Reacts to ‘Obamacare’ decision
Pres. Obama reacts to the Supreme Court decision on Affordable Care Act subsidies:
After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.
He adds that, had the decision gone otherwise:
America would have gone backwards. That’s not what we do.
Upholds Fair Housing Act
In a 5-4 decision, justices re-affirm a 47-year-old federal law that cracks down on housing discrimination. They hold that the law allows for both claims for intentional discrimination, and claims on practices that are not intended to discriminate, but have a discriminatory effect. According to Justice Kennedy, writing on behalf of the majority, which includes Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer.
Much progress remains to be made in our nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation. The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the nation toward a more integrated society.
In dissent Justice Thomas said the court was in danger of constructing “a scheme that parcels out legal privileges to individuals on the basis of skin color.”
Favors inmate on excessive force claim
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a 6-3 ruling makes it easier for pre-trial inmates to bring claims against jail officials for using excessive force, and rules that officers and juries will be held to an objective standard about whether the use of force is reasonable. At issue is the question of whether police officers are permitted to use subjective standards in their use of force force, and whether juries can also be instructed to use subjective standards when determining whether or not excessive force was used in a given case. The ruling makes it clear that objective standards are to be developed and used.
Confirms Texas’ Confederate plates rejection
In a 5-4 decision, the justices rule that Texas did not violate the First Amendment when it refused to allow specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag. Justice Breyer writes for the majority that such plates are the government’s speech and are thus immune from First Amendment attacks.
Children’s abuse statements can be evidence
Justices unanimously rule that statements made by children to teachers about possible abuse can be used as evidence, even if the child does not testify in court. The ruling is expected to make it easier for prosecutors to convict people accused of domestic violence. The justices state that defendants don’t have a constitutional right to cross-examine child accusers unless their statements to school officials were made for the primary purpose of creating evidence for prosecution.