Supreme Court

Documents & Texts from America.gov

08 October 2008
Highest U.S. Court Will Address Key Constitutional Principles

By Bridget Hunter
Staff Writer

Washington — The first Monday in October, October 6, marked the opening of another term of the U.S. Supreme Court, a session that thus far lacks the headline-grabbing cases of the previous session but might offer more opportunities to limit or strengthen a number of constitutional principles.

Each year, litigants in hundreds of cases petition the Supreme Court seeking a "writ of certiorari" — or agreement of the court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Less than 1 percent of these cases are accepted for review. In an average term, the court hears arguments in about 120 cases.

The Supreme Court is rarely a "court of first review" — it does not rule on issues of fact except in disputes between states or with another nation. The vast majority of its work involves appeals of lower court decisions, generally involving issues of federalism (the extent of federal government authority) and constitutionality (whether a lower court ruling is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution).

Issues before the 2008-2009 court include voting rights, federal pre-emption of state law, government accountability and free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.

VOTING RIGHTS

Bartlett v. Strickland, to be argued October 14, asks whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50 percent of a district’s population can make a vote-dilution claim under the Voting Rights Act when states redraw legislative districts.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure … which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

In Bartlett, minority voters in one of North Carolina’s state legislative districts argue they should be protected from redistricting because they have been able to elect African-American candidates by building effective coalitions even though African-American voters do not constitute a majority within the district.

In defending its decision to dismantle the district, the state contends that minorities cannot assert a vote-dilution claim unless they represent 50 percent or more of the population.

FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION

In Wyeth v. Levine (oral arguments November 3), the court will review a personal injury suit brought by a musician whose arm was amputated after complications following injection of a drug made by Wyeth.

The question before the court is whether drug-labeling judgments imposed on manufacturers by the federal Food and Drug Administration pre-empt state-law product liability claims.

This case will allow the court to interpret the extent of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which allows federal law to pre-empt state law when the state law conflicts with the federal law or poses an obstacle to accomplishing the goals of the federal law, or compliance with both federal and state requirements is not possible.

In Altria Group v. Good, the first case argued in the new term, the court must rule on whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts deceptive practice claims filed under state law (Maine’s Unfair Trade Practices Act) in connection with the advertising of cigarettes.

The question in this case is the extent to which federal law and Federal Trade Commission statements in 1966 insulate cigarette manufacturers from smokers’ lawsuits challenging the claims of lower tar and nicotine yields.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ashcroft v. Iqbal (oral arguments December 10) asks whether high-level officials of the Bush administration can be sued by Muslim men who say they were jailed and abused after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Javaid Iqbal alleges FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft knew about mistreatment of detainees and bear responsibility for this constitutional violation.

The court will consider whether current and former federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States.

A lower court ruled Iqbal’s case could go forward to permit limited discovery (collection of information held by a rival party in the case), including interviews with Ashcroft and Mueller about decisions they made on treatment of those held in the wake of the attacks. Attorneys for the executive branch maintain that Ashcroft and Mueller are shielded from the lawsuit by the doctrine of “qualified immunity.”

In this case, the Supreme Court might have to rule on whether Iqbal’s constitutional rights were violated before it can address whether federal officials can be held accountable.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

In Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum (oral arguments November 12), the court will consider whether, under the First Amendment, privately donated monuments placed in a public park qualify as private speech or government speech.

The court will review whether the city violated a private group’s free speech rights when it refused to display the group’s proposed monument in a public park that already contained other privately donated but government-owned monuments.

A monument to the Ten Commandments has stood in Pleasant Grove’s city park for nearly four decades. In 2003, a religious organization called Summum asked to erect a monument in the park — adjacent to the Ten Commandments monument — listing the Seven Aphorisms ("psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender"). Followers of Summum believe the aphorisms were on the original tablets handed to Moses. Pleasant Grove rejected the petition and Summum filed suit.

Lower courts rejected the city's argument that the decision to allow a monument in a public park is a form of government speech and ruled that a park is a public forum. Once the city allowed in one monument donated by a private group, it must allow in others, the courts decided.

The city argues that even though public parks are traditional public forums for distributing leaflets, carrying signs and making speeches, there is no similar tradition of allowing private parties to place monuments in public parks. The city maintains it has ultimate discretion on whether and when to accept a monument for display on public property, otherwise parks could become cluttered with monuments or devoid of them as governments were forced to eliminate monuments entirely.

Transcripts of oral arguments will be made available the same day on the Supreme Court’s Web site. Decisions will be posted there as well, but the court can take months to rule on a case.

back to top ^