US Supreme Court eyes weighty social issues

0 comments

WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court is back in session Monday to tackle major social issues such as same-sex marriage and affirmative action, as well as a high-profile international human rights case.

 

On its first day back in session, the highest US court will start off by  reexamining a suit, alleging complicity in acts of torture, against Dutch oil  giant Shell in Nigeria.
 
Twelve Nigerians accuse Shell of becoming an accomplice to torture,  extrajudicial executions and crimes against humanity in the Niger Delta region.
 
The nine justices will decide whether to hold major companies liable for  crimes committed outside US borders by virtue of the Alien Tort Statute, a law  passed two centuries ago.
 
“ATS clearly covers those violations,” said Carey D’Avino, one of the  plaintiffs’ attorneys. “There’s nothing in the ATS that violates domestic and  international laws.”
 
Not everyone is so sure.
 
The Supreme Court could be “afraid of some kind of backlash, what other  nations will think of us,” said constitutional lawyer Lisa Blatt.
 
In what could be the term’s most prominent case, the justices will take up  affirmative action at the University of Texas.
 
The policy, aimed at correcting historic imbalances in education by  favoring US minorities in public university admissions and other circumstances,  has come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of a growing minority population.
 
A white student is accusing the university of using quotas for racial and  ethnic minority groups in university admissions in a way she claims violates  her US constitutional rights.
 
It will be the first time the court takes up the controversial issue since  its 2003 ruling saying racial or ethnic quotas did not violate the US  Constitution.
 
But since then, the makeup of the court has changed to make it “the most  conservative in a lifetime,” giving greater likely voice to affirmative action  opponents, said Georgetown Law professor Louis Seidman.
 
Alan Morrison of The George Washington University Law School stressed that “there’s a lot at stake and plenty of reasons to be concerned.” He called the  affirmative action decision “crucial,” saying it would be felt at all US  universities, both public and private.
 
Among the fairly rare national security issues to come before the court  will be a case on wiretapping and human rights due to be examined on October  29. And on October 31, the justices are set to address whether the use of  drug-sniffing dogs violates constitutional rights.
 
Still, in terms of social reach, it is the court’s looming moves on  same-sex marriage that have both captured a lot of Americans’ attention and  fueled strong reactions.
 
All eyes will be riveted on the court when it takes up any of at least  eight appeals in line for consideration.
 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself has said that “it’s most likely that we  will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term.”
 
James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union rights group suggested  the court will agree in November to take up some months later the Defense of  Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that defines marriage as a legal union of a man and  woman.
 
The case addresses federal rights granted to heterosexual spouses — such  as inheritance rights, tax benefits and immigration rights — but denied to  same-sex couples, even though they are legally wed in several US states.
 
Attorney Paul Smith said the court would act now on gay marriage. “It is  very, very likely they will take one (case). It would create an enormous chaos  not to take one.”
 
Neal Katyal, a former top US government attorney under President Barack  Obama, said “the court has to take DOMA but they don’t have to take Prop 8,”  referring to California’s same-sex marriage law.
 
Republicans reject charges that DOMA violates the due process clause of the  Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
After long side-stepping the issue, Obama put his reelection bid on the  line by publicly endorsing gay marriage in May in a surprise move designed to  draw a sharp contrast with Romney, his Republican rival who opposes same-sex  unions.
 
Legal marriage between two men or two women is not recognized by the US  federal government but is now allowed in six of the 50 US states and in the  capital, Washington. -- AFP

Leave Your Comment


Leave Your Comment:

New Straits Times reserves the right not to publish offensive or abusive comments and those of hate speech, harassment, commercial promos and invasion of privacy. Your IP will be logged and may be used to prevent further submission.The views expressed here are that of the members of the public and unless specifically stated are not those of NST.