Tag Archives: teleconference

With two cases, shorthanded U.S. Supreme Court opens new term amid drama

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court returned to work on Monday for the first time since liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and heard arguments in two cases, opening its new term as Senate Republicans pursued quick confirmation of President Donald Trump’s conservative nominee to replace her.

At least at the outset of the term, the cases are being argued as they were at the end of the last term by teleconference because of the coronavirus pandemic.

With eight justices rather than the usual nine, the court started a term due to run through next June that includes several major cases including one that will decide the fate of the Obamacare healthcare law. Its last term ended in July.

Before the first argument began, Chief Justice John Roberts paid tribute to Ginsburg, calling her a “dear friend and treasured colleague” and sent “our condolences to her children, extended family and countless admirers.” Roberts said that a memorial service will at some point be held in the courtroom.

Ginsburg died on Sept. 18 at age 87. Trump on Sept. 26 nominated federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace her, and asked the Republican-led Senate to confirm her by the Nov. 3 U.S. election. If confirmed, Barrett would give the court a 6-3 conservative majority.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated on Saturday that Barrett’s confirmation hearings, due to be held next week, will proceed as planned even though two Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had contracted the coronavirus. Trump himself remained hospitalized with COVID-19 on Monday.

Trump has said he wants Barrett to be confirmed before Election Day so she could cast a decisive vote in any election-related dispute, potentially in his favor. He has said he expects the Supreme Court to decide the outcome of the election, though it has done so only once – the disputed 2000 contest ultimately awarded to Republican George W. Bush.

The first oral argument of the term centered on a system used by the state of Delaware that requires some of its courts to be ideologically balanced. The justices are weighing the state’s appeal defending its law, which requires that no more than half of the judges on certain courts be affiliated with one particular political party. It also requires that Delaware judges be affiliated with one of the two major political parties in the state.

During the argument, some of the justices questioned whether challenger James Adams, who has said he wants to serve as a judge, had legal standing to bring his claim, in part because he never formally applied. Roberts said that if someone approached him about a job as a clerk but never applied, “I really wouldn’t know what to make of it.”

The second case argued before the justices was a dispute between Texas and New Mexico over rights to the waters of the Pecos River that runs through both states.

On Wednesday, the justices weigh a multibillion-dollar software copyright dispute between Alphabet Inc’s Google and Oracle Corp. The case involves Oracle’s accusation that Google infringed its software copyrights to build the Android operating system used in smartphones.

Two big cases are scheduled for November.

On Nov. 10, a week after Election Day, the court is due to hear arguments in a case in which a group of Democratic-led states including California and New York are striving to preserve the 2010 Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Republican-led states and Trump’s administration are waging a court battle to strike down Obamacare.

The court hears another major case on Nov. 4 concerning the scope of religious-rights exemptions to certain federal laws. The dispute arose from Philadelphia’s decision to bar a local Roman Catholic entity from participating in the Democratic-governed city’s foster-care program because the organization prohibits same-sex couples from serving as foster parents.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

U.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean toward shielding religious schools from suits

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) – Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Monday toward a bid by two Catholic elementary schools in California to avoid discrimination lawsuits by former teachers in a case that could make it harder to hold religious institutions liable in employment disputes.

In more than 90 minutes of arguments heard by teleconference due to the coronavirus pandemic, the justices struggled over how courts can determine when a religious entity must face an employee’s civil rights lawsuit and when it is immune because of protections previously recognized by the high court.

Conservative justices asked questions indicating support for shielding the schools from such litigation. Liberal justices seemed to lean toward the teachers. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority. President Donald Trump’s administration sided with the schools.

A ruling favoring of the Catholic schools could strip more than 300,000 lay teachers working in religious schools of employment law protections and could impact industries including nurses in Catholic hospitals, the plaintiffs said.

Teachers Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel accused the schools of firing them due to discrimination. Morrissey-Berru accused her school of age discrimination. Biel accused hers of discrimination based on disability stemming from breast cancer treatment. Biel died last year after a five-year battle with the disease.

