreme Court replica, and SCOTUS library/study aims to celebrate the accomplishments of women in the legal realm, and to encourage girls and women to work toward high positions in the U.S. judicial system.

While I personally think this would be a great set for LEGO to manufacture, the company turned down the idea after Weinstock submitted it. It has a “no politics or political symbols” rule. However, the Supreme Court isn’t, in and of itself, political. It’s actually supposed to be the opposite–a politically agnostic institution tasked with interpreting the law regardless of party lines. While that doesn’t always necessarily happen in practice, I don’t know that making figurines of the female Supreme Court justices–three liberal and one conservative–really makes any sort of political statement.

Although toys have been moving toward being more gender neutral and inclusive in recent years, many little girls’ toys–particularly dolls–still fall more into the Barbie or Bratz category. While there’s nothing wrong with those toys per se, it would be great for young girls to have more options and more exposure to real female role models.

Regardless of LEGO’s decision not to run with them,  Weinstock’s Legal Justice League figures are a great homage to the indubitably awesome female justices, and a great celebration of Women’s History Month!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything is Not Awesome: LEGO Rejects Female SCOTUS Justices Set appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been having one hell of a week. From one feminist-hero one-liner after another (totally agree, RBG, nine is just the right number of women on the bench) and admitting that she (like the rest of the rest of America) wasn’t “100 percent sober” when she nodded off at this year’s State of the Union, Notorious RBG continued to ride her own personal wave of awesomeness. Check out the slideshow below for the best legal tweets of the week dedicated to Justice Ginsburg.

[SlideDeck2 id=34411 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week: Notorious RBG Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much the best. At 81, she’s cooler than I could ever hope to be. I would very much like to be her friend. Or she can be my mentor/life coach. Either way, you should all aspire to be friends with RGB too, and here are just a few of the reasons why.

She’d Be a Great Drinking Buddy

This article was inspired by the comments Ginsburg made yesterday about why she looked so sleepy at last month’s State of the Union.

RBG is my spirit animal MT @voxdotcom I wasn’t “100% sober” at the State of the Union http://t.co/dpXnb4gwPupic.twitter.com/jTbVqyBolE

— Erin K. Stabile (@erinkstabile) February 13, 2015

She explained that she wasn’t “100 percent” sober, after she had enjoyed a “very fine California wine” brought to dinner by fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy.

That’s right, kids, our Supreme Court Justices–at least two of the cool ones–pre-gamed the State of the Union.

She’d Motivate You to Work Out

I would like to point out again, RBG is 81 years old. That being said, she has been working out with a personal trainer since 1999. She explained her workout routine, saying :

I do a variety of weight-lifting, elliptical glider, stretching exercises, push-ups. And I do the Canadian Air Force exercises almost every day.

Although she had some health concerns in November, I bet she’s still prioritizing her health and hitting the gym. Meanwhile, I am 100 percent sure I could not do anything called “Canadian Air Force exercises,” so I could really use a work out buddy like RBG to kick my ass into gear.

She’d Definitely Be Down for a Galentine’s Day Party

When asked at what point Ginsburg believes there are enough women on the Supreme Court, she had an awesome answer: when there are nine. She went on to explain that there were nine men for many years, so why not try out nine women?

She’s long been a strong feminist who isn’t afraid to put her views out there. She also is aware of the fact that she’s an outlier from a generation where women weren’t necessarily given the same opportunities as men. She at one point remembered:

My mother told me two things constantly. One was to be a lady, and the other was to be independent. The study of law was unusual for women of my generation. For most girls growing up in the ’40s, the most important degree was not your B.A., but your M.R.S

I can’t think of a better role model for young women who want to pursue their dreams.

She Knows When to Put Differences Aside for the Sake of Friendship

RBG can teach us that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they don’t have something they can teach you. She and fellow justice Antonin Scalia are basically polar opposites when it comes to beliefs and views. That being said, they can put that all aside and still have a great time together. For many years they had a tradition of spending New Years Eve together along with their spouses. They’ve traveled together–once even riding an elephant together on a trip to India. Another time in France, she went parasailing, although Scalia sat that one out. Being friends with people who force you to defend your opinions and see things a different way is a good thing–Scalia and Ginsburg are absolutely proof of that.

If you can’t get enough of Scalia and Ginsburg’s friendship, there’s actually a one-act comedic opera dedicated to the two. This is the plot:

What happens when Supreme Court justices go before a Higher Power? In this comic opera, Justices Ginsburg and Scalia must pass through three cosmic trials to secure their freedom. The catch: they may have to agree on the Constitution.

Both Ginsburg and Scalia saw it, and liked it.

