Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

Freer v. DAC, Inc.

Docket: 19-1572

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court entering judgment for Defendant, holding that Plaintiff's present challenge to the judgment was already conclusively resolved in his prior appeal. While the jury was deliberating, the parties agreed with limit their risks with a deal that put caps on what Plaintiff would receive and what Defendant would pay. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant. The district court dismissed the case consistent with the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order that entered judgment for Defendant. Thereafter, Defendant refused to pay the amount agreed upon, and so Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the agreement. The district court denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the agreement. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff made no attack on the judgment that couldn't have been raised in the prior appeal.

State v. Thompson

Docket: 19-1433

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Thomas D. Waterman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's deferred judgment, holding that the district court failed to include sufficient factual findings to support revocation. Defendant pled guilty to child endangerment. The district court ordered the judgment deferred and Defendant to pay a civil penalty, court costs, and attorney fees. Thereafter, the State filed an application to revoke deferred judgment and pronounce sentence, alleging that Defendant had not paid the balance due. The court found that Defendant had violated the terms of her probation and revoked the deferred judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the holding in State v. Damme, 944 N.W. 2d 98 (Iowa 2020), that a defendant who is not challenging her guilty plea or conviction has good cause to appeal an alleged sentencing error when the sentence was neither mandatory nor agreed to in the plea bargain extends to appeals from orders revoking deferred judgments; and (2) the district court's factual findings were insufficient. The Court remanded the case to the district court for a new hearing on the State's application to revoke Defendant's deferred judgment.