Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has expressed grave concerns over a Missouri case involving the exclusion of jurors based on their religious views about homosexuality during a case where a lesbian plaintiff alleged employment discrimination. Despite agreeing with his colleagues not to take up the appeal, Justice Alito issued a statement highlighting the potential for societal and legal repercussions arising from the case’s handling of jury selection.
At the heart of the matter is the case of Jean Finney, a lesbian who sued the Missouri Department of Corrections, claiming she faced discrimination and retaliation in her workplace. During the jury selection phase, potential jurors were questioned about their beliefs regarding homosexuality. The inquiry led to the exclusion of three jurors who, according to the trial court, expressed biased views against homosexuals.
The Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court have both upheld the jury selection process, denying the Department of Corrections’ request for a new trial and prompting Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the high court chose not to hear the appeal, Justice Alito’s statement underscores the legal complexities of balancing anti-discrimination protections against the rights of jurors who hold traditional religious beliefs.
Alito’s statement forewarns that the exclusion of jurors based on religious beliefs has significant implications for fundamental rights. He clarifies that while jurors must decide cases based on the law and evidence and those unable to perform that duty may be excused, dismissing a juror for cause based solely on religious beliefs could be a violation of their constitutional rights.
The conflation of religious status and religious beliefs in the courtroom is a central issue for Alito. He posits that stringent scrutiny should be applied in such cases, signaling his concern for equal treatment under the law. This nuanced position aligns with Alito’s long-standing apprehension that individuals who adhere to traditional views may be increasingly marginalized or labeled as bigots in the wake of progressive legal decisions.
In the bigger picture, Justice Alito’s comments add fuel to the ongoing debate between religious liberty and anti-discrimination measures. With tensions between these societal values continuing to rise, his reflections suggest that this Missouri case may be indicative of broader legal challenges yet to unfold.
Relevant articles:
– Alito is mad that jurors were struck for saying homosexuality is a sin
– Supreme Court declines to weigh whether jurors can be excluded for religious beliefs in case involving lesbian plaintiff, NBC News, Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:07:57 GMT
– Samuel Alito Is Mad You Can’t Be Bigoted Toward Gay People Anymore, The New Republic, Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:23:14 GMT
– Alito still does not like same, Law & Crime, Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:48:09 GMT
Yet Alito himself has used a ghost writer regarding the repeal of Roe v. Wade. He himself used his religious beliefs to heap on a woman’s basic fundamental right.