Supreme Court of the United States – Significant Appellate Matters
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). In this landmark case handled by FMG attorneys Jack Hancock, William Buechner, and Michael Hill, the Supreme Court held that an employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by firing a long-time employee shortly after that employee revealed his/her/their homosexual or transgender status. The Supreme Court held it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex, which is prohibited by Title VII.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). FMG attorneys Philip Savrin, Dana Maine, and William Buechner represented an Arizona municipality in this First Amendment case. A church and its pastor challenged an outdoor sign ordinance that treated ideological signs, political signs, signs directing the public to church, or other “qualifying events” differently from each other. Although the majority applied strict scrutiny based on the provisions being content-based, concurring judges would have applied intermediate scrutiny to resolve the First Amendment question.
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012). FMG founding partner Ted Freeman, along with attorneys Sun Choy and Jake Daly represented a public official in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. The Supreme Court held that a witness who testifies in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 based on the witness’s testimony.
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007). FMG attorneys Philip Savrin and Sun Choy represented a law enforcement officer in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. The Supreme Court held that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a law enforcement officer to terminate a high-speed pursuit by impacting the fleeing motorist’s vehicle from behind. Even though no one was in the immediate zone of harm the ongoing and sustained risk of injury to third parties justified the use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff’s version of the facts could not be accepted for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment when it contradicts a videotape of the events at issue.
Significant Appellate Matters
Click the categories below to view notable matters handled by FMG appellate attorneys.