Supreme Court Still
Has Weighty Issues
By AP from the
NYTimes on the Web, May 10, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Highly
anticipated decisions on medical marijuana, Ten Commandments displays and
Internet sharing of movies and music are still to come in the final weeks of the
Supreme Court term.
And then there's perhaps the biggest story of all -- whether the court gets its
first opening in a decade.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has been the focus of retirement
speculation since he announced in October that he had thyroid cancer.
Rehnquist has been working full-time and has given no indication of his plans,
though most court watchers believe he will step down. His departure likely
would lead to a political fight over a successor who could reshape a court
divided 5-4 on the death penalty, affirmative action and gay rights.
The court's opinions already are giving partisans plenty to talk about.
''This term will be a blockbuster,'' said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who
argues frequently before the high court. ''The court's rulings on social
issues and the role of government will definitely remind everyone of the
significance of a single Supreme Court appointment.''
The court already has issued two of its more notable rulings -- 5-4 opinions
striking down mandatory sentencing guidelines as a violation of a defendant's
right to a jury trial and outlawing the death penalty for those who were
juveniles when they committed their crimes.
While the death penalty ruling was somewhat expected given earlier rulings
narrowing the scope of capital punishment, some congressional Republicans
blasted the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy for citing international
sentiment against executing juveniles. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,
R-Texas, condemned the Reagan appointee's work as ''incredibly outrageous,'' and
others called for his impeachment.
May and June traditionally are the court's busiest months and this year is no
different. There are 35 opinions remaining before justices take a summer
break.
One of the most closely watched decisions involves whether states can shield
medical marijuana users from federal prosecution on drug charges. The
case, which was heard last November, pits the conservative anti-drug interests
of the Bush administration against conservative principles of states' rights.
Since Rehnquist became chief justice in 1986, the court has struck down federal
laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the
grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
While many believe the court will back the federal government in the marijuana
case, its delay in issuing an opinion so far offers states' rights advocates
hope that justices are wary of further extending federal authority, said
Pepperdine law professor Doug Kmiec, a former Justice Department official under
President Reagan and the first President Bush.
''It may suggest that the expansive assertion of government power asserted by
the Bush administration was deeply troubling to the justices, or at least that
the issue is so close that the wording of opinions is being examined and
negotiated with far more than the usual care,'' he said.
Another emotional issue involves Ten Commandments displays. Justices will
rule in a pair of cases asking whether such displays on government property
violate the Constitution's ban on ''establishment'' of religion. It's the
court's first review of the issue since 1980.
Last year's major church-state issue involved whether ''under God'' should be
included in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools. The court
punted on that case on technical grounds, but that's not expected with the Ten
Commandments cases.
In fact, court watchers say they wouldn't be surprised if Rehnquist, an ardent
supporter of religious freedom, writes an opinion upholding the displays.
Such a ruling would be seen by many as a fitting cap to his 33-year career at
the high court.
Other major rulings expected soon concern whether states can bar interstate wine
sales over the Internet -- a dispute testing the limits of state power in
regulating alcohol -- and whether the government can force beef producers to pay
fees that are used to promote the industry, even if producers disagree with the
method.
Justices also will rule in a property rights case that asks whether cities may
seize people's homes to make way for economic development projects. And it
will decide a big-money dispute over whether Internet file-sharing services
should be held responsible when their customers illegally swap songs and movies
online.
How the justices rule in the file-sharing case could redefine how consumers can
watch television shows and films and listen to songs that increasingly are
delivered in digital formats. Supporters of file-sharing technology say a
ruling against them would spur expensive lawsuits that hamper the development of
new devices.
''From a political point of view, it's a significant term,'' said Mark Tushnet,
a professor at Georgetown Law Center who recently wrote a book on the Rehnquist
court. And the significance will grow should it, as Tushnet predicts,
include Rehnquist's retirement, an announcement sure to kick off a brutal
ideological fight on Capitol Hill.
|
