Where the Justices Found Middle Ground in Gay Wedding Cake Case
Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority ruling. Kagan opened her concurring opinion by quoting Kennedy: "It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
June 04, 2018 at 03:14 PM
2 minute read
Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / NLJ) win a majority of justices Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided 7-2 so all eyes were on him
Kennedy: Commissioner Hess says freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric. Did the commission ever disavow or disapprove of that statement?
Yarger: There were no further proceedings in which the commission disavowed or disapproved of that statement.
Kennedy: Do you disavow or disapprove of that statement?
Yarger: I would not have counseled my client to make that statement.
Kennedy: Suppose we thought that in significant part at least one member of the commission based the commissioner's decision on the grounds of hostility to religion. Could your judgment then stand?
Yarger: Your Honor, I don't think that one statement by the commissioner, assuming it reveals bias—
Kennedy: Well, suppose we thought there was a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case. Could your judgment stand?
Yarger: Your honor, if there was evidence that the entire proceeding was begun because of an intent to single out religious people, absolutely, that would be a problem.
had pressed the court to decide a term with only eight justices Read more: Justices Rule for Colorado Baker Who Refused to Make a Cake for Gay Wedding 'How Do You Draw a Line?' Key Moments From the Gay Wedding Cake Case Justices Hear Competing Voices in Wedding Cake Discrimination Case This SCOTUS Brief Is Good Enough to Eat
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
