Latest news with #USSupremeCourt
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Ten years after US Supreme Court's ‘Obergefell' judgment legalised same-sex marriage, an erosion of LGBTQIA+ rights
Written by Kanav N Sahgal June 26 marked the 10-year anniversary of Obergefell vs Hodges — the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage in the country. While some activists celebrated the anniversary, others decried how drastically the legal and political landscape has regressed for LGBTQIA+ people since that historic victory. Backlash against the LGBTQIA+ community, especially transgender individuals, is on the rise across the United States. But more tellingly, the US Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the years since Obergefell has shifted sharply to the right — limiting rather than expanding LGBTQIA+ rights in a range of arenas: Education, public accommodation law and, more recently, healthcare access. During this time, the Court has also routinely upheld religious objections to LGBTQIA+ equality in four separate cases — most recently, just days ago, in the case of Mahmoud vs Taylor, where the Court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school instruction involving LGBTQIA+-themed storybooks based on religious free exercise rights. Two previous cases — one in 2018 (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and another in 2023 (303 Creative LLC vs Elenis) — involved business owners who operated public accommodations and approached the Court seeking permission to deny same-sex couples' access to services. In both cases, the Supreme Court sided with the business owners, holding that enforcing anti-discrimination laws in these contexts would violate their First Amendment rights. In another case from 2021, Fulton vs City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. This list is not exhaustive — and does not even include the Court's recent rulings that have sharply curtailed legal protections for transgender people. But why this shift? One obvious reason is that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed drastically over the past decade. During his first term as president, Donald Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — giving the nine-member bench a comfortable conservative supermajority. These three joined three other conservative-leaning justices already on the bench, forming a solid conservative bloc of six. This left only three Democratic appointees on the Court, unable to influence outcomes unless at least two conservative justices defected to their side. Also, unlike in previous decades, it has now become increasingly rare to find justices who cross ideological lines or serve as moderating influences. In the past, several justices — though appointed by Republican presidents — maintained a degree of independence in their rulings. Take, for example, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom, despite being Republican appointees, did at various times cast decisive swing votes in landmark LGBTQIA+ rights cases. Justice Kennedy famously authored the majority opinion in Obergefell and provided the crucial fifth vote that allowed the decision to take effect. Yet, just a few years later, he ruled against LGBTQIA+ plaintiffs in Masterpiece Cakeshop, authoring the majority opinion there as well. Similarly, Justice O'Connor cast the fifth and deciding vote in Bowers vs Hardwick (1986), a case that upheld laws criminalising sodomy. But in 2003, she joined the majority in Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned Bowers and effectively decriminalised consensual same-sex intimacy nationwide. It would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to imagine or expect the current crop of conservative justices to display that kind of openness to LGBTQIA+ issues today. But a second, less frequently discussed reason for the weakening of jurisprudence on LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States comes from the Obergefell decision itself. While Obergefell legalised same-sex marriage nationwide, it also included a carveout that acknowledged the rights of individuals with 'decent and honourable religious or philosophical' objections to continue holding dissenting views on same-sex marriage. Ironically, this one sentence — arguably obiter dicta, and therefore not necessarily binding precedent — has since been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court's conservative majority again and again. In Mahmoud, for instance, the conservative bloc relied on Obergefell to explicitly justify parents' religious objections to LGBTQIA+ themed story books being read to their children. In a similar vein, the conservative bloc's resistance to substantive due process claims in the context of LGBTQIA+ rights has also intensified in recent times, most notably since the reversal of Roe vs Wade (1973) in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation (2022). There, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell, suggesting rather unequivocally that if the logic employed in Dobbs were to be applied consistently, then the constitutional foundation for same-sex marriage may also fail to survive renewed judicial scrutiny. Ten years after Obergefell, therefore, same-sex marriage remains a legal right — but the broader legal framework supporting it has been deeply eroded by the US Supreme Court, and there appears to be little hope for reversal in the near future. The writer is a researcher at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Lawyers seek to delay Abrego Garcia's release over deportation fears
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay releasing him from jail in order to prevent the Trump administration from trying to swiftly deport the Maryland construction worker. US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, US officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation. Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a US immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there. The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a US Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the US last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called preposterous. The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on. US officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community. US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns. Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order. Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government's plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary. Earlier this month, US officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion. US officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the US illegally around 2011 and because a US immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador. Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But US officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release. Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked US District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation. His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to delay release from jail over deportation fears
Advertisement The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a US Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the US last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on. US officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community. Advertisement US Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns. Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order. Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government's plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to 'evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.' Earlier this month, US officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion. US officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the US illegally around 2011 and because a US immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador. Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But US officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release. Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked US District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation. Advertisement His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
New Hampshire is expanding school choice. Will Massachusetts follow?
