Four recent Supreme Court opinions

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: the four opinions handed down by the US Supreme Court last week.

First, a unanimous win for property owners.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Lead plaintiff Richie DeVillier along with several others sued the state of Texas. They accused Texas of flooding their properties … after the state built a median barrier on the highway. In DeVillier’s case … the barrier diverted water right onto his land. He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in drowned livestock, damaged buildings, furniture, and equipment.

He sued under the Fifth Amendment, in particular the Takings Clause that would entitle him to just compensation.

Texas argued he couldn’t sue the state directly under the Fifth Amendment.

But the justices agreed with DeVillier, writing that the Fifth Amendment is self-executing the moment the taking occurs.

REICHARD: I called Devillier up to get his reaction after his lawyer called him up with the good news:

DeVILLIER:I had just gone for my morning exercise, and I was sittin’ outside drinking coffee when he called. And he told me the news, and it was again that’s a glorious thing. Glory of this goes to God. But our most heartfelt thanks goes to our attorneys. I probably waited until I got inside and told my wife about it and then I might have done the happy dance a little bit at that point in time.

I didn’t want to do it. I don’t want to do it. I’m ready to be through with it all. I’d rather keep my head down. But you can’t just lay down and bury your head in the sand and live your life anymore. We have to pay attention to these incremental bites that they’re taking out of our liberties and our freedoms. You don’t notice it everyday, but man you look back over 10 or 15 years and you can sure see the creep. And every now and then it’s more than just a small bite. Every now and then they jump up and take a big bite out of you. And that’s what they’ve tried to do here, and we’re not havin’ it.

Devillier and the other property owners now go back to lower court where they can use state law based on the Takings Clause to seek compensation from Texas.

EICHER: Alright, on to the other three opinions handed down last week.

First: Muldrow v City of St. Louis. There, the court found the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Officer Jatonya Muldrow had worked in the intelligence division of the police department for years. Her new supervisor moved her to a different job with the same rank and pay, but with different responsibilities, perks, and schedule. And crucially, the supervisor had hired a man to fill her position.

So Muldrow sued for sex discrimination, but the lower courts found that she hadn’t shown any “material harm” such as lower pay or demotion. But she appealed to the Supreme Court and won.

A unanimous Supreme Court says she need not show “significant” harm to pursue her claim; she need only show “some harm” that involves a term or condition of employment. So the case goes back to the lower courts with this in mind: a showing of discrimination by itself is enough.

REICHARD: Next is McIntosh v US, another 9-0 opinion.

This case asked whether the government when dealing with forfeiture can miss a deadline under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A man sentenced to nearly 60 years in prison for robbery and gun offenses objected when he was also ordered to give up $75,000 in cash and a car he’d used in the crimes.

His lawyers pointed to the rules that say the government has to seek forfeiture before sentencing. It didn’t. But the justices say the government didn’t have to, despite the rule, because it’s not the kind of deadline that is hard and fast. So the inmate loses and has to fork over his ill-gotten gains, which he can’t really enjoy right now.

EICHER: Okay, final opinion today is in Rudisill v McDonough. It’s a win for a U.S. Army veteran. The question was whether James Rudisill could access education benefits under two different programs for veterans, the Montgomery GI Bill of 1984, and the Post 9-11 GI Bill.

The VA said he had to use one or the other, but not both at the same time.

But seven justices agreed with Rudisill, saying he can use the benefits in any order he wishes and can use both for a total of four years of schooling.

REICHARD: The two dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who thought the majority ignored the law to favor an interpretation to reach a desired outcome.

Regardless, nearly two million veterans can now access more taxpayer-provided tuition money for college.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.