Supreme Court term will include cases highlighting
extent of federal power
By Robert
Barnes, Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Supreme
Court convenes Monday for what could be the most significant term of Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr.fs six-year tenure, with an agenda that both
reflects the nationfs political landscape and offers the potential to reshape
it.
The dominant theme is the one that has divided the country and fueled the
debate between tea party Republicans and President Obama since the 2010
election: the extent of the federal governmentfs power.
The justices are being asked to decide the constitutionality
of the landmark health-care act, the ability of states to enforce strict
immigration laws and whether the government can continue to monitor the airwaves
for indecency.
The court could also reopen the question of affirmative action in college
admissions, rule on the rights of gay adoptive parents and decide whether the
blindingly fast pace of modern technology has reshaped Americansf notion of
privacy.
gWhatever the last term lacked in blockbuster cases, herefs one thatfs really
for the ages,h said Paul D. Clement, solicitor general in the George W. Bush
administration.
Clement will play no small part in the termfs deliberations. He represents
the states
challenging the Affordable Care Act and will
defend Arizonafs tough anti-immigration law, whose most controversial parts
have been blocked by lower courts.
The potential of the term, said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union, is not measured in the cases the court has
already accepted but by gwhat the court might take.h
And while justices recoil from the idea that politics play a role in their
decisions even to accept a case, it is clear that the courtfs actions this year
will be scrutinized through the lens of an election year.
Partisan groups on both ends of the political spectrum increasingly analyze
the justicesf public speeches, private finances and past affiliations to
highlight what they see as bias. Another goal is to seek their recusal in
controversial cases.
Liberal groups and some Democratic members of Congress are seeking
investigations into Justice Clarence Thomasfs failure to list on
financial-disclosure statements that his wife, Virginia Thomas, was employed in
the past by conservative
organizations opposed to the health-care law. Her work was common knowledge
at the time, and he has since corrected the forms.
Conservative groups question how involved Justice Elena Kagan was in forming
the Obama administrationfs legal defense of the health-care law when she was
solicitor general, the governmentfs chief appellate lawyer. Kagan said during
her confirmation hearings she did not play an active role.
Justices decide for themselves whether they have a conflict that requires
recusal — there is no mechanism for replacing them if they do — and there
is no indication that either Thomas or Kagan will opt out of deliberations
on the health-care act.
It would be highly unlikely that the court would not accept the Obama
administrationfs request to review conflicting lower-court decisions on the
constitutionality of the centerpiece of the health-care law, the gindividual
mandateh that requires virtually every American to carry health insurance.
But there are options that could make it a narrow decision rather than a
broad constitutional ruling.
A decision on the health-care law gcould turn out to be transformative or
could turn out to be a fizzle,h said Pamela Karlan, a constitutional expert at
Stanford Law School.
Most also believe the court will take the Arizona immigration law, as well,
which is being replicated in other states. The Obama administration also has
sued the state of Alabama over its law — saying control of the nationfs borders
is exclusively a power of the federal government — and is deciding whether to
challenge four other states.
The government is defending
the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to police the
airwaves during the times when children are most likely to be watching. The
broadcast networks are challenging the FCCfs rules as unconstitutionally vague
and outdated when cable television and the Internet are unregulated.
The case involves FCC fines for network shows in which celebrities used
profanities at award shows and the old television drama gNYPD Blue,h which
showed a womanfs bare buttocks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ruled against the
FCC, saying its rules showed glittle rhyme or reason.h The government claims it
should be allowed to keep the broadcast channels as a gsafe havenh for
families.
Changing technology is at the heart of another case that weighs governmentfs
power to track suspects against an individualfs right to privacy. The question
is whether
the government has the right to place a Global Positioning System device on
the vehicle of a suspected drug dealer without a judgefs approval. The Justice
Department points to a Supreme Court ruling to say citizens have no reasonable
expectation of privacy as they travel along public streets and highways.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagreed. It said 24/7
monitoring of a personfs whereabouts for an extended period requires a warrant.
Other courts of appeal answered the question differently.
The affirmative
action case that may get the courtfs attention is from the University of
Texas, where officials take into account a studentfs race to try to make the
student body more reflective of the statefs population.
An appellate court panel said such an approach was in line with the courtfs
last major decision on the use of race in the admissions process, which came in
2003. But the Supreme Court has become more conservative since then — most
notably because of the replacement of Justice Sandra Day OfConnor by Justice
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Conservative legal groups are urging the court to take another look at the
issue.
And while it is unclear if the issue of gay rights will make it onto the
courtfs agenda this term, it is coming. Legal fights over Californiafs
Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, and the constitutionality of the
federal Defense of Marriage Act continue
in the appeals courts.
One case already
seeking grant by the court involves a New York same-sex couple who adopted a
child in Louisiana and were denied a request that both of their names be on the
childfs birth certificate.
On the docket
Zivotofsky v. Clinton: A major separation-of-powers case that asks
whether the president may ignore Congressfs directions. The case is brought by
an American couple who want their sonfs birthplace listed as gJerusalem, Israelh
despite State Department objections.
United States v. Jones: Do police need a warrant before attaching a
Global Positioning System device to a personfs automobile to track him 24 hours
a day for weeks? The case is brought by a convicted D.C. drug dealer.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations Inc.: Are the Federal Communications
Commissionfs standards for indecency on television too vague to meet
constitutional standards?
Awaiting action
HHS v. Florida: Does the Constitutionfs Commerce Clause give Congress
the power to require Americans to obtain health insurance?
© The Washington Post Company