Supreme Court to Decide Voting Rights Cases. U.S. House Member Sues Trump and Others. DOJ Defends Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act

• Author: Oran F. Whiting
• Pages: 9-9

++Supreme Court to Decide Voting Rights Cases

++U.S. House Member Sues Trump and Others

++DOJ Defends Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act

U.S. SUP REME COUR T

Liberty

The Supreme Co urt rejected the state

of Alabama’s requ est to rescind a

ruling by the U.S . Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit th at blocked

Alabama from exec uting a man unless

the state allows the ma n’s pastor to be

by his side in the execution c hamber.

Associate Jus tice Kagan, concur-

ring, wrote that the Re ligious Land

Use and Instituti onalized Persons Act

provides “expansive protec tion” for

prisoners’ re ligious liberty and that

Alabama did not s how the exclusion

of all clergy mem bers from the execu-

tion chamber was necessary to ensure

prison security. Ironically, Alabama

had required th e presence of a prison

chaplain at an in mate’s side, until the

Supreme Cour t barred states from

providing spiritua l advisors of just one

faith. Jeerson S. Dunn, Commissioner,

Alabama Depa rtment of Corrections v.

Willie B. Smith , III, No. 20A128.

Voting Rights

SCOTUS will hear ora l argument in a

pair of voting-rig hts cases challeng-

ing two Arizona voting provisions.

The issues prese nted are (1) whether

Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy,

which does not cou nt provisional bal-

lots cast in per son on Election Day

outside of the voter ’s design ated

precinct, vio lates section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act; and (2) w hether

Arizona’s ballot colle ction law, which

permits only ce rtain persons to

handle another person’s completed

early ballot, vio lates section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act or the Fi fteenth

Amendment. Brnovich v. Democratic

National Committe e, Arizona

Republican Party v. Democratic

National Committe e, No. 19-1257.

U.S. DIS TRICT COURT FO R THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Constitution/Civil Rights

U.S. House of Representatives member

Bennie G. Th ompson f‌iled suit, in his

personal capacity, against Donald

J. Trump and Rudy Giul iani, in their

personal ca pacities, the Proud Boys

International , L.L.C., and the O ath

Keepers, all eging a violation of the

Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U. S.C. § 1985( 1),

stemming from Trump's and Giuliani’s

roles in the Janu ary 6, 2021, Capitol riot .

The complaint s tates the defendants

“intended to prevent , and ultimately

delayed, memb ers of Congress from dis-

charging thei r duty commanded by the

U.S. Cons titution to approve the results

of the Electoral Co llege in order to elect

the next Preside nt and Vice President of

the United States.” T he law in question

states defenda nts may not “conspire to

prevent, by force, intimi dation, or threat,

any person . . . hold ing any oce, trust

or place of conf‌id ence under the United

States . . . from discha rging any duties

thereof; or to ind uce by like means any

ocer of the United S tates to leave any

. . . place[] wher e his duties as an ocer

are required to be pe rformed, or . . . to

molest, interr upt, hinder, or impede him

in the discharge o f his ocial duties.”

The complaint se eks relief in the form

of “[a] declaratory judgme nt that the

actions descr ibed [in the complaint]

constitute a violatio n of [the Ku Klux

Klan Act,] . . . [i]n junctive relief enjoining

AND MORE . . . BY HO N. ORAN F. WHITI NG (RET.), LITIGATION NEWS ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Defendants f rom engaging in future

violations of [the Ku Kl ux Klan Act],”

compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and attorney fees and

costs. Thomps on v. Trump et al., No.

1:2021cv00400.

DEPARTMENT O F JUSTICE

Equal Protection

The DOJ f‌iled an am icus brief in the

U.S. Circu it Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit de fending Idaho’s

Fairness in Women’s Spo rts Act

against a chall enge under the U.S.

Constitution’s Equal P rotection Clause.

Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports

Act provides, in pa rt, that athletic

teams “shall be expressly designated

as one (1) of the fo llowing based on

biological sex : (a) Males, me n, or boys;

(b) Females, women , or girls; or (c)

Coed or mixed”; a nd “[a]thletic teams

or sports designated for females,

women, or girls s hall not be open to

students of the m ale sex.” The Fairness

Act does not conta in a comparable

limitation for bio logical females who

wish to participate o n a team desig-

nated for biological males.

An Idaho fede ral district court

preliminarily enjoined the act, f‌inding

it discriminated against transgender

athletes.

The DOJ argues I daho’s Fairness

Act preserves e qual athletic opportu-

nities for women as th e Constitution

allows states to separ ate sports by bio-

logical sex bec ause females and males

have innate physiological dierences

directly aec ting athletics. Hecox v.

Little, Nos. 20 -35813, 20-35815 .

Interested in writing for Litigation News?

Send your resume and a writing sample to LitNewsWriteOn@gmail.com

by May 28, 2021.

AMERICA N BAR ASSOCIATION SPRING 20 21 • VOL. 46 NO. 3 | 9

Published in Litigation News Volume 46, Number 3, Spring 20 21. © 2021 by the American Bar A ssociation. Repr oduced with permissi on. All rights reser ved. This informati on or any portion the reof may not be copie d or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.

KEEPING WATCH EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS FOR LITIGATORS