Cable TV, Sexual Predator Issues on High Court Docket

As President Clinton and members of Congress rush out of town to campaign around the nation, the Supreme Court officially goes back to work this week, facing questions that range from the free-speech role of cable television to the practical problem of how to control sexual predators.

The justices are set to hear arguments in 46 cases this fall. Last week, they added eight more for January, including the momentous question of whether terminally ill people have a “right to die” with medical help.

The cases come before a court that recently has displayed something of an ideological split personality.

In its last term, the court often sided with liberals on matters of civil rights, civil liberties and free speech.

In a landmark decision, the justices for the first time struck down a law that discriminates against gay men and lesbians as being irrational and unconstitutional. The justices also struck down a men-only policy at the Virginia Military Institute and threw out part of a new federal law that restricted free expression on cable TV’s public-access channels.

At the same time, the court consistently turned thumbs down on claims brought by criminal defendants, death row inmates and other prisoners, instead strengthened the powers of police and prosecutors.

In March, the court upheld a prosecutor’s power to seize property even from an “innocent owner” if the item was used in the commission of a crime.

The mixed record reflects the “new Democrat” voting pattern of Clinton’s two appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 63, and Stephen G. Breyer, 58.

So far, both have lived up to their advanced billings as smart, pragmatic and cautious. Neither can be typecast easily as liberal or conservative.

Ginsburg, for example, strongly endorsed the principle of gender equality in her opinion for the court in the VMI case. However, she also cast the deciding fifth vote in the “innocent owner” case, a ruling that caused a Detroit woman to lose her family car because her husband had used it to pick up a prostitute.

As usual, the November election will have no immediate impact on the high court, but the results could change its direction for the future.

The senior and most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, is 76 years old, while conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recently turned 72.

A President Bob Dole, having campaigned against “liberal judges,” could strengthen the court’s already solid conservative bloc if he had a chance to replace Stevens. By the same token, a reelected President Clinton could create a moderate-liberal majority by replacing Rehnquist.

Neither is a sure bet to leave. Stevens has a buoyant manner and quick intellect that makes him appear 20 years younger. And although Rehnquist has suffered perpetually from back pain, he says he is feeling better since an operation last fall.

This term begins with a 1st Amendment test that will affect what stations appear on Americans’ TV sets.

More than 60% of households now receive TV signals via cable. That means local broadcast stations could lose most of their viewers if a cable operator dropped them.

Four years ago, Congress said that cable operators, nearly all of which have a local monopoly, must carry the signals of the over-the-air stations in their areas. Ever since, the cable industry has challenged the law as a violation of the rights to free speech and a free press.

Lawyers for the cable operators say they are like newspapers that carry a mix of columns and features. Just as the government cannot dictate to newspaper columnists, so can it not require cable companies to carry a particular mix of stations, they argue.

Their critics say a cable TV operator is more like a local telephone system, a common carrier that can be required to carry the conversations of all callers.

Two years ago, the court split the difference and said cable TV could be regulated, as long as the government did not dictate the content of its programs.

After a further hearing in a lower court, the case of Turner Broadcasting vs. the FCC, 95-922, is back and will be argued first on Monday morning.

The owners of independent broadcast stations are watching closely. They say they may be driven out of business if cable operators are allowed to drop their signals.

Next after cable TV comes the free-speech status of the Internet, the worldwide computer network that combines aspects of telephones, newspapers and broadcast transmissions.

Earlier this year, Congress made it a crime to make an “indecent” or “patently offensive” transmission over the computer network. Both the computer industry and civil libertarians protested, and a three-judge court in Philadelphia struck down the rule as a free-speech violation.

The Justice Department recently appealed the case, known as Reno vs. ACLU, and the high court is almost sure to rule on the matter during this term.

If Clinton is reelected, the court is also sure to rule on whether he must answer to a civil suit during his second term. (If Clinton is defeated, his claim of executive immunity will expire anyway.)

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, says the then-governor made sexual advances in a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room, and she has sued him for damages. The president’s lawyers, however, say a busy chief executive cannot be forced to deal with such claims until he leaves office. The case of Clinton vs. Jones, 95-1853, has not been scheduled for argument yet, but will probably be heard in December.

One of Clinton’s prized legislative accomplishments, the Brady Act, also is under challenge in the court. Four years ago, the justices said Congress could not “commandeer” state and local employees and oblige them to carry out federal tasks. Citing that notion, a U.S. appeals court in Texas struck down part of the federal handgun-registration law that requires local sheriffs to conduct background searches on those who ask for a gun permit.

The court will hear the administration’s appeal in the case of Printz vs. U.S., 95-1478.

Meanwhile, state prosecutors are appealing a ruling that threatens new laws that seek to confine those who are deemed “sexual predators.” California, Washington and several other states have enacted laws that allow officials to indefinitely confine sex criminals who are deemed dangerous after they have served their prison terms.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled this indefinite, extra prison term was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal in Kansas vs. Hendricks, 95-1649.

While cases involving “sexual predators” are still rare, police deal every day with drivers who speed or change lanes too often.

Motorists stopped by the police for traffic violations can refuse, at least in theory, to permit an officer to search their car. But police conduct such searches routinely.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently called these searches “fishing expeditions” and ruled them unconstitutional unless officers clearly notified motorists that they were free to leave after answering for the traffic violation.

Meanwhile, the Maryland state courts said police violated the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches” when they routinely demanded that passengers, as well as the driver, get out of the car to be searched.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear the state’s appeal in the first case, known as Ohio vs. Robinette, 95-891. Maryland prosecutors will argue their appeal in December in the case of Maryland vs. Wilson, 95-1268.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Questions Before the Court

When it goes back to work on Monday, the Supreme Court will begin tackling questions touching the lives of Americans. Some of the key issues facing the justices include:

* Is a sitting president immune from answering to civil suits over his private behavior? No, said a federal appeals court in St. Louis in a case involving a sexual-harassment claim filed by a former Arkansas state employee. (Clinton vs. Jones)

* Can Congress, through the Brady Act, require local sheriffs to conduct background checks of those who seek handgun permits? Lower courts are split. (Printz vs. U.S.)

* Can cable TV operators be required by law to carry the broadcast signals of stations in their area? Yes, said a U.S. appeals court in Washington, rejecting a free-speech claim. (Turner Broadcasting vs. FCC)

* Can a judge put a 15-foot “bubble zone” around patients and staff entering abortion clinics and fine antiabortion protesters who approach them to speak? Yes, said a U.S. appeals court in New York. (Schenck vs. Pro-Choice Network)

* Can a state indefinitely confine people who are deemed “sexual predators” after they have served their prison terms? No, said the Kansas Supreme Court. (Kansas vs. Hendricks)

* Can a state’s voters require public employees to use “English only” in official government actions? No, said the U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, citing free-speech concerns. (Arizonans for Official English vs. Yniquez)

* Do competent, terminally ill people have a right to die with medical help? Yes, said the U.S. appeals courts in San Francisco and New York. (Washington vs. Glucksberg and Vacco vs. Quill)

* Can police search a car after stopping a motorist without warning him that he is free to leave? No, said the Ohio Supreme Court. (Ohio vs. Robinette)

* Can Congress make it a crime to make any “indecent” transmission over the Internet? No, said a three-judge court in Philadelphia. (Reno vs. ACLU); Appeal pending.