“The premise of your argument, I think, is that discrimination itself is not a harm," Justice Kavanaugh bluntly told St. Louis's lawyer. Also: A dodge in an ADA case.
While I was on active duty at FT Sam, San Antonio in the late 1970’s, there was a highly placed group of antisemite officers who “arranged transfers” of people they suspected were Jewish (at least one of them was not; she just had a Russian last name) to overseas assignments, after piling on fabricated accusations of their behavior at work. So, anyone who doubts the validity of using “transfer” status as a tool for discrimination, you’re dead wrong.
Muldrow was another example of the need to hire the right advocate to represent you before the Court. The Chief and Justice Kagan both seemed particularly frustrated by the quality of the arguments this morning. I felt that only OSG (and by reference, the office of the DC SG) provided clear and helpful arguments to the Court.
The academy can groan all it wants about the small and exclusive professional bar. But there's a reason they're the best. Today illustrated the need for their expertise.
I’m not sure I agree with you 100%, but I did signal my partial agreement with aspects of this. Certainly DOJ’s presence was important, if not essential, this morning.
Also, good point about the DC brief. We’ll almost certainly see that language in the eventual opinion.
I'm unfamiliar with the St Louis case but the way you've reported it strikes me as an unconstitutional policy that may be enjoined with an order for fee bill costs ( and maybe attorney fees, because it's a civil rights matter) so there would be no issue regarding damages unless a compensatory basis could be established
Respondent: In our view, we think that there probably is no real de minimis exception here because of the significance of the --the injury based on a protected characteristic, that that discrimination in and of itself it seems hard to characterize as trifling or insignificant or hardly worthy of notice. But --but we think that, you know, the opinion by Judge Tatel and --and Judge Ginsburg was a very good opinion and we --we do agree with it.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: That's what I thought the answer would be.
Happy Holidays as the Supreme Court is about to go on a mid-winter break. I'm sure a lot will keep you busy, with lower courts and other pending litigation.
While I was on active duty at FT Sam, San Antonio in the late 1970’s, there was a highly placed group of antisemite officers who “arranged transfers” of people they suspected were Jewish (at least one of them was not; she just had a Russian last name) to overseas assignments, after piling on fabricated accusations of their behavior at work. So, anyone who doubts the validity of using “transfer” status as a tool for discrimination, you’re dead wrong.
The St. Louis defense seems to genuinely be that separate but equal is in fact equal.
Or at least sufficient.
This is fascinating!
Muldrow was another example of the need to hire the right advocate to represent you before the Court. The Chief and Justice Kagan both seemed particularly frustrated by the quality of the arguments this morning. I felt that only OSG (and by reference, the office of the DC SG) provided clear and helpful arguments to the Court.
The academy can groan all it wants about the small and exclusive professional bar. But there's a reason they're the best. Today illustrated the need for their expertise.
I’m not sure I agree with you 100%, but I did signal my partial agreement with aspects of this. Certainly DOJ’s presence was important, if not essential, this morning.
Also, good point about the DC brief. We’ll almost certainly see that language in the eventual opinion.
I'm unfamiliar with the St Louis case but the way you've reported it strikes me as an unconstitutional policy that may be enjoined with an order for fee bill costs ( and maybe attorney fees, because it's a civil rights matter) so there would be no issue regarding damages unless a compensatory basis could be established
I appreciated this exchange at oral arguments
Respondent: In our view, we think that there probably is no real de minimis exception here because of the significance of the --the injury based on a protected characteristic, that that discrimination in and of itself it seems hard to characterize as trifling or insignificant or hardly worthy of notice. But --but we think that, you know, the opinion by Judge Tatel and --and Judge Ginsburg was a very good opinion and we --we do agree with it.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: That's what I thought the answer would be.
(Laughter.)
Happy Holidays as the Supreme Court is about to go on a mid-winter break. I'm sure a lot will keep you busy, with lower courts and other pending litigation.