Close Calls: Recent Landmark Rulings Reached on a 5-4 Split

July 1, 2005

The nomination of even one new justice by President George W. Bush will significantly influence rulings. Recent landmark decisions have been reached with a 5-4 split in the Court. Restrictions on abortion access are among many important battles that have been narrowly won or lost. Here are a few recent examples:

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
Jackson was a high school women's coach who was fired after he complained that the women's team wasn't receiving the same resources as the men's team. The Court ruled 5-4 in 2005 that federal law protects against retaliation against someone for complaining about illegal sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs, in this case Title IX.
Won
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
The case involved William Hibbs, an employee of the department's welfare division, who sought leave from his job to care for his wife after she was injured in an automobile accident. He was granted and used 12 weeks of leave, but he then sought additional time off under the state's "catastrophic leave" policy. State officials ruled that Hibbs's catastrophic-leave hours, which were donated by other agency employees, were included in the 12 weeks, and when he did not return to work, they fired him. The court ruled 6-3 in Hibbs' favor.
Won
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. Carhart
This 2000 decision is the most recent major decision from the current court on abortion. The decision thwarted the right wing's attack on reproductive rights. A sharply divided Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska ban on so-called "partial birth abortion" procedures, a ban which prohibited doctors from using these procedures, even when the health of the woman is at risk.
Win
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Grutter v. Bollinger
On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the right of universities to use affirmative action programs to ensure diversity on their campuses.
Won
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Kimel et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al.
On January 11, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was unconstitutional as applied to the states. This decision made states immune from lawsuits by private citizens for money damage.
Lost
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama et al. v. Garrett et al. On February 21, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that disabled state government workers are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority that "states are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled."
Lost
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Lawrence et al. v. Texas
On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that laws against certain intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex violated the Constitution's right to privacy. This decision narrowly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, the landmark case that declared a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy constitutional in 1986. This law was declared constitutional on the grounds that it reflected the morality of the people of Georgia. Though six justices voted to overturn the law, only five supported the right to privacy as the basis of the decision-a reminder of the Court's delicate balance and what is at stake with the next resignation from the Court.
Won
Swing votes: O'Connor and Kennedy

George W. Bush et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.
On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that efforts to manually recount the presidential election ballots in Florida must end at midnight on December 12, 2000. This decision effectively declared George W. Bush the 43rd President of the United States.
Lost
Swing Vote: O'Connor

Alexander et al. v. Sandoval
On April 24, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Alabama's English only driver's license tests were constitutional. The ruling said Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally assisted programs, does not create a right to challenge policies having a disparate, negative impact rather than intentional discrimination.
Lost
Swing Vote: O'Connor

For more information on the Supreme Court's many close calls visit:

And: