Judicial bias showing

Hoda Hawa of the Muslim Public Affairs Council writes:

Two Rulings Strengthen Perception of Anti-Muslim Bias in Supreme Court
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled to delay the execution of Patrick Murphy, a Buddhist inmate in Texas, until his spiritual advisor could be present.

In March, SCOTUS rejected a similar appeal made from Domineque Ray, a Black Muslim inmate in Alabama also facing execution. Ray’s case was rejected for making the request “too late,” whereas Murphy’s request was given with less notice and accepted. This is a double standard. On the heels of last June’s SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Muslim Ban, the inconsistent rulings only strengthen the perception of an anti-Muslim bias in the Supreme Court.

... The Supreme Court is fundamentally a deliberative body made up of people with biases, ideological dispositions and juridical styles — a fact made clear during every confirmation proceeding, but perhaps made most apparent during Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The integrity of our judicial system rests on the assumption that a judge’s beliefs and ideologies does not bear on the ability to consistently interpret the law. The Court’s decision in the Muslim Ban case and the flip between the Ray and Murphy cases are clear examples of how Justices’ personal and discriminatory biases can still generate inconsistent judicial rulings between cases. ...

Advocates do not usually call out judges by ascribing their decisions to simple, blind, prejudice. We like to think judges are ruling based on their understanding of law. Simply prudentially, lawyers who might have to argue before judges again don't want to break the illusion and get judicial backs up. But when the law turns ugly, there is no other recourse but to tell the truth and go to the consciences of the people.

US Muslims are far from the first repressed minority to have to call out a biased court. The Black civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 60s combined careful, strategic, legal advocacy with street heat such as the lunch counter sit-ins which demonstrated the injustice of "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws. The LGBT movement more than once responded to judicial bias with public kiss-ins to highlight where the real scandal was located.

With US courts packed with more and more Federalist Society judges who replicate and advance the prejudices of their Republican sponsors, it's likely that such extra-legal demands for recognition from unfavored groups will have to go side by side with legal advocacy to uphold the rights of minorities. US history says such protests can sway the judicial system, but there will be casualties along the way.