THE ISSUE:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, at least in part, to diminish the ability of state governments to kill, threaten or intimidate those who were trying to ensure that black citizens would be able to vote.  One aspect of the Voting Rights Act called for mandatory “preclearance” of state voting regulations on the part of the federal government, meaning that, until this recent SCOTUS decision, the U.S. Justice Department (or a federal court) had to determine whether the voter ID laws passed in Mississippi in 2011 and 2012 diminished the voting strength of minorities.

THE RULING:

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there was no need for federal preclearance, and, therefore, Mississippi can go forward with allowing the precondition of making voters show a government issued photo ID before being allowed to vote.

The majority  of the Court held that part of  Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. Section 4 listed which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made changes to voting procedures.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

In her scathing dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that “Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today.  The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story.”

HOW THIS AFFECTS AMERICANS:

It is presumed that the June 2014 federal primaries will be the first time that voters in Mississippi, under the new law, will be required to show photo ID at the polls.  How this ruling will affect voters in other states remains to be seen.  Because of this ruling, other changes to voting regulations could take place without federal pre-clearance.

You have probably been reading and hearing much about recent Supreme Court decisions that involve the rights of same-sex couples as they pertain to marriage and federal worker benefits, such as health care, dental benefits, social security benefits, etc.

THE ISSUE:
The first decision by SCOTUS has to do with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, as the law is popularly referred to.  DOMA is a law that was enacted in 1996, which defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman,” and defined the term “spouse” as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”  Such a definition has prevented the legally married spouse of a same-sex couple (married in one of the 13 states which allows same-sex marriage), to claim benefits as the spouse of a federal worker.  For example, until just two weeks ago, if a female postal worker in Vermont were married to another woman (which is legal in Vermont), she would not have been allowed to extend her health insurance benefits to her spouse.  Had the same postal worker have been married to a man, she would have been able to extend those benefits to him.

THE RULING:
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United states ruled a key section of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

HOW THIS AFFECTS AMERICANS:
In a memo issued last Wednesday, July 3, 2013, the US Office of Personnel Management declared that now, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of DOMA, all federal workers, even if they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage (such as Virginia, Ohio or Mississippi), will be entitled to extend federal worker benefits to their spouses and children, regardless of whether the marriage is to someone of the same or opposite sex.

THE ISSUE:
In November of 2008, California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 8, that banned same-sex marriages in their state.  This measure was controversial, and, in 2010, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.  This ruling, too, was controversial, and an appeal ultimately made to the Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry).

THE RULING:
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court’s 2010 ruling (calling Proposition 8 unconstitutional) should stand as a final decision.

HOW THIS AFFECTS AMERICANS:
For those who reside in California and wish to marry a partner of the same sex, this Supreme Court ruling has paved the way to do so.

NEXT WEEK – For the final blog in this series about recent Supreme Court decisions, check in next week as we look at how the Supreme Court weighed in on voting rights.

Just as Jonas Salk once famously said that the polio vaccine could not be patented, and that it belonged to the public, so, too, did the Supreme Court of the United States decide just a couple of weeks ago that human genes may not be patented by those who discover them.

Utah-based Myriad Genetics is the company that isolated and patented the BRCA-1 and BRCA2 genes, the mutations on which are considered to dramatically increase the risk an individual has for developing breast and ovarian cancers.

An argument for allowing patents on genes is that it would encourage scientists (and their financial backers) to race towards the finish line, so to speak.  The counterargument comes from those who argue that the access to affordable testing and treatment is hindered when one company or individual can claim the “rights” to such a discovery.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the decision for the unanimous court, argues that “Myriad did not create anything.  To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

This decision will allow others to provide genetic testing, now that the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes has been lifted.  The results of allowing other scientists and laboratories the ability to provide genetic testing for patients, many argue, will lead to lower costs and greater access.

In response to the ruling, Myriad kept their focus on the fact that the justices said it is allowed to patent a type of synthetic DNA.

And in response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of our great nation – we hope that this emboldens our scientists, doctors and researchers to continue the battle against cancer and other terrible diseases that end lives too soon and cause immeasurable suffering for so many.