Court decides endangered species, religion, student speech, campaign finance cases; four new grants
on Jun 25, 2007 at 11:04 am
UPDATE to 11:04 a.m.
Amid several 5-4 rulings on the merits, the Supreme Court on Monday granted four cases for review next Term, including a significant test case on the use of references to the O.J. Simpson not-guilty verdict to help persuade an all-white jury to impose a death sentence on a black defendant. Other granted cases include a test of state power to regulate commercial shipments of tobacco and other products harmful to children and a case involving states’ authority to allow damage claims against makers of medical devices approved by federal authorities. In the fourth granted case, the Court indicated it will sort out a conflict among lower courts on the deductibility on federal tax returns of expenses for trusts and estates.
In the first of several rulings on the merits, the Court split 5-4 in deciding that a federal agency that is required by law to take a specific action under one federal law does not have to follow the conflicting mandate of the Endangered Species Act. The decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., came in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (06-340) and a companion case.
In the second decision of the day, also written by Alito and again dividing the Court 5-4, the Justices ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to sue to challenge the White House program on federal aid to faith-based organizations. The Court did not overrule Flast v. Cohen, as two Justices in the majority urged it to do so. The case was Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (06-157).
The third decision, written by Justice David H. Souter, found over two Justices’ partial dissents that government employees carrying out their official duties and not for personal benefit are not subject to damage claims against them personally based on a lawsuit asserting that they violated the RICO anti-racketeering law or private property rights. The decision came in Wilkie v. Robbins (06-219).
The fourth ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., over three full dissents and one partial dissent, declared that public school officials do not violate a student’s free speech rights by punishing the student for words or actions that promote a drug message. The ruling in Morse v. Frederick (06-278) also should count as a 5-4 decision because Justice Stephen G. Breyer would have decided the case on qualified immunity grounds, and not reach the First Amendment issue.
The Court issued its fifth ruling of the day, concluding that a Wisconsin organization that opposes abortion had a First Amendment right to aid during election season campaign ads that named a candidate running for the Senate. Three of the five Justices in the majority urged the Court to overturn the part of a 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections. The Chief Justice’s main opinion, joined fully by Justice Alito, said the case did not provide an occasion to revisit that ruling. Justice Souter recited at length from the bench for the four dissenters — who were in the minority in four of the five rulings on Monday. The ruling came in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and a companion case.
The Court will next issue decisions on Thursday, when it is expected to complete its current Term with four rulings — counting as two the school integration cases. The others are a case on executing mentally disturbed criminals and on the standard for judging antitrust violations.
The newly granted cases for decision in the Term starting Oct. 1 are: death penalty, Snyder v. Louisiana (06-10119); on delivering tobacco products, Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport (06-457); on medical device lawsuits, Riegel v. Medtronic (06-179), and on trusts’ federal tax deductions, Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (06-1268). The U.S. Solicitor General had offered views on three of those cases — all but the death penalty case from Louisiana — and recommended in each that the Court deny review.
The Court did follow the Solicitor General’s advice against review of some other significant cases. The Court declined, once again, to explore whether it violates the antitrust law for the maker of a patented brand-name drug to share a part of its future profits to induce a maker of a generic substitute to keep its product off the market or to delay its marketing. That case was Joblove, et al., v. Barr Labs (06-830). And the Court declined to hear two cases seeking to test the constitutionality of barring aliens who are in the U.S. on temporary work permits from becoming members of the bar in those states (Wallace v. Calogero, 05-1645, and Leclerc v. Webb, 06-11).
The Court ordered dismissal as moot of a test case on which it had sought the Solicitor General’s views — Selig v. Pediatric Specialty Care (06-415), on whether private medical clinics and doctors have a right to sue to enforce health care benefits for needy children under the Medicaid program. The Solicitor General had not responded by the time those who had sued dropped their claims against state officials in Arkansas.
