Search

The Iowa Supreme Court adopted an unpopular but unanimous ruling in Varnum v. Brien, which established same-sex marriage. Using a unique panel study conducted immediately before and after the court decision, we evaluate the impact of policy adoption on changing opinions on minority rights. The signaling of new social norms pressured some respondents to modify their expressed attitudes. We find that respondents whose demographic characteristics would predict support for marriage equality, but previously did not, were more likely to shift their opinions to be consistent with the new state law. A policy feedback mechanism may be responsible for the rapid diffusion of laws legalizing same-sex in the states. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case of Lawrence versus Texas, which struck down the anti-sodomy statutes of Texas as in violation of the Constitutional right to individual liberty. Facts being disputed in the case; Implications of the case for public health policy and practice; Arguments taken by both parties.

The article reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on non-citizenship in relation to one of the court cases. On November 19, 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a rejection of an application for employment by a private employer because the applicant is an alien is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is interesting to note that in interpreting the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has traditionally held, and set forth by regulation, that discrimination on the basis of citizenship has the effect of discrimination on the basis of national origin and, therefore, a lawfully immigrated alien who is domiciled and residing in the United States may not be discriminated against on the basis of citizenship. At this time, the potential danger resulting from the decision of the Court can only be averted through an amendment to the Civil Rights Act which would add "alienage" as a prohibited form of discrimination.