One issue is whether a state can refuse to pay for religious schooling. An
employer's refusal to hire a recovered drug user is also being tested.
By
David G. Savage Times Staff Writer
October 5, 2003
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday and is set to consider whether
states may refuse to pay for religious teaching, whether employers may refuse to
hire reformed drug users and whether gerrymandering by state lawmakers is
unconstitutional.
The court also will decide whether the police may set
up roadblocks to ask motorists about a recent accident involving a crime, and
whether police detectives must warn suspects of their right to remain silent
before questioning them.
The justices will hear 45 cases this term,
including 10 that were granted review last week. Waiting in the wings are more
appeals that could be added to the docket for this year's term — including the
dispute over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the federal
government's move to strip doctors in California and Arizona of their right to
prescribe drugs if they recommend marijuana to sick patients.
So far,
the federal courts on the West Coast have blocked the government's bid to
enforce the marijuana policy, but Bush administration lawyers are urging the
Supreme Court to take up their appeal and uphold it.
Potentially one of
the most significant of the pending cases is a religious-rights dispute from
Washington state. The case could have a wide impact on government funding of
church-related schools, day care centers or social service programs. At issue is
whether states must fund church-related teaching on the same basis as other
private and public schools.
Joshua Davey was turned down for a state
scholarship because he was preparing to be a minister. The state Constitution in
Washington, like those of California and 35 other states, includes a strict ban
on using taxpayers' money to pay for religious teaching.
"No public
money or property shall be applied to any religious worship, exercise or
instruction," says the Constitution of Washington.
But the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1st Amendment requires the state to give
Davey the scholarship. Bush administration lawyers agreed, urging the court to
say the state cannot "single out religion for discriminatory treatment." If the
justices agree as well, it would boost the drive for school vouchers in several
states and give church-run programs an equal claim to state support. The case,
Locke vs. Davey, will be argued on Dec. 2.
A pair of job bias cases will
test the frontiers of workers' rights. In the first, the court will decide
whether a company may refuse to rehire a worker who had used drugs in the past.
Joel Hernandez, a veteran technician, quit his job with the Hughes Missile
Systems in Tucson because he was using drugs. Three years later, after
completing a recovery program, he reapplied for his job but was rejected.
Last year, the 9th Circuit Court said the company's policy of not hiring
former drug users violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 1990 law
says current drug users and heavy drinkers cannot claim to have a disability.
However, it also says recovered addicts cannot be discriminated against for
their past use of drugs or alcohol.
On Wednesday, the court will hear
the company's appeal in Raytheon Co. vs. Hernandez.
The court also will
take up the first "reverse bias" age discrimination case. At issue is whether
employers may offer special retirement benefits to their older workers, but not
to middle-aged employees. Last year, a U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati
surprised corporate lawyers when it ruled that this favoritism for older workers
violated the federal law against age discrimination.
This is "nothing
short of absurd," the company's lawyers said in their appeal. The anti-age bias
law was intended to favor older workers, they say.
However, the younger
workers counter that the 1967 law says employers may not "discriminate against
any individual" over age 40 "because of age." The dispute arose when General
Dynamics, the military contractor, promised health benefits in retirement to
workers who were over age 50, but not to those who were younger. A group of
40-year-olds sued and won a preliminary victory in the appeals court. The case,
General Dynamics vs. Cline, will be heard Nov. 12.
Police questioning and
the Miranda warnings will be debated in four cases to be heard this term. At
issue is whether police may evade the requirement that they warn suspects of
their "right to remain silent" and still make use of what they learn in the
interrogation.
Just three years ago, the court in a 7-2 decision
described the Miranda decision as having set a "constitutional rule" that may
not be overturned by Congress. However, it remains unclear how this rule works
in practice.
For example, can detectives question suspects for hours and
then warn them of their right to remain silent only after they have confessed?
And can police press suspects to reveal physical evidence, such as a gun or
cash, and use this evidence in court, even if no Miranda warnings were given? On
Dec. 9, the court will take up these questions in the cases of Missouri vs.
Seibert and U.S. vs. Patane.
The constitutionality of police roadblocks
will be considered in a suburban Chicago case. In the past, the court upheld
roadblocks to check for drunk drivers or illegal immigrants near the border on
the grounds that they were regulatory measures. Last year, however, the court
struck down a roadblock designed to catch drug dealers. This was crime fighting,
the justices said, and the 4th Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and
seizures" bars the police from stopping large numbers of innocent people in
hopes of finding a criminal.
The new roadblock case falls in between.
