As I did last year about this time, I shall now summarize and give my personal take on certain decisions of the US Supreme Court that I feel are particularly of interest. The Bush v Gore ruling that basically ended Al Gore's challenge of the election is dealt with in detail elsewhere. A decision regarding medicinal marijuana, the ability of federal laws to limits the states' ability to discriminate against the disabled, limits on political party spending are also the subject of other essays. I have also mixed in links to relevant essays of mine in the discussion below. There are many other cases of interest, and my comments on some (separated by category with the breakdown of the nine justices) are found below. By clicking the title of this essay, you can go to a site wherein the opinions of all the decisions are found, as well as other material of interest in each subject area. In way of summary, I would say the rulings on average went well, with a few of the Bush v Gore variety that are dead wrong.

GOOD NEWS CLUB etal. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL involves the use of a public school for a kind of after school bible class. Past cases and federal law upholds the right of religious clubs to be part of the mix of clubs and after school activities, but how about classes in an elementary school (as compared to more mature high school or college students) that basically directly teach religion? The school board thought this too much, especially right after school was over, but was ultimately overruled 6-3 by the Supreme Court.

As shown by the dissents, this is a difficult case, since religious instruction and public grade school just does not mix well. The Establishment Clause also (as partly ignored by the majority) raises special warning flags for this type of speech. I think ultimately the school was right to be worried about mixing the two, and religious instruction (as compared to clubs with some religious content, such as the Boy Scouts) should be done elsewhere.

LEGAL SERVICES CORP v. VELAZQUEZ (5-4) was an important check against a federal law that barred federally financed legal services from challenging welfare laws and regulations. The law reflected the government's decision not only to pass stricter welfare laws, some clearly flawed on equal protection and other grounds, but block recipients from having the means to challenge the laws.

BARTNICKI v. VOPPER (6-3) held the press may not be held liable by the use of illegally obtained information, as long as said information was of "public importance" and the press itself was not involved in obtaining it. The case involved an illegally taped conversation, which is comparable to the press using Linda Tripp's possibly illegally taped conversations. Furthermore, the thirty year anniversary of the Pentagon Papers case, which involved illegally obtained information concerning the government's involvement in the Vietnam War also saws the importance of the ruling. The press' constitutionally based right to inform the public at times includes obtaining information leaked or obtained illegally, an example of when the ends surely justify the means.

NEW YORK TIMES v TASINI (7-2) is a somewhat obscure copyright case that reflected the current policy of reading copyright protections broadly by limiting the ability of publishers to make freelancers' works accessible without permission on electronic databases. For instance, special permission is needed for the New York Times to include a writer's piece on the web version of their newspaper. At some point, the "promotion of science and useful arts," the explicit purpose of copyright protection, is harmed by such pointless limitations. Nonetheless, when the constitutionally mandated "limited times" component of copyrights are read not to be violated by copyrights given for over a hundred years, such concerns surely go out the window. The philosophy of this decision surely endangers liberal readings of music download rules.

LORILLAND TOBACCO v. REILLY concerns limits Massachusetts placed on tobacco advertising in order to cut down on underage smoking. The Court (5-4) held that limits on outdoor advertising of cigarettes interfered with a federal law that was meant to unify content regulations of cigarette ads, a broad reading of the law that other justices felt went to far (i.e., does content limits apply to the location of the ads?). The federal law does not apply to other tobacco products, thus the Court had to look at the regulations themselves as well. The whole Court felt that the regulations on outdoor advertising was too broad in that the net result of concerns for placement near schools, playgrounds and the like led to limiting over ninety percent of the area. The law against self-service display was okay (minors can take them), but not in-store ad displays five feet or lower off the ground. After all, some minors are taller, or can at the very least still see them. And, concern for minors cannot be taken too far to limit the rights of adults that can legally buy the product.

