Supreme Court Tackles Pregnancy Discrimination & More: A SCOTUSblog Update
The Supreme Court on Monday took a significant step in a pregnancy discrimination case, agreeing to examine a procedural issue that could have broad implications for civil rights litigation. The case, Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, centers around whether a defendant can introduce a defense – a legal justification – later in a lawsuit if it wasn’t initially raised in their response to the plaintiff’s complaint.
The Younge Case: A Closer Look
Jasmine Younge, a former deputy chief of staff at the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, filed a federal civil rights suit alleging pregnancy discrimination. The DA’s office argued that it was exempt from the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it pertains to elected officials and their “personal staff.” However, the office didn’t raise this exemption in its initial response to Younge’s complaint, choosing instead to introduce it during a motion for summary judgment. The lower courts sided with the DA’s office, and Younge appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to hear the case.
Denied Review: A Louisiana Man’s Plea for Equal Justice
In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly protested the Court’s decision to deny review in the case of James Skinner, a Louisiana man sentenced to life in prison for a 1998 murder. Skinner argued that his conviction should be overturned, mirroring the case of his co-defendant, Michael Wearry, whose conviction was vacated in 2016 due to withheld evidence. Skinner’s lawyers contended that the same evidence, suggesting the key witnesses against him were untruthful, was suppressed in his trial.
Justice Sotomayor argued passionately that “equal justice under law” demands that co-defendants facing the same crime and raising similar constitutional claims receive the same treatment from the courts. She expressed concern that Skinner could remain imprisoned while Wearry goes free due to the state courts’ failure to properly apply Supreme Court precedent regarding evidence suppression. You can learn more about evidence suppression and its implications at the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.
‘Tiger King’s’ Joe Exotic Loses Appeal
The Court also rejected a petition for review filed by Joseph Maldonado-Passage, famously known as “Joe Exotic” from the Netflix series “Tiger King.” Maldonado-Passage was convicted on multiple charges, including two counts of murder-for-hire, and sentenced to 21 years in prison. His appeal was denied without even requesting a response from the federal government.
Looking Ahead
The justices will convene for another private conference on April 2nd, with orders expected to be released on April 6th at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Stay tuned to SCOTUSblog for continued coverage of these and other Supreme Court cases.
