State Can’t Bar Veterans From Getting Benefits : Law: U.S. justices let stand ruling that disallows exclusion of those who did not live in California when they entered the service.

California veterans officials may not deny benefits to current state residents because they lived elsewhere when they entered the service, under a ruling left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The decision means that an additional 300,000 veterans are eligible for low-interest home and farm loans provided by the state Department of Veterans Affairs. Prior to the rulings, these 8% loans were restricted to the 600,000 veterans who were Californians when they entered the service.

The decision also invalidates a similar restriction on college aid to students who are the children of disabled veterans.

Without dissent, the justices rejected an appeal filed on behalf of Gov. Pete Wilson who argued that the state should have the right to limit its veterans benefits to California natives and longtime residents.

“This is a states rights issue,” said Benjamin T. Hacker, director of the state Department of Veterans Affairs, who joined the governor in the appeal.

But the state Supreme Court, and now the U.S. Supreme Court, disagreed. In a series of rulings over the last decade, the justices have declared that the Constitution prohibits a state from discriminating among its residents based on how long they lived there. The key ruling came in 1982 when the high court struck down an Alaska law that gave greater shares of the state’s oil windfall to its longtime residents.

Applying that principle, the state Supreme Court in February struck down California’s 71-year-old restriction on aid to veterans. State benefits were limited to returning veterans who were bona fide residents of California “at the time of entry into active duty.”

“The state may choose to honor and reward veterans, and thus may discriminate between veterans and non-veterans,” wrote state Justice Stanley Mosk. “But a statute that divides veterans into two classes, with greater benefits for prior residents, cannot be justified.”

Five veterans had challenged the state restriction in a 1988 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles. The lead plaintiff, Charles Del Monte, joined the service in 1950 from New York and fought in the Korean War, where he became disabled. In 1962, he and his wife, Joan, settled in California.

In a phone interview, Hacker said his department would immediately implement the decision in Wilson vs. Del Monte, 91-1885, and begin accepting applications for Cal-Vet loans from any veteran who resides in the state. Because current low mortgage rates have dampened the demand for Cal-Vet loans, he said, he did not expect to have trouble in funding new applications.

“Right now, we feel we have adequate money to meet current and future loans,” Hacker said.

In November, 1990, the voters approved a $400-million bond measure to continue the loan program. About 2,000 new loans are issued each year, Hacker said. The Legislature recently raised the maximum loan amount to $170,000.

In other actions, the court:

* Gave cities and counties the right to continue burning trash in municipal incinerators. A federal appeals court in Chicago had ruled that such burning generates hazardous waste, which must be disposed of through costly methods mandated by federal environmental laws. But in September, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a memorandum concluding that ash from a municipal incinerator is not hazardous waste. In Chicago vs. Environmental Defense Fund, 91-1328, the justices threw out the earlier appeals court ruling and ordered the appellate judges to reconsider the issue in light of the EPA’s memorandum.

* Revived a long-running suit by the Church of Scientology that seeks to force the Internal Revenue Service to turn over all copies of 1980 tape recordings involving confidants of L. Ron Hubbard. Last year, a federal appeals court in San Francisco declared the case over because the IRS had returned the original recordings. The agency kept copies, however. In a 9-0 ruling in Church of Scientology vs. U.S., 91-946, the justices said it is an “affront to the taxpayer’s privacy” for the IRS to maintain copies of records that were obtained illegally. But the court stopped short of ruling on the merits of the claim and said only that the Scientologists can continue their lawsuit.

* Agreed to rule on whether companies that undertake a concerted campaign of below-cost pricing violate federal antitrust laws. In 1984, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. began marketing discount cigarettes in black and white packages. A few years earlier, its smaller competitor, the Liggett Group, achieved success with the same approach. Lawyers for Liggett accused the larger firm of trying to drive the smaller cigarette maker out of business with below-cost pricing, and a North Carolina jury agreed. In May, however, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out a $148-million verdict. It declared that a company’s below-cost pricing is not illegal unless it monopolizes the market. Argument in Liggett vs. Brown & Williamson, 92-466, will be heard early next year.

* Let stand a Missouri law that limits medical malpractice verdicts for “non-economic” damages to $430,000. Lawyers for a brain-damaged young girl said this state-imposed cap on damages violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law. But the court had earlier upheld similar caps from California and Idaho. Missouri’s law does not limit economic damages, such as the cost of medical care, but it does limit other damages such as amounts for pain and suffering. The case was Adams vs. Children’s Mercy Hospital, 92-533.

* Agreed to resolve a dispute between developers and U.S. housing officials on the amount of federal subsidy due to be paid for operators of low-income housing. In the early 1980s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development discontinued its policy of setting national rates for housing subsidies and began adjusting the rates based on local studies. But federal courts in Los Angeles and Seattle ruled that this switch violated the contract rights of the developers. In Kemp vs. Alpine Ridge, 92-551, the court will consider HUD’s appeal.

* Refused to permit Arizona officials to imprison a man for 40 years for having consensual sex with teen-age girls. Two years ago, the Arizona Supreme Court said this sentence for a 23-year old man amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” forbidden by the 8th Amendment. Last year, the man, Joseph Barlett, was resentenced to a seven-year term.