- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
- HAYDEN: Intelligence, evidence and the case against Russia
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
Supreme Court rules against group that bans gays
Question of the Day
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a public university can refuse to officially recognize a Christian student group that bars membership to those who violate its beliefs.
In a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, the high court agreed with a decision by the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco to refuse to grant a campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society because it expressly barred gays and non-Christians.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s frequent swing vote, agreed with the school. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with the Christian group.
The school said the group’s membership requirements violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies, which require groups on campus to allow members regardless of sexual orientation or religion. The group claimed that the school’s policies violated its First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
A federal district court and federal appeals court previously sided with the school against the Christian students.
Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg said the First Amendment shielded the Christian Legal Society from discrimination at the hands of the state-run university, but it did not give the Christian group the right to exclude people while receiving the benefits of the university’s resources.
“Exclusion, after all, has two sides,” she wrote. “Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a groups desire to exclude and students demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership.”
The conservative justices said their liberal counterparts had distorted the facts of the case and argued that the school targeted the Christian group because it disagreed with the group’s beliefs.
“I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country,” Justice Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion. “Even those who find [the Christian Legal Society‘s] views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated — by Hastings, the court of appeals and now this court.
“I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.”
In another widely followed case, the court declined to make a sweeping ruling that could have changed the scope of the nation’s patent laws.
In that case, inventors Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw tried to patent in 1997 a business method that would allow a user to lock in favorable energy prices and hedge against price fluctuations that result from bad weather. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected their application on the basis that it was too abstract and merely solved a purely mathematical problem.
Mr. Bilski and Mr. Warsaw appealed that ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that their patent application was too abstract and that such a process or method would be patentable only if it met the “machine-or-transformation” test. The appeals court said such a test would require a process to be tied to a particular machine or transform an object into something else in order for it to receive a patent.
The appeals court ruling sent shock waves through the high-tech sector as it raised serious questions about whether any business methods or even computer software could ever meet the criteria to receive a patent.
The Supreme Court walked back the appeals court decision Monday, ruling unanimously that Mr. Bilski and Mr. Warsaw’s business method was an unpatentable, abstract idea. But the high court declined to define what is patentable.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- White House readies for House GOP impeachment push: 'Foolish' to ignore
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq