Featured Posts
APPELLATE &
      ETHICS BLOG

Welcome to our Appellate & Ethics Blog!

This blog will sometimes be scholarly, sometimes purely practical, and sometimes just musings by members of the firm on life in the appellate courts and on professional responsibility.

When we comment on cases, we do so with care, but you should always read the cases yourself before using them for any reason.

When one of us muses on matters, it may or may not reflect the innermost thoughts of the others. Feel free to ask.

If we talk about a case in which we represented a party, we’ll let you know it was ours.

We welcome suggestions, to a point, on relevant topics of interest and comments on the thoughts and suggestions we include on this blog.

But most of all, we hope that you learn from and enjoy these entries!

BOSTOCK Part II - Alito's Troubling Dissent

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618 (U.S. June 15, 2020), that Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Much has been written on the significance of the decision to LGBTQ rights. I want to focus on a troubling aspect of Justice Alito’s dissent. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, accuses the majority of legislating and spends a considerable amount of time explaining why the majority, in his view, is wrong. He is a bit sharp at times, but this is typical fare in a dissent concerning a hot-button issue. In section IV of his dissent, however, he takes a d

SCOTUS Rules that Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Against LGBTQ People

June is LGBTQ Pride month, which explains the appearance of rainbow flags everywhere. June 12 is the anniversary of the Pulse Night Club massacre where a gunman killed nearly 50 people in a gay night club. Nevertheless, on June 12, 2020, the Trump administration announced that it was finalizing its regulation to exclude protections against health-care discrimination for LGBTQ people. The administration’s rationale is that prohibitions against sex discrimination refer to “biological” sex. Today the Supreme Court has seriously undercut the administration’s rationale. In Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618 (U.S. June 15, 2020), the Court held 6-3 that the prohibition against sex discrimi

Suspension re: Supreme & Appellate Court Filings Lifted

By order of the Chief Justice on June 10, 2020, the suspension of all Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Court filings was lifted. The precise language of the order is as follows: Notice Regarding Amendment to Executive Order No. 7G On March 20, 2020, notice was issued that all Supreme and Appellate Court filings were suspended until further notice, consistent with Governor Lamont's Executive Order, No. 7G. By order of the Chief Justice, effective June 10, 2020, the suspension that applies to Appellate filings March 20, 2020 through June 10, 2020 in cases pending before the Supreme Court and Appellate Court is removed and counsel and self-represented parties are permitted as of right, to fil

Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square

©2020 Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque, PC