High Court to Hear Haitian Refugee Case : Law: The justices open a new session. They will rule on whether the U.S. can intercept and return boat people without a hearing.

The Supreme Court, opening its fall term, agreed Monday to decide whether the Bush Administration is violating the law by intercepting fleeing Haitians on the high seas and returning them to their troubled island without a hearing.

The justices also said that they would try again to clarify the line between church and state in the context of schools. In one case, the court will rule on whether church groups deserve equal access to meeting facilities in a public school. In a second, the justices will decide whether the Constitution permits the use of public funds to pay for a deaf child’s interpreter in a Catholic high school.

These three cases were among 21 that the high court agreed Monday to hear in the coming year, with written opinions to be delivered by July. Roughly 1,400 appeals were dismissed without comment.

Over the last year, human rights advocates have faulted the Bush Administration and the Supreme Court for seeming to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Haitians fleeing economic and political turmoil in the Caribbean island nation.

Some have gone so far as to accuse the Administration of racism for its unwillingness to grant asylum--or even hearings in many cases--to the refugees, who are black.

U.S. officials counter by saying that this nation cannot cope with such a huge wave of impoverished refugees.

Four times in the last year, the high court acted to allow the government’s mass repatriation of Haitians to continue. In three instances, the justices lifted injunctions granted by judges in Florida or New York.

But the court has yet to rule on the key underlying legal question: Does the Refugee Act of 1980 apply to aliens who are seized before they reach American shores?

That law says U.S. officials “shall not deport or return any alien” who faces the threat of political persecution in his homeland. However, Administration lawyers say that the law does not protect the Haitians, who have been intercepted at sea.

Since the Haitian army overthrew elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide a year ago, at least 37,000 Haitians have fled the island in open boats. Initially, Coast Guard cutters were ordered to intercept the boats and briefly interview the passengers to discern their reasons for fleeing.

About one-third of the fleeing Haitians were “screened in” as potential political refugees and sent to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for further processing. More than two-thirds were judged to be fleeing poverty, however, not persecution, and they were immediately shipped home. The high court upheld this approach in two brief orders.

On May 24, however, President Bush announced a stiff new policy. Thereafter, all the fleeing Haitians were to be intercepted at sea and returned home immediately without offering them a chance to plead for asylum. The White House said that the “massive outflow of migrants” had overwhelmed U.S. facilities.

In response, lawyers for the Haitians filed a new suit in New York, contending that the Administration had erected a “floating Berlin Wall” around the Caribbean island in violation of the 1980 law.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in late July. “The plain language of the (1980 law) clearly states that the United States may not return aliens to their persecutors, no matter where in the world those actions take place,” the court said on a 2-1 vote. The dissenter was Judge John M. Walker Jr., George Bush’s cousin.

Two days later, the high court voted, 7 to 2, to allow the mass repatriation to continue while the Administration prepared a formal appeal. Predictably, the court on Monday agreed to hear the government’s appeal in the case (McNary vs. Haitian Centers Council, 92-344). Repeatedly in recent years, the more conservative court has ruled that immigration policy is to be decided by the executive branch, not Congress or the courts.

The first of the public school cases involves a request by an evangelical Christian group in suburban Long Island, N.Y., to show a Christian-oriented film in a public school after school hours. Officials refused the request, even though civic groups are permitted to meet in the building.

Two federal courts upheld that decision, but the justices said they will rule on whether church groups are entitled to “equal access” to public school facilities. The case is Lamb’s Chapel vs. Center Moriches Union School District, 91-2024.

In the second case, the parents of James Zobrest, a deaf student, are seeking reimbursement for the cost of an interpreter in his Catholic high school in Tucson. Federal law obliges school officials to provide a “free appropriate public education” for disabled children, but Tucson officials say that they cannot pay for interpreters in parochial schools.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in May, ruling on a 2-1 vote that to do so would create a “symbolic union” between church and state. The justices will reconsider that decision in the case (Zobrest vs. Catalina Foothills School District, 92-94).

In other actions, the court:

* Let stand a ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply to suits filed before the law took effect. The case (Mozee vs. American Commercial Marine, 92-248), was the first to raise this issue, but the court may agree to rule on the question later.

* Let stand an arbitrator’s ruling that a union worker may not be fired for grabbing the breasts of a female co-worker. The arbitrator said this was not an “extremely serious offense,” such as stealing, and suspended the worker for 30 days. The Chrysler Corp. asked the court to hear the case (Chrysler vs. International Union, 92-38) so it could fire the employee.

* Agreed to rule on whether an association of construction contractors can challenge a city law that gives contract preferences to minorities. The case (Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated Contractors vs. Jacksonville, 91-1721) gives the court a chance to re-enter the controversy over affirmative action and contract set-asides.

RELATED STORY: D1