Latest news with #DueProcessClause
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justice Clarence Thomas wants to overturn same-sex marriage protections. Kim Davis is leading the charge.
What are substantive due process rights? They are constitutional rights that the court has recognized even though they are not explicitly stated in the wording of the Constitution. Instead, they emanate from its Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government's deprivation of a person's Advertisement Thomas specifically cited three court substantive due process precedents that he'd like to see overturned. The first was All three of these rulings, and many more including Advertisement Given that 'Because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents,' Thomas wrote (citations, all to his own previous concurring opinions, omitted here). That was an open invitation. And Kim Davis, a former clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who gained nationwide attention for refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell was handed down, has answered the call. This Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees in a case brought against her by two Kentucky men who were denied a license to marry in summer 2015, just days after the Obergefell decision. Davis claims that the lawsuit and verdict violated her First Amendment free exercise rights because same-sex marriage goes against her religious beliefs. She could have stopped there with her petition to the court for relief, but she went further, asking the court to Legal experts differ as to the likelihood of the court taking this case up. Some, like Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, say that Advertisement I would have agreed with him years ago, before Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored Obergefell, retired. But with this court, I make no such predictions. While no other justice joined Thomas's call to revisit and reverse all substantive due process precedents, the fact that the current court's majority was willing to cross that rubicon in striking down Roe is a big red flag. Abortion access also enjoys broad public support, but that proved no disincentive to the court. And the Venn diagram of the antiabortion and the anti-LGBTQ movements, I strongly suspect, looks a lot more like one circle than two. Davis didn't come to the Supreme Court all by her lonesome. The Finally, although no one joined Thomas's provocative dissent in Dobbs, none of the court's majority rejected it either. Other single-justice calls for challenges, such as the one by Justice Brett Kavanaugh The stakes are too high to ignore: If Obergefell is overturned, So I will take Thomas's Dobbs challenge literally and seriously. I think you should too: Advertisement '(I)n future cases, we should 'follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away,'' Thomas wrote, quoting the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 'Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.' This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
`Who is Kim Davis? Kentucky Clerk Seeks to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Speculation of whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take a case to overturn same-sex marriage at the federal level is mounting after embattled Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis pushed the effort as far up the legal chain as possible. Davis's attorney, Matthew Staver, previously told Newsweek he is optimistic the court will again rule on Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. William Powell, the attorney who represented the couple that sued Davis, previously wrote in a statement provided to Newsweek that he is "confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention." Why It Matters Obergefell v. Hodges, as part of a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in June 2015, guaranteed that same-sex couples can marry by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Prior the Court's ruling, equal rights and protections for same-sex marriage was already established in 36 states by statutes, court rulings, or voter initiatives. Davis made national headlines just two months after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision when she defied a U.S. federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. After being elected clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, in 2014, she was defeated by Democratic challenger Elwood Caudill Jr. in 2018. Rowan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis (R) stands with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (L) in front of the Carter County Detention Center on September 8, 2015 in Grayson, Kentucky. Rowan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis (R) stands with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (L) in front of the Carter County Detention Center on September 8, 2015 in Grayson, To Know Where is Kim Davis From? Davis was born in September 1965 in Morehead, Kentucky. As of 1991, she served as chief deputy clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, reporting to her mother, Rowan County Clerk Jean W. Bailey. In 2014, when Bailey didn't run for reelection, Davis filed as a Democrat and defeated Elwood Caudill Jr., then a deputy clerk in the Rowan County property valuation administrator's office, by 23 votes in the party primary. In the general election, she defeated Republican John Cox, who implied nepotism was at play in the results. Who is Dwain Allen Wallace? Dwain Allen Wallace was Kim Davis's first husband, whom she wed in the 1980s when she was 18 years old, according to CBS News. The couple divorced in 1994, with facts coming out later showing Davis's infidelity and court records indicating she had given birth to two children in 1994 with another man. Kim Davis' Marital History: How Many Times Was She Married? Davis has been married four times to three different men. In 1996, Kim Davis married Joe Davis for the first of two eventual marriage ceremonies. They divorced in 2006. The next year, at age 40, Davis married Thomas McIntryre, but that union lasted less than one year. By 2009, she re-married Joe Davis—who told CBS News in September 2015 that he and Kim had been together 19 years but declined to say how much of that time was spent while married. "Four and a half years ago, Kim Davis was a completely different person," Davis's attorney, Matthew Staver, told CBS News at the time. "She made a lot of mistakes. She regrets many of the decisions that she made, and she loves the Lord, and she doesn't want to be disobedient." What People Are Saying Eric Subin, trial attorney, in an email to Newsweek: "As a preliminary matter, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant the writ of certiorari and even hear the case at all. In fact, the Supreme Court grants less than 1 percent of all of the writs of certiorari filed each year. "Since there is a well-established principle that public officials acting under color of state law, as Kim Davis was in this case, are not shielded from liability by the First Amendment there is virtually no compelling legal reason to grant the petition. Even in the very unlikely event that the Supreme Court did grant the petition, it is again extremely unlikely that Davis would prevail on the merits. In order for her to succeed, the Supreme Court would have to completely upend longstanding First Amendment doctrine as well as overturn established precedent." Freedom From Religion Foundation on X: "Concerned about the 'sanctity' of marriage? Gay male couples actually divorce less than straight couples. But, Kim Davis's four marriages are really helping to skew the numbers in their favor." Congressional Equality Caucus on X: "Kim Davis—who illegally denied same-sex couples marriage licenses—asked SCOTUS to overturn marriage equality as she seeks to avoid paying damages to those whose rights she violated. The Justices should not take this case, because marriage equality should NOT be up for debate." What Happens Next While the Supreme Court could make a decision about whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months, there's been no indication yet of whether it intends to do so.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS allows Trump to resume 3rd-country removals without due process requirements
