Justices won’t be hearing case of anti-gay marriage florist
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is ordering Washington courts to take a new look at the case of a florist who refused to provide services for the wedding of two men because of her religious objection to same-sex marriage.
The justices’ order Monday means the court is passing for now on the chance to decide whether business owners can refuse on religious grounds to comply with anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people.
That’s the same issue they confronted, but ultimately passed over, in the recent ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who also objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
The court said in the Colorado case that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed anti-religious bias in violation of the baker’s constitutional rights. Washington courts will review the florist’s case for similar issues.
It’s not clear from the record that the Washington Supreme Court will evaluate Stutzman’s case any differently in light of the Colorado ruling.
There are no similar allegations that bias affected the state court decisions, and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the recent Supreme Court ruling will have no effect on the case against Baronelle Stutzman and her Arlene’s Flowers store in Richland, Washington.
But the Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represents Stutzman, said Ferguson “pursued unprecedented measures to punish Barronelle not just in her capacity as a business owner but also in her personal capacity.”
Supreme Court won’t hear North Carolina districting dispute
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is choosing not to take on a new case on partisan redistricting for now. Instead, the justices are sending a dispute over North Carolina’s heavily Republican congressional districting map back to a lower court for more work.
The court’s order Monday follows a ruling last week in which it declared that Wisconsin voters who sued over the state’s GOP-drawn legislative districts had not proven they have the right to bring their case in court. The justices ordered the court in North Carolina to examine the same issue.
On the surface, the North Carolina case doesn’t appear to have the same problem the high court identified in the Wisconsin lawsuit. It could return to the Supreme Court quickly, perhaps in time for the term that begins in October.
The case concerns a congressional districting plan in which 10 seats are held by Republicans and three, by Democrats. State Republican Rep. David Lewis said that he drew 10 districts because he did not “believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”
In January, a three-judge court found that the map violated the Constitution and ordered the state to come up with a new plan quickly, in time for the 2018 elections.
But the Supreme Court delayed enforcement of the court order, mainly because the justices already were considering the partisan districting cases from Maryland and Wisconsin.
High Court rules for American Express in credit card case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court handed American Express a win Monday in a lawsuit over rules it imposes on merchants who accept its cards.
Under their contracts, merchants who accept American Express generally can’t encourage customers to use other credit cards, even though they charge merchants lower fees. The federal government and a group of states sued over those so-called “anti-steering” provisions, arguing that they violate federal law.
But on Monday the high court ruled 5-4 in favor of American Express.
“In this case, we must decide whether Amex’s antisteering provisions violate federal antitrust law. We conclude they do not,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion for himself and his conservative colleagues, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
American Express cheered the ruling in a statement after it was announced.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a major victory for consumers and for American Express. It will help to promote competition and innovation in the payments industry,” the statement said.
The case the Supreme Court ruled in dates to 2010 when the Obama administration and more than a dozen states sued American Express along with Visa and MasterCard, which had similar anti-steering rules. Visa and MasterCard agreed to change their practices. American Express, which accounts for about a quarter of the credit card market, decided to go to trial.
A federal trial court judge initially ruled against American Express, finding that its rules stifled competition among credit card networks and led to higher fees for merchants and higher prices for consumers. An appeals court reversed the decision, ruling for American Express. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Supreme Court declines to hear ‘Making a Murderer’ case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t weigh in on the case of a teenager convicted of rape and murder whose story was documented in the Netflix series “Making a Murderer.”
As is typical, the justices did not explain their decision declining to take the case. The justices’ decision leaves in place a lower court ruling against Brendan Dassey.
Dassey was 16 years old when he confessed to Wisconsin authorities that he had joined his uncle in raping and murdering photographer Teresa Halbach before burning her body in a bonfire. Dassey’s attorneys, however, say he’s borderline intellectually disabled and was pressured into a false confession. They wanted his confession thrown out and a new trial.
Wisconsin officials had urged the Supreme Court not to take the case, telling the court it shouldn’t second-guess Wisconsin courts’ determination that Dassey’s confession was voluntary. Prosecutors noted that Dassey’s mother gave investigators permission to speak with him, that Dassey agreed as well and that during the interview investigators used only standard techniques such as adopting a sympathetic tone and encouraging honesty.
Dassey’s attorneys can still try to get him a new trial but they’d have to convince a judge that newly discovered evidence warrants one.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes as there are plans for a second season of “Making a Murderer,” which premiered on Netflix in 2015. Viewers of the first season were introduced to Dassey’s uncle, Steven Avery, who spent 18 years in prison for a rape before DNA testing exonerated him. After his release, he filed a multi-million dollar civil suit over his conviction, but in 2005 as that lawsuit was pending he was arrested for and later convicted of Halbach’s murder. Avery maintains he was framed.
At Dassey’s separate trial, video of him speaking with investigators and confessing to participating in Halbach’s rape and murder played a central role. Authorities had no physical evidence tying Dassey to the crimes, and he testified that his confession was “made up” but a jury convicted him. He’s eligible for parole in 2048.
While Wisconsin courts ruled Dassey’s confession was voluntary, a federal magistrate judge and a three-judge appeals court panel disagreed, saying he should be retried or released from prison.
Then, in late 2017, the full appeals court ruled 4-3 that the state courts’ determination that Dassey’s confession was voluntary was reasonable, meaning no release or retrial. The Supreme Court’s announcement it wouldn’t take the case left that decision in place.
