Guest Post

  • June 2, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Legal Director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

    Yesterday’s Supreme Court opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores was unusually short, a mere six and one-half pages.  The Court issued a sensible ruling that ― unlike last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores ― upheld the religious freedom of employees.

    Abercrombie & Fitch had a policy requiring its employees to maintain a certain “look.”  “Caps” were not allowed.  Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, applied for a job at an Abercrombie store.  She was apparently quite stylishly dressed, but she wore a headscarf in accordance with her faith.  Abercrombie managers refused to hire her because of the headscarf, even though they believed that the headscarf was religiously motivated.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from refusing to hire a job applicant because of his or her religious practice, unless accommodating that practice would impose an undue burden on the employer.  Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Abercrombie did not violate Title VII because Elauf did not tell Abercrombie that she needed a religious accommodation.

    The Supreme Court reversed that ruling yesterday and allowed Elauf’s case to proceed.  The Court explained that when an employer knows or suspects that an employee’s practice is religiously motivated, the employer cannot deny employment because of that practice unless accommodating it would impose an undue hardship.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling is sensible, while the Tenth Circuit’s approach was eminently unfair.  There was no evidence here that Elauf knew about Abercrombie’s prohibition on “caps.”  How can a prospective employee be expected to request an accommodation if she has no idea that she might need one?

  • June 2, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Emily J. Martin, Vice President and General Counsel, National Women’s Law Center

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium honoring the 50th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut.

    Fifty years ago this week, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not permit a state to prohibit the use of contraceptives within marriage or the provision of contraceptives to married people.  Finding a “zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees,” the majority concluded that the contraception bans unconstitutionally intruded on marriage, which the Court described as “a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.”  Seven years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended the constitutional right to use birth control to unmarried couples.

    By guaranteeing legal access to birth control, the Griswold decision opened the door for dramatic changes for women and for our society.  As the Supreme Court has since observed, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”  In fact, research has shown that availability of reliable birth control has been a key driver of the increases in U.S. women’s education, labor force participation, average earnings, and the narrowing in the wage gap between women and men achieved over recent decades.

    Given the profound importance of the availability of contraception to women’s health and women’s opportunities, it is notable that the Griswold majority nowhere mentioned the word “woman” or “women.”  Neither did the word “gender” or “sex” make an appearance.  And while the opinion for the Court relied on the First Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment in finding a constitutional right to be let alone and a right of intimate association that included the right to use contraception, the majority made no reference to the equality guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment in striking down Connecticut’s birth control ban.

  • May 28, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Tom Nolan, Associate Professor of Criminology, Merrimack College; 27-year veteran of Boston Police Department

    If there is one constant, predictable, and never-ending narrative that I’ve been hearing about policing since I began my career in law enforcement in 1978, it’s that “policing is not like it used to be”; “I’ve never seen it this bad”; “policing will never be the same”; “the bad guys are going to take over.”  According to The Baltimore Sun, “Lt. Victor Gearhart, a 33-year veteran who works in the Southern District, said residents with complaints about police 'are going to get the police force they want, and God help them.'" 

    Baltimore County State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s decision to charge six Baltimore police officers criminally in the death of Freddie Gray has resulted in an all too familiar trope: The cops are outraged at this obvious and insulting injustice and are now “fearful” and “dejected” — afraid to do their jobs, lest they too fall victim to the whim and capriciousness of prosecutorial discretion.  And “the bad guys are going to take advantage” of the consequences of Mosby’s decision: A work slowdown.  Please. 

    The high ranking Baltimore police officers quoted in The Baltimore Sun piece, “Violence surges as Baltimore police officers feel hesitant,” all of whom have decades of law enforcement experience, should clearly know better than to make such inflammatory, irresponsible, and incendiary remarks about police officers being afraid or reluctant to do their jobs out of a fear of being prosecuted.  I have had the privilege of working with thousands of police officers in my years in law enforcement and I have never met one who would fail to do what was needed in a situation requiring law enforcement intervention out of a fear of being criminally prosecuted for doing the right thing. It doesn’t happen in Boston, and it has not, does not, and will not happen in Baltimore.

