Louisiana Senate Vetoes Retrial Bill For People Convicted By Split Juries
Source: HPphoto / Getty
The Louisiana Senate reaffirmed its commitment to Jim Crow-era practices this week by vetoing a bill that would've allowed incarcerated people convicted under split jury verdicts to seek a retrial.
According to AP, the bill failed on a 9-26 vote that fell along party lines. The bill was authored by state Sen. Royce Duplessis (D) and would've added split jury convictions to the list of claims an incarcerated person could seek a retrial. There are an estimated 1,500 men and women currently incarcerated in Louisiana as a result of split jury convictions, 80 percent of whom are Black.
'If we choose to vote down this bill, we're saying that justice has an expiration date,' Duplessis told his colleagues during debate over the measure. 'We have an opportunity in Louisiana to remove this stain, because right now we are the only ones wearing it.'
Split jury convictions were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2020, which acknowledged the racist origins of the practice and found it violated defendants' constitutional rights. At the time of the ruling, the only states that still allowed them were Oregon and Louisiana.
For its part, Oregon's Supreme Court voted in 2022 to allow the then-400 people incarcerated through split jury convictions to seek a retrial. Conversely, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted to reject retroactively applying the Supreme Court's decision that same year.
Split jury convictions were a cornerstone of Jim Crow policies and were inherently designed to uphold white supremacy. This isn't an opinion; split jury convictions were introduced in 1898 in the Louisiana State Constitution, a framework explicitly designed to 'reestablish the supremacy of the white race,' after the Civil War. Source: Kansuda Kaewwannarat / Getty
Split jury convictions in particular were implemented to ensure that even if Black people were on a jury, their voices wouldn't sway the outcome of a case. This was a multilayered tactic as it allowed Black people to be convicted of felonies under questionable circumstances, which in turn would strip them of their voting rights. These verdicts were and still are used to strip Black people of both their freedom and political power.
Knowing that history, it's hard not to look at the Louisiana Senate with a significant amount of side-eye. Their arguments against the measure were incredibly shallow, stating that they didn't want to overburden the courts and district attorneys. They choose not to rectify an explicitly racist, unconstitutional tactic…because of court scheduling.
I would respect it more if they stopped playing in our faces and just said the quiet part out loud.
Those in favor of the bill countered that it wouldn't automatically allow for a retrial; it simply would've provided a pathway for those incarcerated under split jury convictions, and that retrials would be granted under the discretion of the district attorneys. The fact that this move came as the Louisiana House of Representatives passed an anti-DEI bill that was widely viewed by the Black caucus as racist just goes to show how regressive the Louisiana state legislature is across the board.
Making the veto even more egregious is the fact that a recent poll showed that the majority of Louisiana voters were in favor of the measure passing. So this clearly wasn't about doing what was in the best interest of their constituents. It was about reminding Black people how little their freedom matters to those in power.
Whether it's 1898 or 2025, the playbook remains the same, and sadly, Louisiana will have to continue wearing this stain.
SEE ALSO:
Trump Administration Targets DEI Initiatives at Colleges
California Teen Spurs Outrage With Racist Promposal
SEE ALSO
Louisiana Senate Vetoes Retrial Bill For People Convicted By Split Juries was originally published on newsone.com
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.' Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's travel ban is his fourth attempt. See how list compares to 2017
Trump's travel ban is his fourth attempt. See how list compares to 2017 President Donald Trump ordered a travel ban on June 4, barring residents of 12 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, from entering the United States as a risk to national security. The ban takes effect on June 9. Partial restrictions were imposed against citizens of seven other nations. It was the first travel ban issued by Trump in his second presidential term. Trump ordered three travel bans against predominantly Muslim nations during his first administration. Those bans were contested in federal district and appeals courts. The Supreme Court upheld Trump's third travel ban in June 2018. Trump later expanded that ban by adding six nations in January 2020. A review of the 12 nations banned on June 4 shows half have been targeted in previous bans. Here's what USA TODAY found: Which nations did Trump ban or restrict? Can't view our graphics? Click here to see them. Lower courts overturned the first two bans for apparent religious or racial motivations, before the Supreme Court upheld the third ban in 2018. Then-President Joe Biden repealed the ban in 2021. More: Trump issues new travel ban affecting nearly 20 countries: What travelers need to know Which nations have been targeted in current and previous travel bans? Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen have been specified in past travel bans. The ban on June 4 included Eritrea, which Trump included in his expanded list of targeted nations in 2020. Afghanistan, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Myanmar, and the Republic of Congo have not been singled out in previous bans. Countries subject to US travel restrictions on multiple occasions Travel restrictions do not apply to those: Possessing visas that have already been granted. Lawful permanent residents. Certain athletes. Immediate family members of current visa holders. Other classes of individuals for whom the administration granted exceptions. The International Refugee Assistance Project, a group that sued Trump in 2017, criticized the new ban as arbitrary for making exceptions for athletes traveling to the U.S. for sporting events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, "while closing the door to ordinary people who've gone through extensive legal processes to enter the United States," USA TODAY reported. CONTRIBUTING Joey Garrison, Francesca Chambers, and Kinsey Crowley SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; Reuters
