Supreme Court 1999-2000 Term Summary
Constitutional Thoughts Home
Supreme Court Home Page
Find Law
Find Law: 1999-2000 Opinions
Though many do not pay much attention to it except at the time it decides landmark cases of some sort, the Supreme Court is a rather important part of the three separate powers (executive or president, legislative or Congress, and judicial, or the courts) that make up the federal government of the United States. This is so because we are a government of laws, laws that tend not to be completely clear (by choice or necessity) with the Constitution as the most important, and usually most inexact of them all. Thousands of cases covering a myriad of issues very important not only to the individual litigants but us all (since the cases set up precedents for later cases) go through the courts each year with a very select few (around 75 the last few years) going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court's nine justices are clearly not of one mind, though there is a conservative slant to it in recent years. Therefore, not only does it decide many important cases, the results are not always predictable, and the votes sometimes rather close (several 6-3 or 5-4 decisions, and others are split in several ways, so the ultimate analysis is sometimes even more well confusing). A look at some key cases of the 1999- 2000 term makes this clear, while also touching upon some very controversial areas such as prayer at public school football games, partial birth abortion, and homosexual Boy Scout leaders. I will now briefly discuss some of these cases, but suggest going to the above links to get a more fuller understanding of what was decided, especially since I necessarily have to simply things some. After all, a few words do not do many of these cases justice.
Abortion: The Supreme Court (5-4 in Stenberg v Carhart) struck down a Nebraska law that outlawed a controversial type of abortion known as "partial birth" abortion, a rather nasty procedure used in a few cases that many even on the ‘pro'-choice side feels is too extreme. It should be noted that one of the majority justices noted that the fact that the law was broadly written so that it might be used to stop non-viable fetuses (not able to survive outside the womb, and the line when past abortions can be banned except when the woman's life and health is threatened) and that had no ‘health' exception (perhaps the most important part of the decision) was an important reason for her vote. Therefore, a more narrowly drawn law might be upheld but a new majority. Given this fact, and the fact that only this particular procedure not the abortions themselves were banned, I think the case is not as close as some might think. In the select few cases where this procedure is safer for the woman, the somewhat more nasty nature of the procedure seems a rather thin reed to ban it. Abortion, especially after the early time of pregnancy, is not pleasant in general, but the alternative in my eyes is not any less so. And, as Justice Stevens noted in his little concurring opinion, the woman's rights are more important in the end than an unborn child's. Lousy choice, but choice one must make, and if you allow abortion, the choice seems clear to me.
The Court also by a 6-3 (Hill v Colorado) vote upheld a law that set eight feet as the distance for abortion protesters to hand out pamphlets and counsel women not to have abortions. This is a troublesome case, not in the least because the law clearly was selectively made to burden certain types of speech, a big no no in free speech cases. The burden women must bear to get abortions is a great one these days, but I do not like selectively limiting free speech rights to help them out, which after all just might come back and bite people who protest in other areas. It is quite true that the limit is somewhat minor, given eight feet is not that much space, but it is not that small either, and a more narrow (and even handed) regulation could have been put into place.
Federalism: This is a less sexy issue shall we say than abortion, but in the end it is still a very important one, especially as the move for less government remains popular. The idea here is that some areas are the concern of the federal government, and some the states. For instance, the court unanimously ruled that Massachusetts did not have the power to withhold state business from businesses doing business with Myanmar (Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council) because that was a foreign policy decision left to the national government. On the other hand, a bare majority (5-4 in US v Morrison) blocked a federal law that allowed women to sue in federal court for crimes motivated by gender (here a rape case in a state university) because such crimes were the realm of the state. The problems that often occur in such cases are that some middle ground could be found; after all, should not Massachusetts be allowed to decide itself who to do business with? Furthermore, is not protection of women on equal protection grounds in some cases the proper role of the federal government (though one can see problems if local cases were made federal ones)? It is one thing to say that keeping gun away from schools involves local not national concerns (as was held a few years back), it is quite another to go as far as this Court sometimes does in its separation of powers cases. The worst is its many bare majorities not allowing various suits against states, even in matters of national concern such as age discrimination (Kimel v Florida State of Regents, ignoring the Equal Protection Clause) and patent rights, when nowhere in the Constitution does it say such a result is warranted.
Criminal Law: The Court surprisingly had many rather liberal decisions in a field that they usually are rather pro-government, the most important the upholding of the right to Miranda Warning ("you have the right to remain silent ..." ) by a 7-2 vote in Dickerson v US, and the right on Fourth Amendment grounds not to have your luggage felt by the police without a warrant by the same vote (Bond v US), both in opinions by the conservative Chief Justice. Another important case (Aprrendi v NJ) struck down a hate crimes conviction by a bare majority because the jury was not given the job of deciding the motive of the crime — the reason for the increased sentence. Such somewhat technical due process cases are very important to uphold constitutional rights, even for unpleasant people. For instance, who should decide such a hazy and ultimately factual question such as why a person committed a crime, one judge, or the representatives of the community, i.e., the jury? Also are important are two death sentences struck down in cases both known as Williams v Turner for reasons such as inefficient counsel and failure by the state to provide the proper evidence needed for a death sentence. Though innocence is a factor in some cases, many more bad death penalty sentences are result of such procedural flaws, and it is good to know they still are recognized as such, even by a conservative court.
