Court to Rule if Judges Can Bar Closure of Bases : Law: Justices are expected to decide against permitting judicial intervention. If it were allowed, many shutdowns would be delayed.

With scores of major military bases now designated for closure, the Supreme Court announced Monday that it would rule on whether judges can block the Pentagon’s plan to shut down any particular facility.

If judges can intervene, many lawsuits contesting the closures are likely to be filed and, if nothing else, delay further shutdowns for years.

But the high court is more likely to rule that courts cannot intervene in the process. Repeatedly, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and his colleagues have moved to keep judges from interfering with decisions made through political processes.

Moreover, the justices usually agree to review a lower court decision when they disagree with the outcome.

In this case, a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia said in May that judges can block a base closure. Attorneys for the Clinton Administration objected and on Monday the high court agreed to hear their appeal of the case (Dalton vs. Specter, 93-289).

In the past, the Pentagon had found it nearly impossible to close an unneeded military base because the local representatives in Congress would work feverishly to block the action. In 1990, Congress resolved to end that stalemate by taking steps to remove politics from the process.

Under the Defense Base Closure Act, an independent commission was set up to study the military’s needs and to recommend which bases should be closed or restructured. Unless the President or Congress vetoed those recommendations, the closures were to take effect.

Nonetheless, a host of prominent politicians representing the Greater Philadelphia area, including Pennsylvania’s U.S. senators, Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Harris Wofford, complained when they learned that the venerable Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was recommended for closure.

They filed a lawsuit, charging that the Pentagon and its base-closing commission had failed to follow the correct procedures and had concealed evidence about the benefits of the Philadelphia shipyard before recommending that it be shut down.

Initially, U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter dismissed the suit on the grounds that the law “precludes judicial review.”

But on a 2-1 vote, the U.S. court of appeals in Philadelphia revived the lawsuit. It ruled that, since courts have the inherent authority to stop the government from taking illegal actions, judges can intervene if officials fail to follow correct procedures.

Last year, the high court gave a strong signal that it disagreed with this ruling.

Acting on a government appeal, the justices reversed the decision in a one-line order and told the appeals court to restudy the matter. Specifically, the court pointed to a 1992 ruling in a different case in which the court held that judges have no authority to tell the government what formula it must use in dividing congressional seats among the states.

Ignoring the hint, the appeals court simply reinstated its decision, leading to Monday’s order granting a review of the matter. The justices will hear arguments in the case in January and issue a decision by July.

In the most recent round of cutbacks, 130 domestic bases were designated for closure and another 45 were designated to be restructured. The Pentagon said in 1988 and 1991 that it would close 120 bases and facilities.

In another case Monday, the court let stand a $1-million verdict won by a 98-year-old Arkansas woman whose photo was displayed above a phony story in a supermarket tabloid.

Nellie Mitchell was well known in the small town of Mountain Home north of Little Rock because, since the Depression era, she had run a newsstand and delivered newspapers door to door.

But three years ago, she was embarrassed when the Sun, a tabloid owned by a Canadian publisher, ran a photo of her with the story headlined: “World’s oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she’s pregnant.”

The story referred to an “Audrey Wiles of Stirling, Australia,” but the reporter who wrote it admitted he made it up entirely.

Mitchell filed a suit charging that her privacy had been invaded and that she had been portrayed falsely. A jury agreed and awarded her damages.

In its appeal of the case (Globe International vs. Mitchell, 93-172), the publisher contended that the verdict violated its free-press rights, but the court rejected this claim without comment.

Attorney Roy Danusher, who represented Mitchell, said that she was delighted to hear about the final decision Monday morning.

“So many people told her at first that she did not have a chance to go after a big company. She said she was so pleased that her rights as a private citizen were protected, too,” he said.