U. S. Supreme Court Issues Significant Rulings In Race And Age Discrimination, and The Voting Rights Act.

In the first case, a race discrimination case entitled CBOCS West Inc. Vs. Humphries, 06-1431 (2008), the Court held as follows:

A longstanding civil rights law, first enacted just after the Civil War, provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same rightin every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Rev. Stat. §1977, 42
U. S. C. §1981(a). The basic question before us is whether the provision encompasses a complaint of retaliation against a person who has complained about a violation of another person’s contract-related “right.” We conclude that it does.

In the second case involving age discrimination, Gomez-Perez Vs. Potter, 06-1321 (2008), the Court held as follows:

The question before us is whether a federal employee who is a victim of retaliation due to the filing of a complaint
of age discrimination may assert a claim under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V). We hold that such a claim is authorized.

In the third and final case involving the Voting Rights Act, and a suspect state's "pre-clearance" requirements, the Court held as follows in Riley Vs. Kennedy, 07-77 (2008):

This case presents a novel question concerning §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The setting, in a nutshell: A covered State passed a law adopting a new election practice, obtained the pre clearance required by §5, and held an election. Soon thereafter, the law under which the election took place was invalidated by the State’s highest court on the ground that it violated a controlling provision of the State’s Constitution. The question presented: Must the State obtain fresh pre clearance in order to reinstate the election practice prevailing before enactment of the law struck down by the State’s Supreme Court? We hold that, for §5 purposes, the invalidated law never gained “force or effect.” Therefore, the State’s reversion to its prior practice did not rank as a “change” requiring pre clearance.