by Lauren Gailey, Staff Writer
As the Supreme Court kicks off
its new term this week, civil rights – and the country’s evolving definition of
“equality” – will take center stage.
The Court is likely to be called upon to decide cases
affecting issues that have plagued the American political landscape for
decades, including affirmative action in higher education, voting rights, and
same-sex marriage.
The term is set to begin with Kiobel
v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, No. 10-1491, in which 12 Nigerian plaintiffs
brought suit under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) against Dutch, British, and
Nigerian oil companies. The plaintiffs
claim that these corporations aided and abetted the Nigerian government in
committing human rights abuses, but the Second Circuit denied relief because
the ATS does not give U.S. courts jurisdiction over such claims against
corporations. Should the Supreme Court
reverse, this case could have a major impact on the way corporations conduct
business abroad.
On October 10th, the Court will
hear arguments on a question that could have far-reaching effects for the
business of higher education. In Fisher
v. University of Texas, No. 11-345, plaintiffs Abigail Fisher and Rachel
Michalewicz – two white women – sued the University of Texas at Austin. They claim that the university wrongfully
denied them admission because its policies, which include taking racial
diversity into account in selecting part of its class, are discriminatory. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, however, and the
Supreme Court will now take up this divisive issue.
 |
| United States Supreme Court Justices (John Marino/The Washington Times) |
The Court is also likely to hear
two other hot issues this term. In a
September 19th appearance at the University of Colorado, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said that she and her colleagues will “most likely” take up the
question “toward the end of the current term” whether the provision of the
Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) barring the federal government from providing
benefits to same-sex couples married in states recognizing such unions is
constitutional. Just last May in Massachusetts
v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 682 F.3d 1, the First Circuit held that it is not, and the Court’s
decision either way will affect similar challenges to DOMA that have arisen in
a number of Circuits.
The Supreme Court is also likely to hear one of the many challenges to
the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including cases dealing
with voter identification and redistricting.
Such a case would likely take up the unanswered question in 2009’s Northwest
Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a
seven-judge majority, cast doubt on the law’s continued validity, as “[w]e are
now a very different nation” than the one that enacted the Voting Rights Act
more than 40 years ago. Whether the
Court deems the Act’s protections to still be necessary, particularly those
requiring federal review of changes to election procedures in regions that have
historically been plagued by racial discrimination and prejudice, could affect
election outcomes across the nation. It
remains to be seen, however, whether the Court, that is all too familiar with
the fallout of 2000’s Bush v. Gore, will be willing to take the risk to
its reputation that is necessary to settle these questions.
