(CN) — The Supreme Court declined to hear a sex discrimination case Tuesday, a decision that left one of the justices considering potential implications on the right of religious expression.
"I agree that we should not grant certiorari in this case, which is complicated by a state-law procedural issue. But I write because I am concerned that the lower court’s reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.
Alito refers to the lower court's decision to uphold the dismissal of potential jurors from a case involving a lesbian. The dismissed jurors had said they believe homosexuality is a sin.
The Missouri Department of Corrections asked the high court for review, arguing that the lower court violated the equal protection clause by excluding jurors based on their religious background without further inquiry into whether such jurors could be fair and impartial.
"In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a lesbian. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government," Alito wrote.
The George W. Bush appointee quoted his dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Jean Finney worked as a corrections officer and sued the Missouri Department of Corrections claiming discrimination and a hostile work environment based on her sex. Finney's ex-husband, who worked for the department at another institution, began threatening her and calling her derogatory names after learning that she began a romantic relationship with another female employee.
During voir dire, Finney’s counsel sought information about the potential jurors' views on homosexuality, namely whether any of them had been affiliated with religious organizations that taught homosexuality was a sin. Some potential jurors said that while they grew up in a religion that taught that homosexuality was a sin, they did not view it as different from any other sin and could be fair and impartial.
Finney’s counsel moved to excuse the jurors, arguing they would be unable to be impartial in a case involving a lesbian plaintiff. The trial judge granted the request but noted that both jurors said “that they could follow the law.”
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals for two reasons. It ruled that the jurors’ belief that Finney’s conduct was sinful, meaning immoral and wrong, provided a sustainable ground for “concluding that they could not impartially and fairly decide her claim that she was unlawfully harassed due to her homosexuality — even if those venire members claimed that their religious beliefs would not prevent them from serving.” They also held that the jurors had been dismissed based on their views, not because of their religious status as Christians.
Alito wrote that the appellate court's reasoning "raises a very serious and important question" that the justices should address in an appropriate case, but reluctantly agreed with the denial of certiorari because the Department of Corrections did not properly preserve an objection to the dismissal of the two potential jurors.
"Jurors are duty-bound to decide cases based on the law and the evidence, and a juror who cannot carry out that duty may properly be excused. But otherwise, I see no basis for dismissing a juror for cause based on religious beliefs," Alito wrote.
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
