Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Defense of the Electoral College in U.S

First, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the court followed the growing trend across the globe and held that the U.S. Constitution requires that gay marriage be permitted and recognized in all states. The court noted that “[t]he nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times” and held that “new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.” In this case, the court held that “[u]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause . . . extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” Among these constitutionally-protected intimate choices is a same-sex couple’s choice whether or not they want to marry.

Second, in King v Burwell, the court rejected an overly technical reading of the Affordable Care Act that would have denied subsidies for health insurance to any individual that lives in a state that has a federally-run health insurance marketplace. Essentially, the court found that such a reading of the law would undermine the purpose of the law and make health insurance unaffordable for millions of people, and therefore could not be what Congress intended. The court affirmed that individuals in all states may receive government subsidies to purchase health insurance.

Third, in Texas v Inclusive Communities, the court affirmed an individual’s ability to challenge housing decisions that have a negative impact on minorities. The Fair Housing Act was passed by Congress after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and was intended to address persistent racial segregation in housing whereby housing for African-American communities was focused in inner cities and housing for white communities was focused in suburbs. In this case, a lower court had found that the decisions of the Texas Housing Authority to concentrate low-income tax credits for housing for African-Americans primarily in inner-city areas had a “disparate impact,” i.e. a “disproportionately adverse effect on minorities,” and was therefore unlawful. Texas had argued that in order to bring a lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act, the individuals needed to prove a race-based intent by the state agency, not just a race-based impact, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. As long as there is evidence of a race-based impact, lawsuits can be brought under the Fair Housing Act.