Concern for overbroad tobacco advertising on Free Speech grounds might seem rather silly or ridiculous to some. Nonetheless, free speech should not suddenly be ignored in the area of commercial speech, since this category of expression still retains many of the components of speech that warrants such high protection. Commercial speech, including advertising of goods, supplies often quite useful information; information often used to exercise important rights. For instance, advertising for eyeglasses would be useful reading, and one early commercial speech case involved abortion advertising. The choice of what to do with one's body, including what drugs one takes, surely is an important liberty as well.

Information is a prime value of speech, as is the supply of opinion and reflections on culture and norms, and advertising surely does that. The idea that cigarettes are enjoyable and cool is surely an opinion that can be legitimately expressed, even if you don't agree with it. Furthermore, there is a long culture related to smoking, as seen in novels, films, and yes advertising. Finally, speech helps promote several of our institutions, and our free enterprise system is a prime institution, surely furthered by advertising.

This was recognized in US v. UNITED FOODS (6-3), involving a federal agricultural program that mandated mushroom growers to pay for generic mushroom advertising. The growers felt that this implied mushrooms in generally, as compared to their individual variety, were basically the same. This was held to be unjust compelled speech, though a comparable precedent concerning fruit was considered different because mushrooms are less regulated by the federal government. The difference is really somewhat trivial, and the principle of free speech should apply across the board. The US government surely is too broad in various ways; forcing support of advertising crosses a constitutional line as well. Furthermore, the free speech concerns trump the more trivial interests to promote the mushroom industry at large.

KYLLO v. UNITED STATES involved the use of thermal imaging to search for marijuana growing in a home, an end around to the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant for most searches, surely of homes. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, a conservative but one who at times reads amendments protecting the right of defendants as broadly as they are written, struck down the conviction. The use of such extraordinary means (compared to say a dog, who sniffs for drugs at an airport) crosses the line of ordinary human senses to a degree that violates the Fourth Amendment. The ever-increasing growth of technology that is able to override our privacy makes such a requirement essential for true Fourth Amendment protection. The fact the home is involved, even for such "horrible" things as marijuana use, makes the case that much more important.

FERGUSON v. CHARLESTON (6-3) held that a public hospital cannot test pregnant women for illegal drug use without their consent, if the police is informed of the crime. Privacy is often ignored in the Drug War, and this decision rightly limited a prime invasion of privacy of a class that is particularly vulnerable (poor pregnant women). Furthermore, the threat of punishment would quite possibly hinder women from feeling free to undergo necessary health treatment. The rights of women therefore trumps the interest of the unborn, especially since their interest is better protected by other means.

Likewise, INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMUND (6-3) struck down police roadblocks aimed at discovering drugs for comparable privacy reasons, as well as the fact (unlike alcohol checkpoints, quite arguably comparably unjust) of their law enforcement interest. The difference appears to be that drug roadblocks deal with illegal substances, while alcohol roadblocks is are safety checkpoints to stop the abuse of a legal substance. Nonetheless, drunk driving is illegal, privacy concerns are raised, and the ultimate value (false hits, etc.) is questionable. At any rate, the Fourth Amendment limits such broad warrantless searches as applied to drug checkpoints.

ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA (5-4) weirdly gave the broadest discretion to arrests for trivial offenses. Let it be noted that such discretion contains within its limits a right to search as well, and furthermore, a previous case said the true motivation for the arrest need not be addressed. This is important since quite a few arrests for relatively trivial offenses are really a way for the police to target certain groups, such as assumed drug dealers or people of a certain color or personality, while ignoring many others (e.g. stopping people for trivial traffic offenses). Therefore, though arresting a soccer mom for a seatbelt violation (with her kids present) and holding her in a cell for an hour or so, is outrageous in itself, the case potentially has a much broader reach.

PENRY v. JOHNSON (6-3) reconsidered a 1989 decision in which the Court held that states can execute the mentally retarded (many states since then ended the practice, thus the Court will readdress this question next term), but the jury must be able to weigh one's mental retardation when deciding if the death penalty is appropriate. The way that the issue was submitted to the Penry jury the second time around was deemed inappropriate, thus the second death sentence was again overturned. Texas had a chance to overturn the law, but though he agreed to various reforms to the Texan capital punishment system, the governor vetoed this one. The case shows both the constant procedural difficulties as well as the inherent injustice of executions, especially as implied to groups like the retarded, whose special circumstances make capital punishment clearly misguided at least in their case.

