Jay Sekulow: June 2009 Archives

Barry, today's Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is sure to be a hot topic at the upcoming hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The Court reversed a Second Circuit decision that was joined by Judge Sotomayor.

In Ricci, 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter filed suit against the City of New Haven, claiming that city officials had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause when they failed to certify the results of two promotional exams, one for Lieutenant and one for Captain. The city claimed that it would be liable under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on minority firefighters if it certified the test results since no African-Americans would be eligible for promotion to the position of Captain or Lieutenant.

It is a compelling scene - thousands in the streets of Iran - calling for freedom - fighting for free and fair elections.  And, Barry, what is most troubling - but not necessarily surprising - is the Iranian regime's reaction - the use of deadly violence to quell the protests and a flagrant disregard for international law and basic human rights.

President Obama condemned the violence in a news conference today and used his strongest language yet, saying the world is "appalled and outraged" by Iran's actions.

And, the House and Senate passed separate resolutions in support of the Iranian protesters.

Since the election last week, nearly 20 Iranians have been killed - including the murder of a young Iranian girl whose killing was captured on video and posted online. 

I like Peeps, too.  Barry, the key issue is whether there is religious discrimination going on when it comes to the issue of the Easter Peeps.

If the landlord is simply enforcing in an evenhanded manner a religion-neutral lease provision regarding cleanliness, there's probably not much of a case. On the other hand, however, if the landlord has a policy or practice that treats religious expression on less favorable terms than non-religious expression, there is likely a violation of the federal fair housing laws (and also the First Amendment if the landlord is a state actor).

Barry, "sectarian" programming should not be excluded from public broadcasting at a time when matters of faith and religion are so much in the news and in the hearts and minds of viewers.

Local public broadcast programming is supposed to be tailored to the unique needs and characteristics of the community. This unfortunate decision serves to further nationalize the control of public broadcasting and undercuts the ability of local stations to provide a full, diverse, and relevant community service. The fact that this decision came after twenty-five years of lax enforcement is telling.

Barry, I certainly want law enforcement officials to have all the tools they need to go after those who use violence to make their point - whether they open fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. taking the life of a security guard, or target physicians.  Law enforcement must do all it can to investigate these killers.  But I just can't believe the Department of Homeland Security's approach of sweeping ALL pro-life supporters, or ALL military veterans together will help them identify those who intend to do harm.  The idea that the DHS would define an entire class of people (those who oppose abortion and military veterans) as "right-wing extremists" was wrong when the report was leaked in April.  It is still wrong today.

The fact is law enforcement has a difficult task.  But, putting an entire class of people on a watch list just doesn't make sense.  I'm sure military veterans don't want to be associated with Holocaust Museum shooting suspect, James Von Brunn, a World War II veteran who reportedly has ties to white supremacists and whose website spews anti-Semitic hate.  Just as non-violent pro-life supporters don't want to be attached to Scott Roeder, who is charged with murdering Dr. Tiller.  Yes, investigators should investigate.  Are Roeder's claims of more violence real?  Should Von Brunn's background been a signal to authorities? 

As I stated in my earlier post on the DHS report, there are extremists who are dangerous and the federal government should do all it can to protect us from those who break the law and commit violent and deadly crimes.  But, let's not resort to sweeping characterizations that put law-abiding citizens into the same category as these violent offenders.

To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.