In Gratuitously Attacking Marriage Equality, Clarence Thomas Accidentally Raised an Important Question About the Scope of Religious Liberty

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a statement by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) gratuitously expressing his hostility to the Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and his sympathy for Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the Supreme Court’s decision. Although Justice Thomas characterizes Davis and those like her as people who “refus[e] to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” Dorf points out that no one asked Davis to alter her religious beliefs. Rather, the lawsuit against her contends that she must provide services to the public in accordance with their constitutional rights, whatever her religious beliefs.

Read More

State v. Fleming

Citation: 2020 ME 120

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Joseph Jabar

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions for trafficking in prison contraband, unlawful possession of a scheduled drug, and violating a condition of release, holding that the trial court erred in its handling of the void dire process and in admitting certain evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his race-related voir dire questions and erred in partially denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a corrections officer upon his arrival to jail after his arrest. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) the voir dire process was not sufficient to disclose facts that would reveal juror bias; and (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, and the error was not harmless.

McDonald v. City of Portland

Citation: 2020 ME 119

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Connors

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

In this personal injury action, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Portland on immunity grounds, holding that the plaza where Plaintiff was injured fell within the public building exception to governmental immunity. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice after exiting the lobby of the Portland Police Department headquarters building. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence. As an affirmative defense, the City asserted that it was immune from suit because the claims did not fall within an exception to immunity contained in the Maine Tort Claims Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8104-A(2). The court denied the City's motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the plaza where Plaintiff fell was an appurtenance to a public building within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, the City was not immune from Plaintiff's claims.