6 events in Passaic County with a date

Supreme Court declines key cases

Justices agree to hear protest injury case

By: Maureen Groppe
USA Today

..... The Supreme Court on May 27 [2025] declined to hear two high profile cases - one involving a student barred from wearing a "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS" T-shirt, and another challenging a mining project on sacred Apache land, a potential landmark for religious freedom.
..... Meanwhile, the court agreed to review the case of a teenager participially blinded during a George Floyd protest, signaling renewed scrutiny of law enforcement accountability during demonstrations.
..... The court's decision to not take the T-shirt case preserves a ruling supporting the school's decision that the shirt would make it hard for students to focus on thier schoolwork.
..... Two of the court's conserviatve justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - said they would have taken the student's appeal.
..... The Supreme Court;s decision came after President Donald Trump declared that only two sexes, male and female, would be recognized by the federal government.
..... Liam Morrison wanted to share a similar view in 2023 when, as a seventh-grader, he wore his "two genders" T-shirt to school.
..... When the principal told Morrison he couldn't return to class unless he charged his shirt, Liam opted to go home.
..... Attorneys for Morrison said the school violated his First amendment rights to express a view different from the schools.
..... School officials said they were acting out of concern for gender-nonconforming students, some of whom had previously experienced serious mental health struggles - including thoughts of suicide - because of how they were treated by other students.
..... The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of appeals sided with the school, noting that federal courts have ruled schools can restrict messages that can be reasonably interpreted to demean a person's identity and are reasonably expected to be disruptive.

Alito: Free speech should be rule

..... In his dissent, Alito said the appeals court had watered down the Supreme Court's "demanding standard" for when schools can restrict a student's free speech rights.
..... Free speech should be the rule, not the exception, he wrote.
..... But the appeals court, Alito said, deferred to school officials' speculation about the effects of the T-shirt, even though there were no actual disruptions, and accepted the administrator's conclusion that the shirt's message ... emended others' personal identity.
..... "Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputation' society," Alito wrote. And the desire to avoid discomfort or unpleasantness "is no reason to thwart a student's speech."

Court declines case on religious freedom

..... The Court also declined to get involved in a dispute about mining on land sacred to the San Carlos Apache Tribe, a case that religious groups backed to test the scope of a 1993 federal law protecting religious freedom.
..... Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing members of the tribe, said courts are far too apt to dodge the question of what qualifies as an improper burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
..... Thomas and fellow conservative justice Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken the case.
..... "Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches; sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,: Gorsuch, who often defends Native American rights, wrote in his dissent.
..... Gorsuch said he has no doubt the court would have agreed to hr the case if it had involved a historic cathedral instead of an ancient site of tribal worship.
..... Conservative justice Alito said he did not participate in the decision. Alito did not give a reason for his refusal.

Apache Tribe says site is sacred

..... In 2014, Congress handed over 2,422 acres in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona - which sits atop the world's third-largest deposit of copper ore - to private mining company Resolution Copper in exchange for other land in the state.
..... Apache Stronghold, an advocacy group representing some members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, sued to block the transfer. The Apache Tribe says the site - called Chi'chil Bidagotee, or Oak Flat - is their direct corridor to the Creator and is needed for religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere.
..... Under the Religious Freedom Restoration act, teh government cannot "substantially burden: a person's exercise of religion without a "compelling governmental interest.
..... The federal government said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the law doesn't apply when the government is dealing with its own property.
..... But Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it's obvious that tribal members; religious expression is being hampered.
..... "Of course, it's a burden on their religion when you blew up their sacred site and they can't worship there," Rieniz said. "that;s just plain English."
..... Resolution copper said that interpretation of the law would allow one person to block any use of public land except tier own if they sincerely believed some activity - "Be it camping, hunting, fishing, hiking or mining" - destroyed the land's sanctity.
..... A federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the federal government from moving forward with the land transfer until the Supreme Court acted on the appeal.

Court considers protest injury

..... Meanwhile, the court ordered another look at whether a police officer who partially blinded a teenager during the 2020 George Floyd protests can be sued.
..... Lower courts said a jury could reasonably conclude that Ethan Daniel Marks was not an immediate threat to police when a Minneapolis police officer shot him in the face with a chemical-filled projectile, making him legally blind in one eye.
..... The officer, Benjamin Bauer, said he chose a less-lethal way of stopping what hes aid was an assault on a fellow cop.
..... Bauer appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal decision allowing the suit to mover forward.
..... But the justices directed the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of its recent decision about a fatal traffic stop. In that case, the justices said courts can look beyond the exact moment a police officer is using deadly force to determine if the force was unreasonable.
..... That decision benefited the family of the man who was shot during the traffic stop for unpaid tolls. But the court;s May 27 [2025] order helps the police officer.

HOME