A group of 18 attorneys general has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration regarding the separation of families at the border. The Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy has been under strict scrutiny by Democrats as it has resulted in the separation of children and parents. The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington and argues that the separation of children and parents is discriminatory and violates equal protection under the Constitution. The complaint also states that the act of separating families is the Trump Administration's means of deterring immigrants from entering the United States.
In its pending class action on behalf of separated immigrant families, the ACLU has filed a proposal that would require the Trump administration to reunify the families it has separated under its "zero tolerance" immigration enforcement policy within a month. The proposal would also require reunification within 10 days for children younger than 5; phone contact between parents and children within 7 days; a halt on separations unless there is clear evidence of danger to the child; and a prohibition on deporting parents without their children unless the parent knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to reunification before deportation.
European Union Countries Must Recognize European Union Citizens’ Same-Sex Spouses’ Right to Live and Work Across Member Countries
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that all member countries of the European Union must recognize same-sex marriage with regard to providing the same right to live and work across the European Union's 28 countries as heterosexual spouses, regardless of any individual country's views on same-sex marriage. The six European Union countries that have not legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions are former Eastern Bloc countries that joined the European Union in the 21st century. The court stated that those six countries remain free not to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. However, the court expounded, countries "may not obstruct the freedom of residence of an E.U. citizen by refusing to grant his same-sex spouse, a national of a country that is not an E.U. member state, a derived right of residence in their territory."
Today, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to create a cake for a gay couple. The Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions violated the baker’s right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
United States Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Arkansas Abortion Law Ending the Use of Medication Abortions
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied Planned Parenthood's petition for a writ of certiorari in Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley (8th Cir. 2017). At issue is an Arkansas abortion law that requires doctors who provide medication abortions to contract with a second doctor who has hospital admitting privileges. Arkansas has three abortion clinics, two of which only offer medication abortions; only the abortion clinic in Little Rock offers surgical abortions. Arkansas would become the seventh state to have only one abortion clinic should the law stand.
Rising concerns nationwide about underage marriage are reflected in an impending proposal by a Utah legislator to raise the state's legal age of marriage to 18.
Arizona Federal District Court Judge Douglas Rayes has rejected the claims of the Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party of voting rights violations arising from two Arizona statutes which impact the Democrats get out the vote initiatives. Read the decision and relevant statutes on Justia.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Files Civil Rights Action Against Albertsons Alleging the Grocery Chain Prohibited Employees from Speaking Spanish, Even During Breaks
On Thursday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Albertsons alleging the grocery chain prohibited employees from speaking Spanish anywhere on the premises regardless of whether they were on a break. The civil action, which was filed in federal district court in the Southern District of California, is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and seeks a permanent injunction against Albertsons from engaging in national origin harassment as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the aggrieved individuals.