Skip to main content
Clear icon
67º

Politics & Power: Supreme Court wrestles with reverse discrimination, gun makers & nuclear waste

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Some of the key cases before the nation’s highest court come into focus this week on Politics & Power.

Reverse discrimination

One of the cases being tackled has to do with reverse discrimination. At question is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will remove the additional “background circumstances” requirement.

That requirement, upheld by at least five circuit courts, means the plaintiff has to prove an employer has “reason or inclination” to discriminate against the majority group or that there is “something fishy” about the facts.

Amid the backlash over diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the justices will review that standard for groups that historically haven’t experienced discrimination to claim they have been discriminated against.

Gavel generic

In the case before the Supreme Court, Marlean Ames claims she was discriminated against because a lesbian woman got a promotion that Ames sought. Ames was then demoted, and her old job at the Ohio Department of Youth Services was taken by a gay man.

The Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. The court appears likely to allow Ames to pursue her claim that she was discriminated against at work because she was straight.

The court’s ruling is being closely watched because it could lower the bar for people who belong to majority groups to bring reverse discrimination claims.

Suing gun manufacturers

The second case up for discussion has to do with lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of firearms.

The government of Mexico filed a $10 billion lawsuit against Smith & Wesson alleging that they are aiding and abetting Mexican cartels in obtaining firearms.

The question at hand: Can Mexico bring such a case?

This is a case the court seems likely to block because both liberal and conservative justices seem skeptical that the claims could clear hurdles in U.S. law that largely shield gunmakers from lawsuits when their guns are used in crimes.

An attorney for Mexico argued, however, that the case over economic harm linked to gun violence is still in its early stages and should be allowed to go forward.

FILE - Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) (Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

Both Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered interesting counters to the attorney’s arguments, explaining why they don’t think the claims hold water.

Coincidentally, the arguments come amid President Donald Trump’s long-threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada. The tariffs are aimed partly at forcing the two U.S. neighbors to step up their fight against fentanyl and to stop illegal immigration.

Nuclear waste storage

The justices will also tackle a question about nuclear waste as the nation continues a frustrating search for storage sites.

Complicated politics have gotten in the way of addressing the problem since the advent of nuclear power in the last century.

The question at hand is whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should restart plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico.

One of the biggest issues is that the waste can remain radioactive and pose health risks for thousands of years.

Texas landowners are not happy and sued, but the NRC says they lack “standing” to challenge the NRC’s plan.

The case is much more interesting than it appears at the outset. Why? It raises issues stemming from another case the Supreme Court ruled on not so long ago.

While the current case focuses on two states, this is really a national headache and has been part of a decades-long dispute.

As the justices worry about safety and a lack of progress toward a permanent solution, the big issue for the court seems to be how temporary the storage would be.

Solicitor General of Texas Aaron Nielson put it this way: “If the justices believe the offsite storage would be a temporary fix, then ‘I have a bridge to sell you.’”

Constitutional law expert Rod Sullivan joins me to analyze all these issues before the court on this week’s Politics & Power. Watch at 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. Tuesday on News4JAX+ or catch it any time on demand at News4JAX+, News4JAX.com and our YouTube channel.


About the Author
Bruce Hamilton headshot

This Emmy Award-winning television, radio and newspaper journalist has anchored The Morning Show for 18 years.

Loading...