Two of the judges on the panel were Trump appointees, the third a Clinton appointee. In January 2022, a three-judge federal court panel ruled unanimously that Alabama could and should have created two compact congressional districts with a majority, or close to a majority, of Black voters: two districts instead of just one. It's a practice known as packing and cracking. Black voters are either concentrated in that district so they are a supermajority there or spread out across the remaining six districts so that their voting power is diluted. More than a quarter of the state's population is African American, but in only 1 of 7 districts do minority voters have a realistic chance of electing the candidate of their choice. Original story: At issue in Alabama's congressional redistricting plan adopted by the Republican state legislature after the 2020 census. ![]() By a vote of 5-4, a coalition of liberal and conservative justices essentially upheld the court's 1986 decision requiring that in states where voting is racially polarized, the legislature must create the maximum number of majority-Black or near-majority-Black congressional districts, using traditional redistricting criteria. Update June 8: The Supreme Court ruled against Alabama's defense of an electoral map drawn by the state's Republican-dominated legislature. Supreme Court conservatives seem divided in major religion case.Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work?.Now, however, religious groups of every kind are pressing a new and more conservative group of justices to overturn or modify the court's earlier ruling. The de minimis language has sparked lots of criticism over the years, but Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to provide greater accommodation for religious observers, including those who object to working on the Sabbath. The court went on to say that employers should not have to bear more than what it called, quote, "a de minimis," or trifling, cost. ![]() Original story: The case tests how far employers must go to accommodate the religious views of employees.įorty-six years ago, the court, by a lopsided margin, ruled that an employer need not accommodate a worker's desire to avoid work on the Sabbath if that would mean operating shorthanded or regularly paying premium wages to replacement workers. How the Supreme Court has ruled in the past about affirmative action.Can race play a role in college admissions? The Supreme Court hears the arguments.And even though Harvard is a private institution, it still is covered by federal anti-discrimination laws because it accepts federal money for a wide variety of programs. Because UNC is a state school, the question is whether its affirmative-action program violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee to equal protection of the law. ![]() Original story: At issue are affirmative action programs at the the University of North Carolina, which until the 1950s did not admit Black students, and Harvard University, which was the model for the Supreme Court's 1978 decision declaring that colleges and universities may consider race as one of many factors, from the applicant's geographical and family background, to their special talents in science, math, athletics, and even whether the applicant is the child of the school's alumni.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |