Updated: March 30, 2013
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that President Obama did not have the constitutional authority to make recent appointments for three vacancies to the National Labor Relations Board. The panel said that since the Senate technically remained in "pro forma" sessions by gaveling in and out every few days, the president’s appointments were not made during a Senate recess and thus required Senate approval. The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for January 25, 2013.
On December 26, Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused a request from a Catholic-owned arts and crafts company, Hobby Lobby, to block the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement for health insurance plans from going into effect on January 1. Justice Sotomayor said Hobby Lobby did not meet the high standard to receive an emergency injunction and can continue to challenge the requirement in federal court. Additionally, on December 21, a U.S. district court temporarily halted enforcement of a Missouri law that requires health insurance companies to issue policies without coverage for contraception if such services violate an employer's moral or religious beliefs. The judge ruled that the Missouri law conflicts with federal law, which, under the Affordable Care Act, requires all new health insurance plans beginning January 1 to cover key women’s preventive care services, including contraception, without co-pays.
AAUW supports women’s right to access safe, affordable, and comprehensive contraception and reproductive health services regardless of where they work or learn.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for January 4, 2013.
In a unanimous reversal of a lower court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal workers can appeal their discrimination cases to a U.S. district court regardless of whether they are appealing on procedural grounds or on the merits of a prior decision. The case, Kloeckner vs. Solis, was brought by Carolyn Kloeckner, a former Department of Labor employee, who claimed she was the victim of age and sex discrimination. Kloeckner’s initial claim to the Merit Systems Protection Board was dismissed on procedural grounds; when she tried to appeal that decision in a federal district court, the judge said she needed to seek review in a circuit court because her claim was denied on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses that reasoning. The Supreme Court’s decision will give Kloeckner and other federal workers pursuing anti-discrimination cases access to sue the agency in federal court if they wish to appeal the decision of a special review panel like the Merit Systems Protection Board.
AAUW opposes all forms of discrimination and advocates for vigorous enforcement of employment antidiscrimination statutes. In this economy, it is critical that the government make civil rights enforcement a priority because many workers are too scared to speak up for themselves in the workplace.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 14, 2012.
A federal court began hearing arguments this week for a lawsuit brought against the Senate filibuster rule. Four House Democrats, along with some undocumented students and the organization Common Cause, are suing, claiming that the Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional and violates the principle of majority rule. Currently, the filibuster allows for extended debate by any senator and requires 60 votes to end that debate, meaning that a minority can stall a bill supported by the majority. The lawsuit claims that bills should be debated and passed by a simple majority. Federal courts have not taken up Senate rules before, and Senate attorneys argue that the courts do not have the authority to change Senate rules. Separate from the lawsuit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has publicly stated that he wants to change the Senate filibuster rules at the beginning of the 113th Congress.
No matter which party controls the White House or Senate, AAUW opposes any options that would completely eliminate the filibuster and overturn two centuries of the valuable Senate tradition of extended debate. This tradition is unique to the chamber and has long been a tool to facilitate bipartisan compromise. To abolish the filibuster would undermine a legacy of bipartisan cooperation as well as rules that have historically protected the rights of the minority—whichever party or group that may be—to have a voice in the outcome.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 14, 2012.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it will review two cases dealing with marriage equality: one that challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and one that challenges California’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples. So far, marriage equality advocates have won in 10 consecutive lower court cases. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the California ban, Proposition 8, could set a precedent for similar bans in 31 other states. The court is expected to hear the cases in March and rule by the end of June.
AAUW believes no American should be denied the full range of civil rights and civil liberties due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such rights and liberties include freedom from discrimination in the workplace, the right to marry, the guarantee of spousal/partner benefits—including the ability to care for dependent children—and the ability to serve one’s country in uniform.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 7, 2012.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has upheld a ruling granting a $1 million jury award to a student who was racially harassed as a student at a New York high school. The student reported both physical and verbal harassment in the classrooms, hallways, and on the football team. The school did suspend some students who were involved in the harassment, but the appeals court found that such actions were half-hearted and that the district failed to take further action when necessary. The Obama administration filed an amicus brief with the appeals court in support of the student.
AAUW supports policies and programs that address relational aggression, bullying, and harassment to ensure students’ overall health, safety, and well-being. Simply put, children cannot learn if they don’t feel safe.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 7, 2012.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a stay on its recent ruling that a state ban on affirmative action is unconstitutional. The state ban came from a 2006 Michigan constitutional amendment that outlawed the use of race in state college admissions, government hiring, or government contracting. The stay will remain in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear the state’s appeal of the lower court’s decision.
AAUW supports affirmative action programs that establish equal opportunity for women and minorities and improve gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in educational institutions and in workplaces.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for December 7, 2012.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a federal appeals court to reexamine a challenge to the Affordable Care Act by Liberty University, a Virginia-based Christian evangelical college. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ taxing power, but the justices allowed other challenges to the law to proceed. Liberty University’s lawsuit is one of dozens that claim the Affordable Care Act violates moral and religious liberties by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance and employers to provide it, regardless of whether they approve of what the insurance would cover.
The AAUW believes that everyone is entitled to health care that is high-quality, affordable, and easily accessible. No woman should be left out of the benefits and protections of the Affordable Care Act because of where she works or attends school.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for November 30, 2012.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires nine states and localities in seven other states to receive federal approval before changing their voting laws, a process known as “preclearance.” Recently, federal courts have cited the Voting Rights Act in preventing all or parts of new state voting laws from going into effect in Texas, South Carolina, and Florida.
AAUW advocates vigorous protection of civil and constitutional rights, including the right to vote.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for November 16, 2012.
With President Obama’s re-election, judicial nominations that had been stalled could go through the Senate. There are currently 19 judicial nominations waiting for approval on the Senate floor. Republican senators have blocked all nominations since September, waiting until after the election to proceed. Any nominations that are not confirmed will have to be re-nominated in the next Congress. Some Republican leaders are saying that no judicial nominations will go through. However, other Republican senators are calling for confirmation of nominees in their states and a vote to confirm noncontroversial nominations that have bipartisan support.
AAUW pays close attention to judicial nominations because our constitutional rights and individual liberties are protected by a strong and effective judiciary. But our courts are in crisis because of vacancies in courtrooms nationwide. Ask your senators to help protect our freedoms by moving forward with judicial confirmations!
- from AAUW's Washington Update for November 16, 2012.
On Thursday, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution that would have banned the consideration of race in college admissions and public hiring. The court said that the amendment undermines a citizen’s right to “equal access to the tools of political change” because opponents of the amendment would have had to launch a long, expensive campaign to reinstate affirmative action if the amendment had gone into effect. The implications of this decision could reach beyond Michigan—seven other states ban the consideration of race in admissions, and the Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin’s affirmative action policy.
AAUW supports affirmative action programs that establish equal opportunity for women and minorities and improve gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in educational institutions and in workplaces.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for November 16, 2012.
With the election over, many analysts are now focusing on the judicial nominations likely to take place over the next four years. In his last term, President Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. In the next four years, many are predicting that Obama will have the chance to appoint up to two additional justices due to expected retirements. The president would likely be aided in filling those Supreme Court vacancies and open positions on other federal benches by the Democratic majority in the Senate, which is the chamber responsible for confirming the president’s judicial nominations. So far, President Obama has appointed 72 women to federal courts, a historic number for a single presidential term.
AAUW pays close attention to judicial nominations because so many fundamental rights and liberties are established and protected by the federal courts and case precedents. AAUW supports judicial nominees who will protect and uphold constitutional and civil rights in order to ensure liberty, equality, and justice for all men and women.
- from AAUW's Washington Update for November 9, 2012.