She’s Very Sassy and Quotable

RBG is well known for her expertly crafted decisions. In the recent Hobby Lobby case, her dissent was nothing short of withering. She called the decision one of “a startling breadth,” and ended with this pretty awesome last paragraph:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Or how about this quote in her dissent against the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act:

Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

What a BAMF.

So there are a lot of reasons to love RBG, and I didn’t even mention her groundbreaking and brilliant legal career. Either way, she’s definitely a woman who should get a hell of a lot of respect, and if there’s anyone who should be allowed to drink wine and then fall asleep at the State of the Union, it’s her.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Reasons Why We Should All Want to Be BFFs With RBG appeared first on Law Street.

From the Super Bowl to Notorious RBG, you had a ton to say on Twitter this week. My personal favorite? One lawyer weighing in on a client’s past finding legal representation on CraigsList. (Spoiler alert: didn’t work.) Check out the best legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below.

[SlideDeck2 id=33888 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Several LGBT rights groups have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would ban employers from refusing to hire or discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. A coalition of groups that support LGBT rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is leading the charge away from the ENDA. This comes as a surprise, given that ENDA previously had strong support from these same groups. They are pulling support from a bill they have long worked to pass for only one reason–the recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. The problem is that they may be overreacting.

Since the ruling was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case, there have been misinterpretations of the case from both sides of the aisle. The liberal side of the debate has rallied behind Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, saying that the “floodgates” have been opened for religious freedom suits. That argument is the reason why so many LGBT groups have removed their support for the ENDA. They fear that corporations who wish to discriminate will be able to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the same way that Hobby Lobby did. They are scared that the Supreme Court could rule that a religious corporation not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is a violation of RFRA. I understand this fear, excellently articulated here by our blogger Chris Copeland, but I think that they are simply overreacting to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. The ruling itself was very narrow and will likely never serve as a precedent for sexual discrimination.

How am I so sure of this? Let’s put it this way, these suits will almost definitely not happen as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy did vote with the majority on Hobby Lobby, but it is clear from his concurring opinion that his vote came with some serious strings attached. Kennedy implied that he only voted the way he did because of the narrowness of the case. He believed in this specific instance that the least-restrictive means test was not met, and pointed out that the government already allowed exceptions for non-profit corporations. The court’s ruling made it clear that the decision only applies to a religious exception for the contraceptive mandate, and that all other potential religious exceptions must be evaluated individually. Simply put, Hobby Lobby is not an invitation to use the RFRA to allow sexual discrimination.

If a case arguing that job discrimination should be allowed under the RFRA ever made it to the Supreme Court, there is no way Kennedy would vote to allow it. There are several reasons for this. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that ruled any law prohibiting sexual acts between members of the same sex in private was unconstitutional. He also authored the opinion in United States v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy has long defended the rights of the LGBT community and I do not think he would change his mind if a corporation sued to use RFRA as a basis for legal sexual discrimination. The government banning sexual discrimination would meet the least-restrictive means test, while the contraceptive mandate did not, a distinction that would surely be important to Kennedy.

It’s sad to see these LGBT groups end their support for the ENDA. It is still a law that could do a lot of good. Any challenge to the ENDA under the guise of religious freedom would almost certainly turn out differently than the Hobby Lobby case, but with support being pulled from the law, it will probably never become an issue.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1)   Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2)   Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3)   Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact 

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

What happens when two Supreme Court Justices, who rarely rule the same way, sit down for an hour-long conversation on the First Amendment? Surprisingly, a lot of laughs, and some strong opinions about free speech. On Thursday, April 17, Justices discussed the First Amendment on the Kalb Report at the National Press Club.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg couldn’t be more ideologically different- Scalia is an originalist, meaning the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been when it was created. Ginsburg, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as a living document, one that can be interpreted differently based on how society has evolved.

Agreement on Free Speech:

But for being so different in their opinions, the two agreed on the most basic idea that freedom of speech is a necessary function of democracy.

“The right to speak my mind, that’s America to me,” Ginsburg said.

Scalia seemed to agree, saying, “democracy means persuading one another […] you can’t run such a system if here is muzzling of one point of view.”

Times v. Sullivan:

The two didn’t agree for long, though. One discussion over the case New York Times v. Sullivan elicited two very different opinions from the Justices.

Times. V. Sullivan was the case that holds public officials have a much harder time suing for libel. Basically, unless they can prove someone made libelous comments on purpose, they don’t have a shot at a lawsuit.

Scalia had no time for that, saying the founding fathers “would have been appalled at the notion they could be libeled with impunity,” and that rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Times v. Sullivan decision revised it.

Ginsburg disagreed, saying, “Times v. Sullivan is now well-accepted […] I suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in the 1960s, they would have agreed with that.”

Using your rights… isn’t always right?:

The conversation also pointed to the fact that while the Justices may support First Amendment Rights, it doesn’t mean they agree with the ways in which people utilize those rights.