Police had stopped motorists in a Chicago suburb to ask if they knew anything
about a fatal hit-and-run accident that took place there a week before. The
Illinois courts ruled this roadblock unconstitutional because it amounted to
crime fighting. In their appeal of Illinois vs. Lidster, government lawyers say
"informational checkpoints" should be allowed to further public safety.
Three antipollution cases before the court test the
balance of power between state and federal regulators. One of them challenges a
new Los Angeles-area regulation that requires fleets of buses, trucks, taxis and
airport shuttles to replace their older, diesel-burning vehicles with new models
that burn cleaner fuel.
The auto and truck makers say this strict local
rule is trumped by the less demanding standards set by the Clean Air Act. This
case, Engine Manufacturers Assn. vs. South Coast Air Quality District, will be
heard early next year.
Two election-laws cases could rewrite the rules
for politics and politicians. The first, heard last month, will determine the
fate of the McCain-Feingold Act. It bars corporations, unions and the wealthy
from funneling large amounts of money to political parties or for use in attack
ads near election day. Critics say it violates the 1st Amendment.
Meanwhile, the court will take up a Pennsylvania case to decide whether
one party may use its control of the state Legislature to draw electoral
districts that lock in its party's control of congressional seats for a decade.
Gerrymandering is hardly new. Its name was derived from Massachusetts
Gov. Eldridge Gerry who in 1811 drew a salamander-shaped district designed to
ensure the election of a fellow Democrat. Seventeen years ago, the Supreme Court
said gerrymandering may be challenged in court. But it has not set a standard to
decide when ordinary political redistricting crosses the line into
unconstitutional gerrymandering.
Pennsylvania is such an extreme example
that its redistricting plan should be struck down as an unconstitutional
gerrymander, the plaintiffs say. Republicans, who are in the minority in voter
registration, used their narrow control of the state legislatures to lock in
about two-thirds of the congressional seats for the GOP, they allege. This
violates the Constitution's guarantee of "equal treatment for all voters," they
contend, citing the Bush vs. Gore ruling. On Dec. 10, the court will take up
their claim in the case of Vieth vs. Jubelirer.
Finally, the justices
will revisit the 1993 death of the White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster to
weigh the value of public disclosure versus personal privacy. Allan Favish, a
Los Angeles lawyer who suspects Foster's reported suicide may have been a
homicide, sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain photos in the
official files, including close-up views of his dead body.
The government
refused his request, arguing that the privacy of Foster's survivors outweighs
any public value of disclosing the information.
The court will consider
the issue on Dec. 3 in Office of Independent Counsel vs.
Favish.
*
Supreme Court's fall docket
Here are the key
cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall:
•
Religious rights — May a state that offers college scholarships refuse
to pay for a student to prepare for the ministry because its state constitution
forbids all taxpayer aid for religion? No, the 9th Circuit Court said in a
Washington state case, because the exclusion amounts to discrimination against
religion. (Locke vs. Davey)
• Police questioning —
May police detectives question suspects first and warn them of their right to
remain silent only after they have confessed? The case is one of four that test
the warnings required under Miranda vs. Arizona. (Missouri vs. Seibert)
• Former drug users — May employers refuse to
hire, or rehire, recovered drug users? The 9th Circuit Court said this refusal
was illegal discrimination against people with a disability. (Raytheon Co. vs.
Hernandez)
• Disabled access — Can a person in a
wheelchair sue the state for discrimination if he cannot reach a second-floor
courthouse that has no ramp or elevator? The state says it is shielded from such
suits. (Tennessee vs. Lane)
• Age
bias — May employers offer special retirement benefits
to older workers but not to those who are middle-aged? No, ruled an appeals
court in the Midwest in the first ruling that upheld a claim of "reverse age
discrimination." (General Dynamics vs. Cline)
• Roadblocks
— Can the police set up a roadblock to ask motorists about a recent
accident at the same site? In the past, the court has upheld roadblocks to check
for drunk drivers or illegal border crossers, but not to pursue drug crimes.
Bush administration lawyers urged the court to allow "information checkpoints."
(Illinois vs. Lidster)
• Gerrymandering
— Can state lawmakers draw congressional districts in a way that
ensures their party will win most of the seats? The practice is being challenged
as unconstitutional in a Pennsylvania case. (Vieth vs.
Jubelirer)
• Clean air — Can Southern California's
air-quality district require owners of bus and truck fleets to replace older
vehicles with new, cleaner-burning models? The auto industry says this strict
local rule is trumped by the more lenient federal standards. (Engine
Manufacturers Assn. vs. South Coast Air Quality Management District)
• Death photos — Must officials release close-up
photos of the dead body of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster under the
Freedom of Information Act, or may they refuse to protect his family's privacy?
(Office of Independent Counsel vs. Favish)
Click
here for article licensing and reprint options