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday delivered a significant win for the Trump administration's immigration policy, clearing the way for officials to resume deportation of migrants to third countries without additional due process requirements imposed by a district court judge. The nation's hight court did not explain the decision, but it said the stay of Judge Brian Murphy's mandate would terminate should the administration ultimately lose an appeal on the merits. Litigation is ongoing, but is expected to take years to complete. The case was brought by a group of detainees said to be headed to South Sudan who alleged they were never given a chance to raise fears of torture. Judge Murphy last month issued a preliminary injunction halting any future removals unless detainees were given notice of their destination, at least 10 days to raise concerns for their safety and 15 days to contest an adverse finding by an immigration officer. MORE: Judge orders Trump administration to maintain 'custody and control' of any migrants deported to South Sudan The effective impact of the Supreme Court's order on Monday is a resumption of expedited removals of dozens of unauthorized immigrants to countries other than their own. The Trump administration has sent plane loads to El Salvador, Guatemala, South Sudan and Libya. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a biting dissent, accusing her colleagues of condoning "lawless" behavior by the administration in "matters of life and death." "This Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied," Sotomayor wrote. "I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion." "The Due Process Clause represents 'the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules,'" Sotomayor wrote. "By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle." "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable. Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent." MORE: 'Have mercy': Families plead as migrants arrested at routine DHS check-ins Immigrant advocates had asked the justices to keep in place the nationwide injunction requiring "meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard" before any person is sent unwillingly by the U.S. government to a country other than their place of birth or citizenship. Trump officials had called the court-ordered requirements "onerous" and illegal. The high court had unanimously indicated in a prior case that potential deportees must be given due process protections. But the justices have not yet spelled out in detail what exactly that requires in each case. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on X that the court's decision is a "MAJOR win for the safety and security of the American people." The plaintiffs in the case criticized the Supreme Court's granted stay and vowed to keep fighting. "The ramifications of Supreme Court's order will be horrifying; it strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death," said Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. "Importantly, however, the Court's ruling only takes issue with the court's authority to afford these protections at this intermediate stage of the case -- we now need to move as swiftly as possible to conclude the case and restore these protections."
NBC News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows terrorism victims to sue Palestinian entities
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that victims of terrorism can sue Palestinian entities in U.S. courts, upholding a law passed by Congress that allows such claims to be brought. The court held unanimously that the 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate the due process rights of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The law reasonably took account of "sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. As such, the law "comports with the Due Process Clause," he added. It was an unusual case in which Congress stepped in to legislate on specific litigation after the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The lawsuits, brought under a law called the Anti-Terrorism Act, were filed by various victims, including the family of Ari Fuld, an American citizen who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist at a West Bank shopping mall in 2018. Other plaintiffs involved in the litigation had previously won a $655 million judgment that the lower court threw out. The technical legal question was whether the defendants 'consented' to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Congress concluded in the 2019 law that they had consented if two conditions were met: that the defendants paid a terrorist convicted of or killed while committing a terrorist attack, and that the organization in question conducted any activity within the U.S. within 15 days after the law was enacted. The Palestine Liberation Organization represents the Palestinian people internationally, while the Palestinian Authority exercises partial domestic government authority in the West Bank.
Business Wire
18-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Xlear Sues FTC for Unlawful Scientific Censorship
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Xlear, a consumer hygiene products company, filed a ' Loper lawsuit' in Utah Federal District Court against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The lawsuit seeks declarative relief holding that the FTC cannot require entities to have substantiation for marketing claims under the FTC Act. Rob Housman, Xlear's lead lawyer explained: 'Under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) a Federal agency applying a statute is limited to what the specific language of the law says on its face. And, Loper goes on to require that if the agency is interpreting the statute, its interpretation must be the 'best' reading of law. The FTC Act says nothing about requiring substantiation. And, for a host of reasons—most importantly violations of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause—the FTC's interpretation of the FTC Act is far from the 'best'. As such, we are petitioning the Utah District Court to invalidate the FTC's substantiation requirement.' In 2021, the FTC sued Xlear alleging that the company lacked sufficient substantiation for statements the company made its Xlear Nasal Spray was an effective added layer of protection against the COVID-19 virus. Throughout the lawsuit, Xlear maintained that the science supported Xlear's COVID claims. On March 10, 2025, the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the FTC, asked the court to drop the lawsuit with prejudice (Xlear joined in the motion). About this new lawsuit, Nate Jones, Xlear's CEO, said: 'We agreed with the Government to drop the prior lawsuit because we wanted to get back to the business of helping Americans get and stay healthy through great oral and nasal hygiene products. However, we very much wanted our day in court. We wanted to stop the FTC's illegal misuse of the FTC Act to censor science. The effect of this is to stifle health innovation—which benefits Big Pharma over cutting-edge smaller companies with new approaches. We wanted to protect the right of all Americans to have access to science-based health information. By filing this lawsuit, we are pushing ahead with combating the Government's censorship of science.' Jones added, 'Ironically, while the FTC demands substantiation from companies, they really don't care about science. Before the FTC sued us for substantiation, we sent them scores of studies that backed our claims. During the lawsuit the FTC admitted that not one single doctor or medical researcher had looked at the data we provided before they filed the suit.' Xlear manufactures a suite of hygiene products ranging from Xlear nasal sprays to Spry toothpaste, which are sold at leading retailers across the country and online through The company's is based in American Fork, Utah. More information about Xlear and its products, as well as the complaint can be found at