EASLEY v CROMARTIE (5-4) revisited a long disputed North Carolina district that looks like a snake on the map (it follows a highway), and clearly was primarily concerned with protecting the interests of blacks living in it. Past rulings argued that this was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause because it based districting on race, but this time along Justice O'Connor switched sides, and the district was upheld. Race was deemed but one factor with concerns of balancing partisan/political interests apparently the primary concern. I personally am troubled by districts apportioned by race, but it is really a close question if such concerns are unconstitutional when they are put in place to protect minority groups. Therefore, it arguably seems best to keep the matter out of the courts, especially since the "harm" is much more hazy than in matters of affirmative action.

ALEXANDER v. SANDOVAL (5-4) ruled that an important federal civil rights law covering discrimination in programs receiving federal money does not cover private lawsuits for unintentional discrimination. The breadth of the problem of discrimination has resulted in the policy of allowing private citizens to sue, since the federal government itself can only bring a small number of cases. Furthermore, discrimination often is present, even if it is not directly intended. For instance, federal funding of health benefits does not cover abortions, which discriminates against poor women who might need them. The fact that the law is in place to protect the sanctity of life does not make the discrimination any less harmful. Likewise, many other general policies impact certain groups in disparate ways, a form of discrimination. Therefore, limiting lawsuits in this area is a big step, one Congress should definitely clarify.

PGA Tour v Martin (7-2) forced the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to ride a cart, since this is a justifiable requirement under the Americans for Disability Act. This is really a horrible decision in that it opens up sports rule making to the courts by arguing that walking is not important enough to golf to be a requirement. Let's put aside the notion that walking a few miles in the hot weather does not effect one's game or perhaps ruin the esthetics of golf in some fashion. The courts are not the place to determine the justice of ultimately arbitrary sports rules, and sports is surely one area where disabilities in some cases hurt. For instance, one handed pitcher Jim Abbott still hit in the National League, and partly deaf Dennis Cook gets no special treatment either. Sports might change some rules, and perhaps should have for Martin, but this is not the job of the courts!

TUAN ANH NGUYEN etal. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE involves a case that shows the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. The defendant was at risk of deportation because of conviction of a sexual crime against a minor, thus making him a far from ideal litigant. Nonetheless, even murderers have equal protection and citizenship rights. Thus, he has every right to argue "equal protection by providing different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father" is unjust. Though the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote disagreed, why should mothers get a special preference in an age when DNA testing can prove paternity? Mothers still are assumed to be better choices for custody in divorce cases as well. Fathers all too often do not take responsibility for their children, and establishing by law that having a baby is so much more important in regards to parenthood only furthers this sad state of affairs. Thus, this case in a small way show how true equality is not here yet.

The rights of immigrants, surely of symbolic concern in this country of immigrants, were also involved in two other cases. The cases arose from strict immigration laws put in place by Congress a few years back that resulted in various injustices, especially from deportations of long time residents for relatively trivial offenses. Nonetheless, these cases as with Nguyen involved resident aliens who committed serious crimes. The rulings (both 5-4) that upheld due process (fair procedure) rights, partly by reading the laws narrowly, therefore were that much more admirable. INS v St Cyr gave aliens at least one chance to challenge their convictions in court, thus not giving the INS free reign.

Zadvydas v Davis limited the time aliens open to deportation could be held after serving their time when no country is willing to accept them. This threatens forcing the federal government to free dangerous aliens just because of the inability to deport them, but "due process" applies to all "persons," and does not include imprisoning people you think might commit crimes. [Both cases might be seen in a different light after the terrorist attacks a few months after they were decided. On the other hand, one might also consider the vast majority of nonterrorist immigrants whose rights true justice would honor.]

Linda Greenhouse's usual US Supreme Court term round-up in the New York Times (7/2/01) aided me in the writing of this essay, as did Findlaw.com.