Judge Alito renews criticism of the landmark ruling on gay marriage

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday reiterated his criticism of the Supreme Court's landmark decision recognizing the right to same-sex marriage, saying people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such are being treated'.

The judge took up his warning a five-page statement explaining why the court rejected this a request to hear a case in Missouri about people removed from a jury after expressing religious objections to gay relationships. The case, Justice Alito added, “exemplifies the danger” of the court's 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.

The ruling, he added, shows how “Americans who do not conceal their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual behavior will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government.”

The statement appeared to offer a glimpse into Justice Alito's lingering dissatisfaction with Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court voted 5-4 to guarantee the right to same-sex marriage, a long-sought victory for gay rights. movement.

In the years since, Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, both of whom disagreed with the 2015 decision, appeared to urge the court to reconsider the ruling. The court, they have argued, invented a right not based in the text of the Constitution, saying it portrayed “people of good will as bigots.”

Only two members of the court who ruled in Obergefell remain on the bench: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The court has since been transformed under the presidency of Donald J. Trump with the addition of three conservative justices who have strengthened a conservative supermajority.

The case at issue Tuesday, Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney, No. 23-203, involved a dispute over the dismissal of jurors who raised religious concerns about same-sex relationships during jury selection in an employment discrimination case.

Jean Finney, an employee of the Missouri Department of Corrections, alleged that after he began a same-sex relationship with the former wife of a co-worker, that co-worker made Ms. Finney's job intolerable. The co-worker spread rumors about her, sent derogatory messages and withheld information she needed to perform her job duties, Ms. Finney said. Ms. Finney sued the Department of Corrections, accusing the department of being responsible for the colleague's actions.

During jury selection, Ms. Finney's attorney questioned potential jurors about their religious beliefs about sexuality. Among the questions: “How many of you went to a religious organization growing up where it was taught that people who are homosexual should not have the same rights as anyone else because what they did was a sin?”

The trial attorney decided to strike certain jurors based on his questions, according to the Department of Corrections legal order. The letter took issue with the trial attorney's approach, saying it essentially endorsed the idea that “a person with traditional religious beliefs should never serve on a jury if one party has been in a same-sex relationship because if a prospective juror believes that he has a religious issue 'that is a sin, there is no way to rehabilitate.'”

The Department of Corrections attorney objected, saying such a request could lead to religious discrimination.

The judge granted Ms. Finney's attorney's request to seize the jurors, and the jury sided with Ms. Finney, prompting the Department of Corrections to request a new trial.

The Department of Corrections alleged that the judge violated the 14th Amendment by excluding jurors who expressed their religious beliefs.

After the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and the state Supreme Court declined to review the case, the Office of the Missouri Attorney General asked the United States Supreme Court to take up the case.

Even as Judge Alito wrote that he reluctantly agreed that the court should not hear the case, he said he was still concerned about the issue.

“I am concerned that the lower court's reasoning will spread and could be a foretaste of things to come,” he wrote.