The Highs and Lows of Supreme Court Discourse

The Supreme Court term that ended Friday included its fair share of memorable highlights and low lights. Here is one observer’s list of a few of them:

BEST RULING: The unanimous decision in Clinton vs. Jones concluding that the president has no immunity from civil lawsuits involving his private life. Take away the famous names and the court’s opinion reads like a routine discussion of immunity law. In the past, the court has been stingy about according immunity to officials at all levels of government. For example, judges are immune for their actions in the courtroom, but they can be sued by a court employee for job discrimination or sexual harassment. Seen in that light, the president’s claim was reduced to asserting, “I’m too busy to be bothered.” None of the justices found that persuasive.

WORST RULINGS: Tie between McMillian vs. Monroe County, Ala., and Bryan County, Okla., vs. Brown. Both were 5-4 rulings that threw out lawsuits against county governments. In the past, the court had said a local government can be forced to pay damages if a top official, acting as a policy-maker, violates someone’s constitutional rights. In Alabama, Walter McMillian was wrongly convicted of murder and spent six years on death row. After being freed, he sued, alleging that the county sheriff had subjected him to racist insults and had manufactured evidence against him. Before a trial, the high court threw out his lawsuit. Why? Because county sheriffs in Alabama act more like state officials, the majority ruled, and therefore cannot be sued in federal court. In an Oklahoma case, the court agreed that Sheriff B.J. Moore was indeed a county official, but ruled the county could not be held liable for his actions because he was not acting as a “policy-maker” when he hired his nephew as a deputy. The nephew had a history of violence and a criminal record. A few days after being hired, he stopped an innocent motorist, pulled her from a car and threw her to the ground, leaving her with two permanently damaged knees and $130,000 in medical bills.

BEST ORAL ARGUMENT: Deputy Solicitor Gen. Seth Waxman in Reno vs. ACLU. Called on to defend the hastily drawn law that sought to ban children’s access to pornography on the Internet, he made a more-than-respectable entreaty in a case that looked to be a loser from the start. The Internet may be “a revolutionary advance in information technology,” he began, but “it threatens to give every child with access to a connected computer a free pass into the equivalent of every adult bookstore and video store in the country.” He got the justices’ attention, but ultimately lost by a 7-2 vote.

WORST ORAL ARGUMENT: Thomas Campagne, a Fresno lawyer, arguing that government-imposed fees on growers for generic ads are unconstitutional in Glickman vs. Wileman Brothers. He had won in the lower courts but faced a rough time during his Supreme Court appearance. His clients had urged that a 1st Amendment expert be hired for the oral argument, but Campagne refused to step aside. The court clerk was forced to flip a coin; Campagne won. Rather than focus on the free-speech claim, Campagne insisted on explaining the marketing orders for California fruit. He waved above his head papers he labeled “Exhibit 297” and “Stipulation 59” until Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cut him off. Despite warnings, the lawyer continued to talk about fruit rather than the 1st Amendment. At one point, he mentioned the virtues of green plums and added, “You’re thinking to yourself right now that you don’t want to give your wife diarrhea, but green plums. . . . “ The justices weren’t amused. Campagne’s clients lost on a 5-4 vote.

MOST TELLING COMMENT FROM BENCH: On May 27, Justice John Paul Stevens began to read the court’s opinion in Paula Jones’ suit against Clinton. That looked to be good news for the president, since Stevens is the most liberal of the senior justices. But then he described the issue as one “involving the individual who happens to be the president.” Everyone then knew the outcome.