  • May 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by M. Gregg Bloche, M.D., professor of law at Georgetown and author of The Hippocratic Myth.

    Credit the State of Utah for bringing back the firing squad.

    Two months ago, the state made the rifleman its method of killing when lethal drugs aren’t available. Health professionals and drug companies are saying “no” to participation in executions, and this spring, the trade association representing America’s pharmacists said it would “discourage” them from purveying their own lethal drug mixes on death row.

    So-called “compounding pharmacies” became death-row suppliers of last resort after Big Pharma got out of the execution business.  Not anymore, unless some pharmacists go rogue by defying their trade body.  Executioners around the country are now scrambling to secure drugs that kill, and they’re experimenting with unproven alternatives to the classic, three-drug fatal sequence.

    Death by chemistry emerged almost 40 years ago as a response to our contradictory expectations of capital punishment. As crime rates soared in the late seventies and early eighties, so did our retributive ire. America re-embraced the death penalty, ending a ten-year moratorium, when a Utah firing squad shot Gary Gilmore in January 1977.

    But we wanted to make the killing “humane.” Less than four months later, Oklahoma enacted the first lethal injection law, based on a protocol developed by a doctor. In the 1980s, as executions again became commonplace, the Oklahoma protocol became the prevailing method.

    Medical associations took stands against their members’ participation, but states readily found health professionals willing to flout Hippocratic prohibitions. Some corrections departments kept doctors’ names secret, paid them in cash, and otherwise hid their involvement. State-sanctioned medical killing on the down-low thus became routine.

  • May 22, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Thomas O. McGarity is a Member Scholar and past president of the Center for Progressive Reform, and a professor at the University of Texas Law School. He is the author of Freedom to Harm: The Lasting Legacy of the Laissez Faire Revival.

    The Wall Street Journal recently devoted nearly two pages of its Saturday Review section to an editorial by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute urging American corporations to violate laws that they deem to be “pointless, stupid or tyrannical” as acts of civil disobedience.  The article, which is a capsule summary of his recently published book titled By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission,” betrays a profound misunderstanding of the concept of civil disobedience and a deplorable contempt for the laws that Congress and state legislatures have enacted to protect their citizens from corporate malfeasance.

    This is, of course, the same Charles Murray who has made millions of dollars writing poorly documented books like The Bell Curve and Losing Ground, which were designed to allow conservative politicians to feel good about reducing welfare for the poor, limiting immigration from Latin America, and eliminating affirmative action policies.  If for no other reason than that Charles Murray is one of almost-candidate Jeb Bush’s favorite authors, his newest salvo bears close scrutiny.

    The essential underlying premise of the article is that the Code of Federal Regulations is chock full of senseless regulations, the violation of which could not possibly lead to any actual harm to anyone.  This premise is an article of faith for critics of federal regulation, but it has little basis in fact.  The one actual regulation he cites (an OSHA standard requiring railings for exposed stairway floor openings to be 42 inches high) may be far more detailed in its specification than it needs to be, but it is by no means senseless.  As Murray recognizes, it is intended to prevent workers from precipitous falls.

    Murray’s big idea is for companies in various regulated industries to get together and agree to engage in acts of “civil disobedience” by consciously violating regulations they deem senseless.  He points out that regulatory agencies have become so debilitated that they do not have nearly enough inspectors to detect violations of any of their regulations.  The agencies therefore depend to a great extent on voluntary compliance with their regulations.  Murray suggests that if companies just quit voluntarily complying with what they deem to be pointless, stupid or tyrannical regulations, the agencies would probably not penalize them (just as the traffic cop stationed next to a crowded freeway does not try to pull over speeders who are traveling with the flow of traffic), and the world would be a better place.  Those violators that the agencies did prosecute should fight the government tooth and nail to send the message that corporate America will no longer tolerate the injustice of senseless regulation. What’s more, he proposes that as part of this conspiracy to break the law, the corporations should create “defense funds” to which they’d all contribute, to pay the legal fees of the ones who get caught.

    Murray’s idea is a gross perversion of the concept of civil disobedience as the nonviolent violation of a law that the violator deems to be unjust and the willingness to suffer the legal consequences to demonstrate the law’s injustice.