Parental Rights: A Washington State law mandated that in all cases allowing a judge to give custody to a third party, even when the parents do not agree. Though the extreme nature and poor drafting of the law was a factor, the Court struck down the law in Troxel v Granville in part because of the threat to parental rights — enshrining this important liberty that is often not at issue in federal court cases. The case is very important, especially given the complexity of families, and might be quite relevant in the rights of homosexual parents in custody disputes.
Free Speech: The Court in a splintered decision upheld a $1000 political contribution limit in Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC (what a case name!), though the dissent noted that such limits just might be counterproductive in the end result of fair campaigns. I am inclined to agree, as well as wonder how limiting the support one can give someone running for office is not a major limit on free speech, a limit at the speech (political discourse) that lies at the heart of the First Amendment. The Court unanimously upheld student activity fees in public universities, even for those organizations some might oppose (Board of Regents v Southworth), a logical way to uphold the broad discussion of ideas that college is all about. Should we not pay the salaries of professors we disagree with too? The Court also upheld 6-3 a law that mandated G-Strings and pasties for nude dancers in Erie v Pap's AM, a very silly ruling in that dancing is still a form of expression, and such limits just are not enough to stop any harm nude dancing is suspected of causing. Sex is a major issue in this country, and sexual tinted speech should be protected too, as shown by the Court striking down a limitation on sexual explicit channels in US v Playboy Entertainment Systems.
Freedom of Association: The most controversial case in this area is the upholding of a ban by the Boy Scouts of openly homosexual scoutmasters (Boy Scouts of America v Dale). Justice Stevens in dissent (the case was decided 5-4) was right to passionately object to the claim that being homosexual makes one "immoral" and thus not a proper Boy Scout, but this is a choice for private associations to make on their own. All those public entities that support the Boy Scouts need not and should not support such a discriminatory position, but the right to associate includes the right to not associate for bad reasons. This is the cost of freedom, if it can in the end be considered a cost at all, given the same principle would uphold a homosexual organization only make homosexuals leaders of their organization, or require all those who join to sign a ‘moral' oath to uphold the rights of all, including homosexuals. It also upholds the right of churches not to make women priests, even though the morality involved in that choice is suspect as well.
A less controversial, but still quite important case, is California Democratic Party v Jones, which struck down a law that requires a party to allow all voters, not just members of their parties, to vote in a primary. This is important, as shown by the support John McCain received from independents and Democrats in open primaries. Such a result might seem fair and in my view it is overall a good idea to have such open primaries given how primaries tend too often to go to the party faithful, not a candidate with more widespread support. This was a bane to Democrats who had so many weak presidential candidates for this very reason. Furthermore, elections are not private as compared to say appointing leaders of private organizations, though they are not totally public either. After all, the party faithful select many of the leaders, and on the whole only members of the party vote for who is chosen to be the candidate on election day. Such is the logic of the majority — political organizations have an associational right to choose who will vote in primaries. I am inclined to agree — why should say the Republicans be forced into such situations that effect the nature of who will be their candidate? Also, states can have an open primary system instead of one for Democrats and one for Republicans, which will help get the same result. A result that would not surrender the rights of the parties in the process in the way allowing more people to vote in a particular party primary might.
Religion: The Court voted 6-3 to strike down a school policy that in effect organized prayers before public high school football games (Sante Fe Independent School District v Doe). This is not a case where players cannot pray on their own, though some would like you to think that. It is a case where the school involves itself in an area it is not allowed in — organizing prayers, even for those who oppose them. The Court by a similar vote upheld a state policy to give certain supplies to religious schools in Mitchell v Helms. The split in the majority made the reasoning some confusing, but the dissent was right to oppose state support of schools whose ultimate reason in being is to promote certain religions, even in such allegedly neutral areas as English and Social Studies (for instance, the use of computer resources, a big issue here). It is sometimes a close matter when clearly neutral and secular areas are involved, but the rule of not taking tax dollars to support religion is a sound one that should be upheld in most cases. The case's relevance in the big issue of public vouchers is unclear given that splintered majority, but it helps such policies to give money to all schools, even religious ones.
Federal Law: A big case in this area was the decision (FDA v Brown and Williamson) to strike down a regulation by the FDA to restrict certain marketing policies that might affect children and teenagers. The bare majority decision might seem misguided, but it kind of suspends belief that suddenly (after many decades), the FDA had power over an area that it did not seem to have any before. Cigarettes might be drugs, but they clearly have been treated differently than others, including having its own department (Bureau of Tobacco Alcohol and Firearms). The Court also decided an important managed health care case (an issue very important in current discussions of a national health care policy, one that will be of the managed health variety of making certain hard choices in treatment). In Pegram v Herdich, it held that HMOs can have certain financial incentives to doctors to hold down costs without violating federal law, a hard but sometimes necessity cost and benefits matter. As we to be an older society and have various health improvements that still cost lots of money, such choices will be made, and must be considered while we try to figure a proper compromise of health rights and costs.
There are several other cases, some of interest, but these are some of the most important. I chose from the ones selected in a good Supreme Court term round-up piece by Linda Greenhouse found in the New York Times on July 2, 2000 and entitled "The High Court Rules; The Law of the Land Changes." And so it does, though the idea is that really it did not -- after all the Court's role is to decide what the law is, though it might not be what it was understood before it rules.
Email: jmatrixrenegade@aol.com
