For much of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly went about its business, cautiously interpreting the law and declining to dramatically change it, while the other branches of government slugged it out a few blocks away.
In fact, the most notable event involving the court seemed to come when Chief Justice William Rehnquist crossed the street to preside over President Clinton’s impeachment trial in the Senate.
But even the critics who chided a supposedly do-nothing court did a double take as the court, in a flurry of decisions ending its term, handed down significant decisions that sent strong messages to Congress to write laws clearly and to keep in mind the limits of federal power over states.
Those rulings could have lasting effects on the intricate relationship between the federal government and the states, and may force Congress to more clearly state its intent when passing legislation. And they will affect individual lives, notably millions of disabled Americans.
The decisions came in the wake of other important decisions. Those include a ruling to limit the City of Chicago’s efforts to combat street gangs and one striking down advertising restrictions on products that are legal, specifically casino gambling.
“These are significant cases, and we’ll have to see what the contours are,” said Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional scholar at the University of Illinois Law School.
The nation’s highest court won’t waste time defining those contours, having agreed to hear three cases this autumn that could further explore the relationship between the federal government and the states. These cases could prompt important decisions about how far Congress can go in imposing its will and whether states can be hauled into court by citizens for violating certain anti-discrimination laws.
There are other highly significant cases slated for argument this autumn. They concern controversial federal efforts to regulate tobacco and restrict sexually explicit speech, as well as government attempts to limit campaign contributions and even nude dancing.
The justices also will consider major cases on the separation of church and state, one of which could have implications for the future of school vouchers. And these are only the cases they have agreed to hear thus far; they will continue adding to their docket until early next year.
As such, it appears the court, which has toiled in relative quiet of late, has firmly reclaimed its share of the spotlight in a three-branch system of government.
That was clear with its decisions in the federalism cases and those interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act. A few days before starting its summer recess, the court drastically reduced the scope of the disabilities law, refusing to extend its protections to more than 100 million people who can correct their impairments through medication and devices such as hearing aids and eyeglasses.
The justices, by a vote of 7-2, said it was clear from reading the law that Congress didn’t intend for the landmark law to cover that many people. To reach that result, it looked only at the text of the law, which defines disability as an impairment that “substantially limits” a person’s major life activities. It refused to consider other evidence, including committee reports and statements from congressmen when the 1990 law passed, that indicated it should apply to people who could easily correct their impairments.
To some who helped draft the statute, such as Georgetown University Law Center’s Chai Feldblum, that was “an incredible slap in the face of Congress.”
“This court is throwing down the gauntlet before Congress,” Feldblum said. “The message from the court to Congress is: If you intend something, don’t just say it in a committee report; make sure the words of the statute cannot possibly be interpreted in a different way.”
That method of resolving statutory cases, by looking at the law’s “plain language,” is advocated most enthusiastically by Justice Antonin Scalia. He believes–and he has at times convinced other justices of his way of thinking–that judges should not have to divine Congress’ intent; Congress should make it crystal clear. Otherwise, it could pen vague language and each side could claim victory, leading to protracted litigation with judges improperly having the final say, Scalia believes.
To be sure, the justices don’t always take that approach, and it is difficult to attach labels to this court or predict which way various justices will rule. In her opinion prohibiting the use of statistical sampling in the census, for example, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor conspicuously considered legislative history–though only Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy went along with that part of her opinion.
And, in constitutional cases, the justices have different ways of looking at the law, as well. In last week’s federalism cases, which split the court 5-4, the more conservative justices said they were looking beyond the Constitution to rule that Congress could not authorize citizens to sue states under certain federal laws.
The four dissenting justices, who generally are more liberal, criticized that approach, which they said wasn’t clear from the Constitution. But those dissenters don’t shy from looking outside the Constitution on other matters, such as when individual liberties are at stake, noted Douglas Kmiec, a professor at Pepperdine University Law School.
“Both wings of the court are willing to go beyond the text of the Constitution when it serves their purpose,” Kmiec said. “Liberals go that way with regard to individual rights guarantees.”
For example, the more liberal justices were entirely comfortable looking at history to determine what a “right to travel” meant, in a case from California involving welfare benefits, Kmiec noted. In that case, they joined forces to resurrect a long-ignored clause in the Constitution, holding that states cannot limit welfare benefits for new residents to a lower amount they received in their previous state.
If a general assessment can be made about this court, it is that both the so-called conservatives and liberals resist neat labels. Instead, the court again proved it remains a “middle-of-the-road, sensible, stay-the-course kind of court,” said Ronald Allen, professor at Northwestern University School of Law.
That was particularly true in the criminal area, as well as in the Chicago case involving gang loitering.
For example, the court said police could search a guest in a person’s home without a warrant. But it carefully limited the opinion, and suggested that it applied only to temporary visitors there for commercial reasons, such as to buy drugs, not to social visitors or overnight guests.
A deeply conservative court would have written a much broader opinion. Such a court may not have prohibited police from searching vehicles merely upon issuing a traffic ticket, as the court unanimously did in an opinion written by Rehnquist. And it probably would not have banned the media from accompanying police officers into peoples’ home to execute warrants, as it also did this term.
Indeed, in many ways, this court–which frequently features moderate-to-conservative Justices O’Connor and Kennedy as swing votes–writes opinions that provide something for everyone. In several cases this term, both sides claimed victory.
In the Chicago loitering case, civil liberties groups hailed the decision, which struck down a city ordinance that authorized police to arrest suspected gang members and accomplices if they refused orders to disperse. But city officials said they were pleased, as well, because the court also suggested it would allow a more tightly written law.
Moderate approaches appear to be hallmarks of this court, particularly because O’Connor and Kennedy often take a middle line and temper the more conservative Rehnquist, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas.
