A Conservative Judge Blocks Trump
An introduction is in order. After graduating from the University of Texas Law School, Fernando Rodriguez Jr. clerked for Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan L. Hecht , who has been described as 'the godfather of the conservative judicial movement in Texas.' Mr. Rodriguez then practiced law for more than a decade with Baker Botts, a conservative-leaning Texas firm whose partners and employees have included Justice Amy Coney Barrett , Sen. Ted Cruz , and the staunchly antiabortion Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas.
Mr. Rodriguez then joined the International Justice Mission, a faith-based nonprofit whose employees are required to be practicing Christians. He was a field office director, first in Bolivia and then in the Dominican Republic, helping these countries' local and national governments investigate and prosecute perpetrators of child sexual assault and human trafficking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' '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,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Top US court revives straight woman's 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court on Thursday revived the lawsuit of a heterosexual Ohio woman who claims she was the victim of reverse discrimination because she was passed over twice for jobs for candidates who were gay. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the top court ruled that members of a majority group cannot be held to a higher evidentiary standard than minorities in pursuing a discrimination claim. "The standard for proving disparate treatment... does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who authored the opinion. The case comes at a time when President Donald Trump and a number of major corporations are rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion programs intended to combat systemic inequalities faced by minorities. It could potentially lead to a surge in the filing of "reverse discrimination" lawsuits around the country. Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, had asked the court to revive a lawsuit she filed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Ames, a heterosexual white woman, was appealing lower court decisions that rejected her discrimination suit on the basis that members of majority groups must meet a higher bar for proving workplace bias than minorities. In its ruling, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Ames had not established "background circumstances" showing that the Ohio state agency is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." The requirement that she present "background circumstances" is unconstitutional and being unfairly applied only to members of majority groups bringing job discrimination cases, Ames said. The six conservative and three liberal justices on the Supreme Court agreed, sending Ames's case back down to lower courts for renewed consideration. America First Legal Foundation, a group founded by Stephen Miller, who is now the White House deputy chief of staff, filed a brief with the court in support of Ames. cl/sms
