Posts tagged with "ruling"

SCOTUS Limits Universal Injunctions, Shaking Up Birthright Citizenship and Beyond

Leave a reply

A recent Supreme Court ruling has sent ripples through the American legal landscape, significantly limiting the ability of lower courts to issue “universal injunctions” that block executive orders nationwide. While the immediate focus is on its impact on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, the implications of this decision stretch far wider, touching on the very fabric of our Constitution, American culture, and fundamental rights.

The Need-to-Know

  • What happened? The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, partially blocked nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
  • The Ruling: Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, which argued that injunctive relief should be limited to the specific plaintiffs in a case, rather than extending universally.
  • The Dissent: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissented fiercely, warning of a “zone of lawlessness” and disproportionate impact on the less resourced.
  • What wasn’t ruled on: The ruling did not address the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order or the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. That question was not presented to the court.
  • Immediate effect: Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for at least another 30 days, as the executive order was stayed. Lower courts will now reconsider the breadth of their orders.

Key Takeaways

  • Judicial Restraint: The ruling reflects a move towards judicial restraint, limiting the power of individual district courts to broadly impact federal policy.
  • Individualized Relief: The Court emphasized that relief should be tailored to the individual plaintiffs before the court, rather than providing universal remedies.
  • Access to Justice Concerns: Dissenting justices raised concerns that this decision will disproportionately affect individuals who lack the resources to bring their own individual lawsuits, potentially creating a two-tiered system of justice.
  • Political Motivation? The dissent also accused the Court of “gamesmanship” with the Constitution, playing along with an administration that “makes no attempt to hide it.”

Implications

To the Constitution: This ruling fundamentally redefines the scope of judicial power, particularly in relation to the executive branch. While the majority frames it as a correction to an overuse of universal injunctions, the dissent argues it creates a dangerous precedent that undermines checks and balances and could lead to executive overreach. The decision, though not directly on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, sets a procedural hurdle for challenges to executive actions that could impact constitutional rights.

To Birthright Citizenship: Although the ruling did not directly address the merits of birthright citizenship, it makes it procedurally more difficult to challenge executive actions that might undermine it. Instead of a single nationwide injunction protecting all those affected, individuals would theoretically need to bring their own cases. This shifts the burden significantly, potentially leaving many vulnerable and creating a patchwork of legal protections across states. The fact that the court did not uphold over 100 years of precedent, including U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly, but rather through procedural means, is a significant concern for advocates of birthright citizenship.

To American Culture: The debate around universal injunctions highlights a deep divide in how Americans view the role of the judiciary and the balance of power. Some see this as a necessary curb on judicial activism, while others view it as an erosion of protections for ordinary citizens against potentially unlawful government actions. It also underscores the ongoing tension between individual rights and broader societal protections.

This Supreme Court decision is a major development with far-reaching consequences. It signals a shift in the judiciary’s approach to executive power and judicial remedies, prompting further legal battles and raising critical questions about access to justice and the future of constitutional rights in America.

The Legacy of Henrietta Lacks And Her Living Hela Cells

Leave a reply

Henrietta Lacks was an African-American woman whose cancer cells were used to create the first immortal cell line, known as HeLa cells.

This cell line has been used in countless medical research studies, leading to major advances in medicine. However, Lacks’ cells were taken without her knowledge or consent, and she never benefited from the profits generated by their use. Her story raises important questions about medical ethics and the exploitation of vulnerable populations. Lacks’ family was unaware of her contribution to science for more than two decades.  In 2023 her descendants settled with a biotech company “accused of taking the woman’s cervical cells without her consent while she was a patient at John Hopkins Hospital more than seven decades ago.” 

According to The Baltimore Banner, the Lacks family is celebrating another win after a federal judge cleared their lawsuit against another biotech company to proceed. “The family of Henrietta Lacks can pursue compensation from a pharmaceutical company over its use of her HeLa cells, which have been influential in modern medicine after being taken without her consent decades ago.”

Here are some key facts about Henrietta Lacks:

  • She was born in Roanoke, Virginia, in 1920.
  • She was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1951 and died from the disease in 1952.
  • Her cancer cells were taken without her knowledge or consent by Dr. George Gey, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
  • HeLa cells have been used in countless medical research studies, leading to major advances in medicine, such as the development of the polio vaccine and cancer treatments.
  • Lacks’ family was not aware of the use of her cells until many years later, and they never received any compensation for their use.

Lacks’ story raises important questions about medical ethics and the exploitation of vulnerable populations.

  • Should patients be informed about the potential uses of their cells before they are taken?
  • Should patients be compensated for the use of their cells?
  • How can we ensure that vulnerable populations are not exploited in medical research?

Lacks’ story is a reminder of the importance of informed consent and the need to protect the rights of research participants. Her legacy is a complex one, but it is one that has helped to shape the field of medical research.

Cervical cancer: the legacy of Henrietta Lacks

Black Women Entrepreneurs Blocked From Funding by Federal Appeals Court

Leave a reply

BY RAYNA REID RAYFORD 

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Fearless Fund grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory.

The judges ruled that the Fearless Fund’s Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is ‘substantially likely to violate’ the provisions of Title 42 of the US Code, which ensures equal rights under the law and prohibits using race when awarding and enforcing contracts.

The case against the Atlanta-based venture capital fund began last year with a lawsuit by the American Alliance for Equal Rights. The lawsuit, led by Edward Blum, who is known for challenging affirmative action in college admissions, alleged that the fund, which specifically caters to Black women, is racially discriminatory. 

Monday’s 2-1 decision was a reversal from last year’s ruling by a federal judge, which ruled that the contest should be able to continue because, in their opinion, the lawsuit was expected to fail. But, since October, this program has been suspended after a different panel of the federal appeals court swiftly granted Blum’s request for an emergency injunction while he challenged the federal judge’s original order.”

The court’s decision marks the latest victory in the war the GOP is waging against DEI and diversity programs. As ESSENCE has previously reported, this lawsuit is emblematic of a larger issue in this country where seemingly politically motivated plaintiffs are challenging organizations that counter racial bias and advance equity, in this case, starting with underrepresented groups like Black women in the venture capital space.

To read more about the ruling click HERE. 

The case against the Fearless Fund was brought last year by the American American Alliance for Equal Rights, a group led by Edward Blum, the conservative activist behind the Supreme Court case that ended affirmative action in college admissions. The full report from the AP can be found HERE.

Another detailed report from TIME about the the venture-capital firm run by Black women can he found HERE.