Supreme Court Back in Session

This week marks the beginning of the Supreme Court's 2008-09 term, and once again, there are several issues of interest to Concerned Women for America. Below is a short list of cases we will be monitoring as they are argued before the Court. Be sure to check back our website often for updates on each case.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations - Cert. Granted 3/17/2008

Decision Below: 489 F3d 444

Question Presented: Whether the court of appeals erred in striking down the Federal Communications Commission's determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language," when the expletives are not repeated.

Negusie v. Mukasey - Cert. Granted 3/17/2008

Decision Below: 231 Fed. Appx 325

Question Presented: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General from granting asylum to, or withholding removal of, a refugee who has "ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Whether this "persecutor exception" prohibits granting asylum to, and withholding of removal of, a refugee who is compelled against his will by credible threats of death or torture to assist or participate in acts of persecution.

Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum - Cert. Granted 3/31/2008

Decision Below: 483 F3d 1044

Question Presented: Petitioner Pleasant Grove City owns and displays a number of monuments, memorials, and other objects in a municipal park. Respondent Summum sued in federal court, contending that because the city had accepted monuments donated by local civic groups, the First Amendment compels the city to accept and display Summum's "Seven Aphorisms" monument as well. The district court denied Summum's request for a preliminary injunction, but a panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the city must immediately erect and display Summum's monument. The Tenth Circuit then denied the city's petition for rehearing en banc by an equally divided, 6-6 vote. (1) Did the Tenth Circuit err by holding, in conflict with the Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, that a monument donated to a municipality and thereafter owned, controlled, and displayed by the municipality is not government speech but rather remains the private speech of the monument's donor? (2) Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, that a municipal park is a public forum under the First Amendment for the erection and permanent display of monuments proposed by private parties? (3) Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling that the city must immediately erect and display Summum's "Seven Aphorisms" monument in the city's park?

Ashcroft, Former Att'y Gen. v. Iqbal - Cert. Granted 6/16/2008

Decision Below: 490 F3d 143

Question Presented: (1) Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or other high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual-capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. (2) Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high-ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials.