David Souter, Former Supreme Court Justice, Dies at 85
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who served on the high court for 19 years after being appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, has passed away, according to a statement shared by the court on Friday. Souter was 85 years old.
'Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service,' Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in a statement.
Souter was involved in several high-profile cases during his time in Washington, D.C., including Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, when he co-authored the plurality opinion with Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, upholding the core of Roe. v. Wade.
Later, in 2000, Souter dissented in Bush v. Gore, which halted the Florida recount and cemented the election. While being initially pegged as a conservative, Souter often sided with more liberal justices on issues like affirmative action and abortion.
Following his retirement in 2009, Souter routinely sat as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade; the court looked at cases from New England -— New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, as well as Puerto Rico — which is where Souter hailed from; he was born in Massachusetts and moved to New Hampshire at the age of 11.
Souter went on to attend Harvard University for both his undergraduate degree and for law school, with a stop at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar coming in between.
'After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade,' Justice Roberts said. 'He will be greatly missed.'
More to come…
The post David Souter, Former Supreme Court Justice, Dies at 85 appeared first on TheWrap.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
High court ruling on reverse discrimination a no-brainer: Chuck Rocha
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected legal precedent that people in a majority group have a higher standard for proving discrimination. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha agrees with the high court decision. 'Discrimination doesn't say, 'Oh, you have to be black,' or, 'You have to be a woman,' or, 'You have to be gay.' … Discrimination means you're treating me different,' he says on 'CUOMO.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case threatening ballots mailed by Election Day, but received later
Jun. 2—The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a case against mail-in ballots in Illinois that may affect Washington. The case was brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Illinois, who sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022. According to the New York Times, Bost and two federal electors argued that the state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted 14 days after an election violates statutes that created an Election Day. Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton said Washington state could be affected by the ruling in this case as ballots that are postmarked by Election Day or before are accepted 10, 14 and sometimes 21 days after Election Day, depending on the election. "It would disenfranchise voters," Dalton said. "It may have a pretty significant impact on our operations." Both federal courts that previously heard Bost's case, a federal district court in Illinois and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed it, agreeing that it lacked standing as Bost couldn't prove that the state laws directly injured him. Dalton said if the Supreme Court case agrees with Bost, the change could affect voter turnout. Oregon also has a universal vote-by-mail system, but requires mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. In the 2024 general election, Washington had a voter turnout of around 79%. In Oregon's general election of the same year, about 75% of voters cast ballots. According to a 2024 study from the University of Chicago, universal vote-by-mail programs tend to increase voter turnout by around 2 to 4 percentage points. Dalton said that accepting the postmarked ballots later is helpful for both the voter and the election office as it gives them more time to process each ballot. "Lots of people wait until the last minute because we're humans and humans procrastinate to a great extent," Dalton said. Despite the increase in voter turnout, late mail-in ballots are often challenged in the aftermath of President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election where he called the later-arriving votes fraudulent. The Spokane County Republican Party last year adopted a platform calling for an end to mail-in voting as well as a return to hand-counting all ballots. State Reps. Mike Volz and Jenny Graham were among Republican legislators who backed a bill this year to bring back in-person voting and eliminate mail-in voting for non-absentee voters. The bill didn't receive a hearing. The Supreme Court case is on the docket for the next term beginning in October. If any changes happen in the months following, Dalton said the county's first steps would be to await orders from the Secretary of State Steve Hobbs.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Discrimination isn't exclusive to one race': Local attorney weighs in on new Supreme Court ruling
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — A unanimous Supreme Court decision Thursday makes it easier for people to pursue reverse discrimination lawsuits. 'The case kind of stands for the unexceptional proposition that racism and discrimination is not exclusive to one race or sexual orientation,' Mastando & Artrip Employment Attorney Eric Artrip said. Tuberville raised $1.9 million on first day of governor bid, $3 million in first week The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a straight Ohio woman who claimed she was passed over for work opportunities because of her sexual orientation. She said she did not receive a promotion and was subsequently demoted from her position, with LGBTQ+ candidates, who Ames said were less qualified, filling both roles. Marlean Ames has worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. Initially, lower courts decided against her, ruling that she did not have enough evidence to prove her case, thus driving it upwards. The Supreme Court ruled in Ames' favor, saying that the lower courts requiring a higher burden of proof for plaintiffs in majority groups violates Title VII. '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…In other words, courts with this rule have enshrined into Title VII's antidiscrimination law an explicitly race-based preference: White plaintiffs must prove the existence of background circumstances, while nonwhite plaintiffs neednot do so. Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution, under which 'there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.'' Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, Opinion of the Court in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. 'There were three Judicial Circuits that required more evidence to establish discrimination if you were male or Caucasian,' Artrip said. 'The ruling today says that that is no longer valid or required.' 📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox. Artrip said about 85% of the cases he covers are workplace discrimination lawsuits. When it comes to that burden of proof, he said it's rare that employers are outwardly discriminatory. Thus, most evidence is circumstantial. 'If her supervisor had said, 'We're not going to promote you because we are looking for a gay female in that role,' that would be direct evidence of discrimination,' Artrip said. 'We don't get a lot of those. So, typically, what we do is we look at the circumstances surrounding the failure to promote or the decision to terminate, and say that was a motivating factor in that decision.' While Artrip said the ruling simply states that everyone is protected under Title VII, he argues the ruling takes another swing at DEI. 'This decision may make it easier for Caucasians to sue for failure to promote or failure to hire,' Artrip said. 'It's really another blow to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.' Several Supreme Court Justices wrote concurring opinions to Justice Jackson's opinion. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
