BREAKING: Supreme Court Delivers Massive 5-4 Ruling Involving Veterans


OPINION: This article contains commentary which may reflect the author's opinion


The US Supreme Court delivered what is being called a ‘big victory’ for veterans with a 5-4 filing on Wednesday that states can be sued by veterans alleging discrimination in the workforce, strengthening protections for state employees and Veterans returning to the workforce after serving the reserves or National Guard.

The decision came after a former Texas state trooper Le Roy Torres claimed that he was forced out of a job after returning from Iraq; Torres says he could no longer serve as Trooper due to lung damage from exposure to burn pits in Iraq, and sought a comparable job.

But his request was denied.

“We should not have to fear of losing our jobs, we come back. But now there’s a sense of peace and of comfort that we can come back and hey, you know what, if I have limitations that they’ll be accommodated,” Torres told the media after the SCOTUS ruling.

The decision came after authorities claimed that he was forced out of a job after

“Returning from Iraq after five years has had many challenges but I am grateful to God for the strength that he’s giving me along the way and for our community,” Torres told the media.

Torres is now thankful that this ruling will help thousands of veterans.

“This shouldn’t be an issue anymore. With those rights that are protected for individuals,” Congressman Vicente Gonzales at this via Twitter.

“This is a Monumental step for our veterans. Anyone in the military Community knows that exposure to burn pits can lead to lifelong Health complications. We cannot punish our veterans for trying to re-enter civilian life with injuries sustained while protecting our nation.”

In the case of Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, the court ruled 5-4 that states cannot invoke sovereign immunity to block lawsuits by veterans who want to reclaim prior jobs with state employers.

“Upon entering the Union, the States implicitly agreed that their sovereignty would yield to federal policy to build and keep a national military,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the opinion. “States thus gave up their immunity from congressionally authorized suits pursuant to the ‘plan of the Convention,’ as part of ‘the structure of the original Constitution itself.’”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

In his dissent, Thomas said the majority’s ruling is resting on “contrived interpretations” of the court’s prior decisions.

The Conservavtive Brief reported on the week’s SCOTUS activity:

The Supreme Court has delivered several high-profile rulings in the last week.

On Tuesday, the Court sided with the Louisiana state legislature by allowing the state’s Republican-drawn congressional map to remain in place.

A federal judge had previously ruled the map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered lawmakers to redraw the state’s six congressional districts to include two in which Black voters were in the majority.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court said it would wait until next term to rule on the matter given there’s a similar case from Alabama scheduled to be argued next term, which begins in October.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited ruling on a case involving a former Seattle-area football coach who was fired from his job because he refused to stop praying on the field with players.

The nation’s highest court sided with the high school football coach in the crucial First Amendment case.

When the school district learned that Kennedy was praying with the team, they told him that he could pray separately from the students. Kennedy declined to change his practice, was put on paid leave, and then filed a lawsuit.

And, of course, the most notable ruling came last Friday when the Supreme Court released its decision in the highly-anticipated case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Court voted in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion.

In early May, a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to Politico and it set off a firestorm.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

“We, therefore, hold the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” Alito writes in the document, labeled the “Opinion of the Court.”

Soon after Alito’s draft majority opinion leaked, it’s assumed there were at least 5 votes in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, leaving state legislators to weigh their own abortion policies.

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz also offered his opinion of who he believes the “leaker” could be.

Prior to the official ruling being announced, Supreme Court officials launched a probe into identifying the source of the leaked draft opinion, which included asking law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from Blog

Send this to a friend