Advertisement This surge in school choice is part of a broader national trend. Enrollment in such programs has more than doubled since 2020 — from roughly 540,000 to more than Massachusetts, home to some of the nation's strongest private, parochial, charter, and vocational-technical schools, is increasingly being left behind, politically unwilling and legally constrained from offering families access to private options. The catalyst for this wave of private options was the US Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The court Advertisement Her story resonated nationwide, particularly during the pandemic. The move to online learning by public schools, union resistance to returning students to the classroom, and a seeming disregard for students' mental health and learning loss drove many families toward private and homeschool options. Even in Massachusetts, Massachusetts may remain among the top-performing states nationally, but that status masks a troubling decline. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the nation's report card), average eighth-grade The pandemic and student distraction due to cellphones are partially to blame, but the decline is Clearly there is a hunger for options other than traditional public school. Advertisement New Hampshire's latest choice expansion is relevant to Massachusetts because, in addition to the two states' cultural and demographic similarities, they post nearly identical academic performance. On the 2024 NAEP, New Hampshire eighth-graders scored averages of 280 in As student performance declines, Massachusetts lawmakers remain committed to a top-down, monopolistic education system. They refuse to consider private school choice, hiding behind 19th-century anti-Catholic amendments in the state constitution that prohibit public funds from flowing to religious schools, even indirectly. At the same time, lawmakers have stood by as the pillars of the Commonwealth's landmark 1993 education reforms — strong academic standards, accountability through testing, and choice through charter schools — have steadily eroded. New Hampshire is taking a more pragmatic approach: It is steadily expanding school choice with thoughtful fiscal safeguards and a clear focus on helping the students most in need. As a result, many more New Hampshire parents will now be able to narrow class- and race-based achievement gaps — whether through public or private schools, the small learning groups called The recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' President Trump's massive tax and spending plan, enacts the first national school choice program, offering scholarships funded through tax credits to all but the wealthiest families. Starting in 2027, taxpayers nationwide will be able to redirect up to $1,700 in federal taxes to approved scholarship organizations. Advertisement The program could benefit many of the 120,000 families in Massachusetts paying a private school tuition, or using homeschool and microschool options, which grew enormously during the pandemic. Expanding its appeal further, the program benefits families paying for after-school supplemental learning, including tutoring. The catch? States must opt in. For now, Massachusetts officials say they are For the dozens of states with school choice programs, including New Hampshire, the pathway forward is clear: Private school choice has broad public support and expands equality of educational opportunity. What will Massachusetts do?
The Irish Sun
4 days ago
- The Irish Sun
Ghislaine Maxwell's brother fears she will be KILLED in jail ‘like Epstein'… as he vows to free sex trafficker sister
GHISLAINE Maxwell's brother is afraid she will be killed in prison "like Jeffrey Epstein". Ian Maxwell, 68, is hoping to get his Advertisement 6 Ghislaine Maxwell (in black) pictured with her brother Ian (right) and her parents Robert and Elisabeth in 1990 Credit: Bridgeman Images 6 Ian Maxwell fears his sister will be killed in prison Credit: AP 6 The disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell posing with husband Jeffrey Epstein Credit: PA Ian said he fears for her life behind bars in Tallahassee's federal prison, and warned she's no longer safe inside the overcrowded facility. Worried about her every day, he told the Daily Mail: 'There's such overcrowding in Tallahassee that higher-category prisoners are being placed there and it's becoming a facility that is more dangerous – we've got to get her out of there. 'Normally she spends a lot of time in the prison library helping other prisoners with things like form filling, but she has to go from A to B and isn't always surrounded by guards. 'It's a possibility someone might get to her. I don't want to be dramatic but you can't discount it. Look what happened to Epstein.' Advertisement Read more on Jeffrey Epstein Maxwell, 63, is During her three-week trial in 2021, jurors heard prosecutors describe While her legal appeals have been thrown out by multiple courts, Ian insists the fight is far from over to get the disgraced British socialite out. The brother revealed her legal team is plotting a last-ditch effort involving new evidence and an explosive habeas corpus filing. Advertisement Most read in The US Sun Breaking He admitted hopes that the US Supreme Court will hear her case are slim. Trump blasts 'are we still talking about this creep-' over Epstein as mystery swirls around 'missing CCTV & client list' 'It's not a done deal,' he said. 'About 10,000 petitions are lodged each year and they only hear 200 to 250 cases.' But if that fails, the family says they'll take another legal route. Advertisement 'If they don't hear Ghislaine's case… we will go another route and file a writ of habeas corpus which allows a prisoner to challenge their imprisonment on the basis of new evidence, such as government misconduct.' The family have long argued Maxwell was made a scapegoat for Epstein's crimes and treated harshly to satisfy public outrage after the convicted paedophile died in his cell in 2019. 'I fully believe my sister is innocent and that she will be released some day in the future,' Ian said. The Maxwell family has consistently claimed she was denied a fair trial. Advertisement And now they're In a recent statement, the family said: 'Our sister Ghislaine did not receive a fair trial. 'Her legal team continues to fight her case in the courts and will file its reply in short order to the government's opposition in the US Supreme Court. 'If necessary, in due course they will also file a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court, SDNY. Advertisement 'This allows her to challenge her imprisonment based on new evidence, such as government misconduct that would have likely changed the trial's outcome.' 6 Maxwell, 63, was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein lure underage girls into a web of abuse Credit: AFP 6 Convicted paedophile Epstein died in prison in 2019 Credit: Rex Judges have already rejected the defence team's claim that she "should never have been prosecuted" because of the "weird" 2007 plea deal, but the family appears undeterred. Advertisement It also comes amid reports that A source close to Maxwell exclusively told The Sun on Sunday there's a 'window of momentum' in her favor. The insider said: 'Those close to her believe it's unfair that she alone is paying for Epstein's crimes and call into question much of the evidence against her. 'Now her legal team feel as if they have a rare window of momentum so they are set to take up her case with the President.' Advertisement Meanwhile, renewed political pressure is mounting over the unresolved mysteries surrounding Epstein's sick empire. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has claimed a 'Somewhere in the Treasury Department… locked away in a cabinet drawer, is a big Epstein file that's full of actionable information,' Wyden said on the Senate floor. He has urged federal authorities to investigate nearly $1.1 billion in suspicious wire transfers linked to Epstein, as well as his connections to Russian banks and the trafficking of women from Eastern Europe. Advertisement Although the Biden administration has dismissed claims of hidden records as 'fantasies' and 'political theatre,' calls for transparency around Epstein's finances and ties to powerful individuals continue to grow. 6 Maxwell's legal team is plotting a last-ditch effort involving new evidence Credit: AFP
