Court will not review welfare searches
on Nov 26, 2007 at 10:07 am
UPDATED to 10:45 a.m.
The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside an appeal by six welfare recipients in San Diego, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of a requirement that all applicants for public assistance allow a search of their homes as a condition for eligibility. The Court made no comment as it denied the appeal in Sanchez, et al., v. San Diego County, et al. (07-211). The case involved a program adopted in 1997 by San Diego County’s district attorney’s office, requiring consent for a home visit by the office’s fraud investigators. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the policy.
The Court also refused to return to the continuing controversy over the government’s legal or constitutional obligation to allow faith-based groups to take part equally in state-funded programs. The Court denied review of Teen Ranch, Inc., et al., v. Udow, et al. (07-362), a test of the cutoff of participation in a state program in Michigan for a residential treatment center for troubled youth in Kingston, Mich. State courts ruled that the center could be denied further state placements of youths because it could not assure that youths could “opt out” of religious-based activity.
Those cases were among a list of denials of review in pending cases. As expected, the Court granted no new cases for review. The Orders List showed no action on an appeal by five Washington, D.C., residents seeking to loosen restrictions on individuals’ right to bring constitutional challenges to laws before they are actually enforced. The case, Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, et al. (07-335), is a companion to the District of Columbia’s appeal on the scope of the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” The city’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290), was granted last Tuesday, and is expected to be heard in March. The Court may be holding the appeal in Parker until Heller is decided.
 Among other issues denied review on Monday were these:
**  Whether the Fifth Circuit Court should have vacated a federal judge’s decision, after it had become moot, requiring Harris County, Texas, to remove a monument that stood outside the Civil Courts Building in Houston because the monument had an open Bible displayed in a chamber on top. The case became moot when the structure was put into storage during extensive renovation of the building. (Harris County v. Staley, 07-100)
**Whether a police officer’s claim of immunity to a civil rights lawsuit may be denied on an evenly split decision of an en banc federal appeals court. The appeal argued that a constitutional right cannot be “clearly established,” thus requiring police to be aware of it, when an en banc court divides evenly on the question. A deputy sheriff in White County, Ark., was seeking in the appeal to head off a civil rights damages lawsuit claiming he used “excessive force” in applying handcuffs to a suspect arrested after a fight at a demolition derby track. (Edwards v. Kenyon, 07-130)
** Whether the Court would extend constitutional protection against politically-motivated firing of public employees to situations where the employee personally takes no political position or action. The case arose in Mineral County, W.Va., when a court clerk was fired because her adult son ran for office against an incumbent clerk for another court in the same courthouse. (Smith v. Frye, 07-360).