At issue is the breadth of a “ministerial exception” that protects religious organizations from employee suits alleging violations of laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on grounds including sex, race, national origin and religion.

In a 2012 ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the ministerial exception under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The exception, meant to prevent government interference with religion, restricts discrimination lawsuits by certain employees if they hold a ministerial role.

The justices in that case left unresolved how to decide when an employee qualifies for this ministerial role, a thorny question that the justices struggled with on Monday.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas offered hypothetical examples such as a chemistry teacher who starts class with a “Hail Mary” prayer, a chemistry teacher who is also a nun and a lay teacher who teaches religion.

“I don’t see what standards a secular court would use to determine which of those is an important … religious duty or function,” Thomas said.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she found it “very disturbing” if a person could be fired or refused a job for any reason “that has nothing to with religion.”

Morrissey-Berru sued Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Hermosa Beach after being told in 2015, just before her 65th birthday, that her contract would not be renewed. Biel sued St. James School in Torrance after she said she was dismissed when she requested time off to undergo surgery and chemotherapy for her cancer. Her husband has continued the litigation on her behalf.

Both private schools operate under the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Morrissey-Berru and Biel taught their students religion several days a week in addition to secular subjects.

Federal judges concluded that the ministerial exception barred both claims. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that both lawsuits could proceed.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

In a pandemic-caused first, U.S. Supreme Court hears cases by teleconference

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a break from tradition caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday for the first time will hear arguments in a case not in person but by teleconference – a trademark dispute involving the popular hotel reservation website Booking.com.

The nine justices over the next two weeks are set to participate in arguments in 10 cases, using a dial-in format to combat the spread of the pathogen. In another first, the court will provide a live audio feed, making these the first arguments that the public can hear live. Cable TV network C-SPAN said it plans to broadcast that feed in all the cases.

Rather than the wide-open questioning exhibited during typical cases in the justices’ ornate courtroom, the court has tweaked the format for the teleconference arguments so justices will take turn asking questions in order of seniority.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the court’s longest-serving member, though he typically refrains from asking questions during arguments. The next most senior justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a frequent questioner.

The first case is due to begin at 10 a.m. ET (1400 GMT). The justices will hear a bid by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to prevent Booking.com, a unit of Norwalk, Connecticut-based Booking Holdings Inc <BKNG.O>, from trademarking the site’s name, contending that it is too generic to deserve legal protection.

The case comes as Booking.com, along with the rest of the travel industry, has been slammed by the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused tourism and business travel to evaporate worldwide.

The agency is appealing a lower court decision allowing the trademark because by adding “.com” to the generic word “booking” it became eligible for a trademark. The online reservation service filed several trademark applications in 2011 and 2012.

A Patent and Trademark Office tribunal in 2016 rejected those applications, saying Booking.com referred generically to the common meaning of booking lodging and transportation and cannot be used exclusively through a federal trademark registration. Under U.S. law, only terms that distinguish a particular product or service from others on the market can be trademarked.

Booking.com appealed, presenting a survey that showed that 74% of consumers identified Booking.com as a brand name. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the company last year because the name as a whole is understood by the public to refer to a business.

Booking.com spokeswoman Kimberly Soward said the company is “honored to be a small part of the U.S. Supreme Court history being made this week” as one of the cases being heard by teleconference.

“We remain hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold the decisions of the two lower courts, recognizing the changing landscape of the digital world we live in,” Soward said.

The court will hear arguments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week and the same days next week. The biggest cases to be considered by teleconference are three that focus on the question of whether President Donald Trump can keep his financial records including tax returns secret. Those cases will be argued on May 12.

The Supreme Court building has been closed to the public since March 13 due to the pandemic. The justices have met only via teleconference, and have issued rulings only online.

The coronavirus has proven to be particularly dangerous in elderly people, especially those with underlying medical issues. Three of the nine justices are over age 70: Ginsburg (87), Stephen Breyer (81) and Thomas (71).

(For a graphic on major cases before the Supreme Court, click https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-COURT/0100B2E31KB/index.html)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington and Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)