Court to hear “partial-birth” abortion case
on Feb 21, 2006 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the federal ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions — the first-ever law passed by Congress to outlaw a method for terminating pregnancy. Three federal appeals courts have ruled that the 2003 law is unconstitutional, mainly because it lacks an exception to the ban when an abortion procedure outlawed is necessary to protect the woman’s health. Congress said there was never a need for the banned procedure for health reasons. The case is Gonzales v . Carhart (05-380).
This case and three others granted on Tuesday will be heard in the new Term starting in October. The Court did not order reargument in any other cases heard before Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took his seat.
On a busy morning after returning from a four-week recess, the Court decided two cases that had been argued and decided three cases summarily, while granting review in the four new cases. After issuing orders and opinions, it began hearing two key cases on the scope of the Clean Water Act — the first hearings in which new Justice Alito took part.
In one of the other newly granted cases, the Court will return to the issue of judges’ power to impose stiffer sentences based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by the accused. The issue is whether California’s determinate sentencing law is invalid because the judge may impose an enhanced sentence based on fact findings by the bench, not the jury. The case is Cunningham v. California (05-6551). (See below for the other new grants.)
The Court postponed until a hearing on March 28 whether to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the war crimes “military commissions” set up at the Navy prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in the order, thus indicating he will continue his recusal from the case. The Bush Administration contends that the newly enacted Detainee Treatment Act requires the dismissal of all pending challenges by Guantanamo detainees. (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184).
In another war on terrorism case, the Court took no action Tuesday on the appeal by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen challenging his capture and long-term detention as an “enemy combatant” (Padilla v. Hanft, 05-533).
In one of two decisions Tuesday in argued cases, the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious sect from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (04-1084).. Only new Justice Alito did not take part.
In the second decision in an argued case, the Court ruled by a 7-1 vote that a challenge to the validity of a contract that contains an arbitration clause must go to the arbitrator, when the entire contract is at issue. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Court; Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito took no part.(Buckeye Check Casshing v. Cardegna, 04-1264).
In a ruling by the Court, without briefing or oral argument, the Justices revived a lawsuit by Colorado Republicans seeking to undo a state Supreme Court decision barring any additional congressional redistricting during the current decade. In an unsigned opinion, the Court by a vote of 8-1 ruled that a three-judge U.S. District Court was wrong in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to hear that challenge. The ruling — the first final ruling by the Court in which Justice Alito did take part — came in the case of Lance v. Dennis (05-555).
The Court also issued a second summary decision, ordering the Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider a case testing whether the Iran Defense Ministry can be ordered by a U.S. court to give up property in the U.S. to satisfy a debt owed an American by the foreign nation. (Ministry of Defense v. Elahi, 04-1095).
In the third summary decision, the Court issued a potentially significant ruling on the scope of protection against race discrimination in the workplace under Title VII. The Court told the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider a ruling that virtually barred evidence that a minority person who did not get hired was better qualified than a white person who was hired — evidence that is offered to show that there was no non-discriminatory reason to justify the actual hiring. The Eleventh Circuit said such evidence would be admitted only if it jumped off the page and slapped the court in the face — a rigid standard that the Supreme Court said was not required. The Justices also told the lower court to reconsider its ruling that the use by a supervisor of the word “boy” is not discriminatory, when used toward a black employee without any qualifying words. That word alone is not always benign, the Court said in ordering a new review of that question by the Eleventh Circuit. The case was Ash v.Tysons Foods (05-379).
Other significant matters on the Orders List follow.
In the two other newly granted cases, the Court agreed Tuesday to decide these issues:
— must the holder of a patent license breach that agreement before suing to challenge the patent’s validity (Medimmune v . Genentech, 05-608).
— does the Communications Act permit a private lawsuit by a provider of payphone services challenging a long-distance carrier over compensation for coinless calls (granted limited to Question 1 in Global Crossing Telecom. v. Metrophones Telecom., 05-705).
Among a lengthy list of cases that were denied review on Tuesday, these were some of the most significant:
— The Court refused to allow the state of Arkansas to sue the state of Oklahoma directly in the Supreme Court to challenge Oklahoma’s attempts to restrict the use of chicken waste as fertilizer on farm fields in the two states. Oklahoma is seeking to reduce pollution in the Illinois River. (Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 133 Original.).
— The Court declined to hear a case testing the free-expression rights of students who edit and write for a newspaper published at a state college or university. The key issue was whether college students have more protection against censorship than do students working on a high school newspaper. (Hosty v. Carter, 05-377).
— It left intact a Sixth Circuit ruling that Congress did not have the power to permit lawsuits against states that refused to allow employees to take medeical leave to care for their own health. The case was a sequel to the Court’s Hibbs decision in 2003 upholding Congress’ power to allow lawsuits against states by employees denied leave to care for a sick family member, not for themselves. The new case under the Family and Medical Leave Act was Touvell v. Ohio, 05-752).
— The Court turned aside without comment an appeal by three tobacco companies seeking to revive their challenge to a California tax levied on cigarette sales, with some of the revenue used to pay for advertising that demonizes the tobacco industry. (R.J.Reynolds Tobacco, et al., v. Shewry, et al., 05-867).
