Subscribe for free to eliminate ads
Advertisement
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that legal protections under Title VII are equally applicable to all identity groups Thursday when it handed down a majority ruling in favor of an Ohio employee who claimed that she had been refused employment prospects because they were given to lesbian people.
Advertisementads
Advertisement
In the case known as Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, it was determined that members of the majority demographics are not required to meet a higher evidentiary burden when alleging workplace discrimination. The opinion in the 9–0 ruling was issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had been nominated by President Joe Biden.
Advertisement
It was stated in the ruling that a standard previously applied by the Sixth Circuit Court—requiring majority-group plaintiffs to offer “background circumstances” in discrimination cases—was inconsistent with the provisions of Title VII. As a result, the lower court’s decision was vacated.
Advertisement
A complaint was filed by Marlean Ames, an employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, alleging that a promotion was awarded in 2019 to a lesbian applicant, while her own position was later assumed by a homosexual male colleague. Despite her established qualifications, it was suggested that being part of the majority group subjected her to a higher standard of scrutiny during the decision-making process.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Court’s judgment clarified that such heightened requirements have no legal foundation under Title VII. However, a final resolution in Ames’ favor was not reached, as it was noted that the state of Ohio had raised alternative justifications for its employment decisions, while the case has been returned to the lower courts for further proceedings on those remaining arguments.
In a separate unanimous ruling focused on religious liberty, a Catholic charity in Wisconsin was determined to have been wrongfully denied a tax exemption. The decision found that state officials had improperly assessed the group’s religious character, citing its inclusiveness toward non-Catholics as a reason to withhold the exemption.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It was determined that by making theological judgments about religious conduct, the state had engaged in a form of denominational preference that violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision reversed a prior ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and returned the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Faith-based institutions, which have increasingly faced regulatory pressure under progressive state administrations, were viewed as having received significant constitutional affirmation through this judgment.
In another major legal development, a recent decision by the Supreme Court was seen as a substantial victory for the Trump administration. Legal obstacles to ending humanitarian parole protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from countries including Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua were lifted.
The decision authorized the Department of Homeland Security, acting on an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, to end parole initiatives that were expanded during the Biden administration. These programs, initially created for critical humanitarian purposes, have provided entry and temporary stay in the United States to more than 500,000 people.
Efforts to roll back these parole measures had been met with legal resistance, but the Supreme Court’s decision effectively removed a lower court’s injunction, clearing the way for enforcement to resume. A separate order issued on May 19 also allowed the revocation of Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Venezuelans.
Through these consecutive rulings, a legal framework more closely aligned with constitutional boundaries, religious freedom, and lawful immigration control has been reinforced—principles long championed by conservatives and reasserted under the Trump administration’s leadership.