“You can be using your 1st amendment right and it can be abominable that you are,” Scalia said and continued with,  “I will defend your right to use it, but I will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you’re using it now- that can be very wrong.”

Specifically, Ginsburg referred to a case, which Scalia ruled on, that held flag burning was Constitutionally protected, even though he did not personally agree with the idea of it.

“I would have thrown that guy in jail if I were king,” alluding to the fact in a democracy, we don’t have that option.

The First Amendment Debate isn’t Over:

At one point, Ginsburg referenced a case the Supreme Court will hear next week, questioning whether it is legal to lie about candidates running for office.

The case is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and it challenges an Ohio law that says groups and individuals can’t make false statements about political candidates. The court will be tasked with deciding whether or not false statements in the context of political races are protected speech.

Though it’s hard to tell how the court will rule, there have been other cases that deal with lies in relation to free speech. In 2012, the court ruled that a man who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor was protected by free speech. In 2006, after Xavier Alvarez lied about receiving a military award, he was prosecuted under the “Stolen Valor Act,” which made it illegal to do so.

Precedent for the Case:

The court held 6-3 that the First Amendment protected Alvarez’s lie. Ginsburg was in the majority; Scalia was not.

The opinion state specifically, “the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood.”

The combination of Alvarez and Times as precedent will be make for an interesting decision by the Court, and Ginsburg and Scalia could very easily end up on different sides of the decision again.

Their Friendship hasn’t Waned:

But through the differing opinions on how to interpret the Constitution, Ginsburg and Scalia have remained close friends.

When Kalb asked Ginsburg if she would have voted in favor of the Times case, Scalia jumped in saying, “oh God yes she would have!”

At another point, Ginsburg poked fun at Scalia after he mentioned using telephone booths, saying, “we don’t have to worry about that anymore!”

The moderator, Marvin Kalb, seemed to appreciate the dynamic between the two, saying “they are like the old days in this capital when political differences did not stop a good friendship from flourishing.”

Having two Justices discuss not just their friendship, but views on issues as decisive as the First Amendment, as well, gives the public a great inside look into the reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions. While they had vastly different ideas about how laws should be interpreted, they both had strong reasoning behind their opinions, and respected each other as people regardless of their professional views.

You can watch the whole program here.

[Times v. Sullivan] [Alvarez Case] [Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Petteway, College of the Supreme Court of the United States via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Amendment: Two Supreme Court Justices Debate What it Means appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

If you like to collect Supreme Court memorabilia (I mean, who doesn’t?) one of the greatest things you can have is a Supreme Court bobblehead doll.

Law professor Ross Davies from George Mason University came up with the idea about ten years ago. He claims it just came to him while he was in the shower. Since then, he has designed 16 miniature bobblehead versions of Supreme Court justices. Created in Bellvue, Wash. by Alexander Global Productions, four sitting justices are featured: Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Every single detail of the justices’ likenesses has some sort of hidden meaning. For example, mini bobblehead Sandra Day O’Connor wears the same shoes real O’Connor wore when she made history as the first female Supreme Court justice. Little David Souter plays a Modest Mouse song that he referenced in a copyright case when he sat on the court. Tiny Ginsburg stands on the parade grounds of Virginia Military University, a reference to the opinion she wrote striking down their all-male admissions policy. Collectors get together to decode all the details of their favorite bobbleheads. According to one of Davies’ co-creators, Gregory Jacob, “It’s like proof of their legal geekdom.”

Now before you rush out to the store to try to get one, it’s important to point out that these delightful little items are not available for sale — they’re given out for free. The easiest way to get your hands on one is to subscribe to The Green Bag, a legal journal co-edited by Davies. Whenever a bobblehead is finished, one is sent to the justice, and others are given out for free to people with vouchers who claim their prizes at a Washington DC law office. If you aren’t one of those lucky, voucher-winning fans, you might still get one through the occasional law school fundraiser auction, or perhaps for hundreds of dollares on Ebay.

The Justices themselves are great fans of their ceramic likenesses. Davies still has a thank you letter from former Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was the subject of the first bobblehead. Stephen Breyer collects his coworkers. They’re popular among other legal scholars as well. Charmiane Claxton is a federal judge in Tenn. who collects them, even getting her Scalia and O’Connor dolls signed by the justices themselves.

Because of the format in which they are released, some experts have called them  “some of rarest bobbleheads ever produced.” Certificates were recently released for the newest justice to be immortalized in bobble form: John Blair. According to Davies, he’s working on Stephen Breyer’s bobblehead now.

So on that note, Happy New Year everyone! One of my new New Year’s resolutions is to get one of these bobbleheads in 2014 — who’s with me?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Greatest Legal Souvenir Ever? appeared first on Law Street.