Case boosts 'reverse discrimination' claims
Unanimous opinion written by 3 justices in court's liberal minority
By: Maureen Groppe
USA Today
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed down unanimous decisions June 5, on hot-button cases related to guns, religious groups and civil rights, all authored by the court's three liberal justices.
.....
The high court left the most divisive case for later in the month. [06/2025]
..... In the highest-profile decision, the justices agreed that a worker had faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay. The ruling could trigger a wave of "reverse discrimination" lawsuits.
..... Marlean Ames twice lost jobs at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to other candidates she thought were less qualified, both of whom were gay. The department said she was passed over for promotion because she lacked the necessary vision and leadership skills.
..... A lower court ruled Ames could not sue the agency because she failed to provide "background circumstances" showing the department was "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." That's a test crated in 1981 by a federal appeals court to assess claims brought under Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964.
..... Ames' lawyer told the justices her suit would not have been dismissed at this stage of the litigation had she been gay and employees who got the jobs she wanted were straight.
.....
The Supreme Court said the "background circumstances" rule couldn't be squared with the text of the law itself, which bans discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" and doesn't different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups.
..... "And nothing Ohio has said in its brief or at oral arguments, persuades us otherwise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court.
..... The discussion doesn't settle Ames' discrimination claim but only revives it for additional court proceedings. T Elliot Gaser, Ohio's solicitor general, argued that Ames still failed to show enough evidence that her sexual orientation played any role in the hiring decisions she questioned.
Tax exemption wrongly denied
..... The Supreme Court also said Wisconsin should not have denied a tax exemption to a Catholic Charities chapter, the latest in a series of cases the justices have decided in favor of faith groups.
..... The court unanimously ruled that the state violated the First Amendment's protection for religion and discriminated against the religious organization.
..... "There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
..... Wisconsin's law, which is similar to most states' and the federal government's grants exemptions from its unemployment insurance program for certain church-controlled organizations that are"operated primarily for religious purposes."
.....
The purpose of the exemption is to keep the government from violating the First Amendment by getting too involved in a church's employment decisions. An employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits if they were fired for misconduct, and Wisconsin doesn't want to have to decide the legitimacy of a firing that was based on matters of faith and doctrine.
...>>>>..The state said the Catholic Charities bureau and four affiliates had to participate in the states unemployment benefits system because the work begin performed is primary secular, even if it's motivated by religious belief. It doesn't give religious instruction during job training placement and coaching to disabled people, the state said. Neither employees nor the people they serve have to be Catholic. The catholic charities bureau and its affiliates are incorporated separately form the diocese.
..... Catholic charities, which was represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued it was being discriminated against because, unlike other religious organizations, its charitable arm is incorporated separately from the diocese and because it offers its services without proselytizing.
.....
Colin T. Roth, assistant attorney general for Wisconsin, warned hat a broad exemption could leave more than 1 million employees in the country who work for religious affiliated hospitals outside of the unemployment benefits system, Moreover, if fewer employers pay into the system, Roth and outside municipal groups, said, state might choose to shut down all religious exemptions.
Firearms makers protected
..... Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gun makers liable for violence and atrocities Mexico drug cartels have inflicted using their weapons.
..... The court unanimous ruled that firearms makers are protected by a federal law barring certain lawsuits against them.
..... "An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico's, it is founded on a third-party criminal sue of the company's product," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
.....
Guns made in the United States are sold to federally licensed distributors who sells them to federally license dealers - some of whom knowingly or negligently sell them to criminals who smuggle them into Mexico, where they end up in the hands of cartel members.
..... Attorneys representing Mexico argued that gun companies are "aiding and abetting" the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of high-powered firearms through deliberate design, marketing and distribution choices. that includes doing business with dealers who repeatedly sell large quantities of guns to cartel traffickers, Mexico's counsel alleged.
..... Mexico was seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages, estimated in the rage of $10 billion, and a court order requiring gun companies to change their practices. Its attorneys stressed that the suit was in its early stages and said Mexico should be allowed a chance to prove its allegations in court.
..... Firearms makers, led by Smith & Wesson brands, said the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes after being sold involves too many steps to blame the industry.