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

Scott v. Mississippi

Citation: 2019-KA-00928-SCT

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: Ishee

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Using a cell-phone app that simulated a flashing police light, Louis Scott impersonated an undercover police officer and pulled over a young woman late at night. Scott approached the woman’s vehicle and threatened her with a knife through the car window, but the woman escaped by driving away suddenly. Based on this, Scott was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Evidence admitted at trial revealed Scott had kidnapped and raped another young woman later the same evening. On appeal, Scott contended the evidence of the second attack was substantially more prejudicial than probative under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined that argument was without merit: Scott’s kidnapping and rape of the second victim was highly probative of his intent with regard to the attempted kidnapping charge. Scott also contended for the first time on appeal, that his indictment was defective because it failed to specifically allege Scott failed in the kidnapping attempt. The Court held in the past that such allegation was not required. Therefore, the Court affirmed Scott’s conviction and sentence.

Folson v. Fulco

Citation: 2020-EC-00257-SCT

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: James W. Kitchens

Areas of Law: Election Law

Luther Gene Folson, Jr., contested the 2019 general election for sheriff of Yalobusha County, Mississippi. Mark Fulco was declared the winner by a margin of two votes. The trial court ordered that a special election be held because the commingling of four illegal absentee votes with legal absentee votes had made it impossible to discern the will of the voters. Folson appeals the trial court’s order. This case was under expedited review. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the issue on direct appeal was not whether there were illegal votes; rather the issue was whether a special election was the appropriate remedy. On cross-appeal, the issue was whether newly registered voters who had not voted in the general election should have been allowed to vote in the court-ordered special election. The Supreme Court found the trial court appropriately ordered a special election after determining that the will of the voters could not be ascertained. Fulco’s cross-appeal was without merit because Mississippi law allowed an elector to vote in any election as long as the elector satisfied the necessary voting requirements. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.