Vouchers to HMOs on High Court List

Heading into the final month of its term, the Supreme Court has yet to decide 31 cases, more than a third of the year’s total. And, as usual, they include many of the most significant disputes before the justices.

Typically, the high court hands down its final opinions during the last week in June and then adjourns for the summer. Here are some of the major cases that are pending:

Vouchers--Can the state give parents vouchers that can be used to send their children to parochial schools, or does this subsidy violate the Constitution’s ban on taxpayer aid for religion? A ruling upholding Ohio’s voucher plan would give a big boost to the “school choice” movement nationwide. (The case is Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751.)

Death penalty--Can a state impose the death penalty on a murderer who is mentally retarded, or is that cruel and unusual punishment? (Atkins vs. Virginia, 00-8452)

Drug testing--Can high schools force students participating in extracurricular activities to undergo random drug tests, or does this amount to an unreasonable search and a violation of an individual’s privacy? A ruling in favor of an Oklahoma school district’s drug-testing policy is likely to encourage other schools to do the same. (Board of Education vs. Earls, 01-332)

HMOs--Can states give HMO patients a right to an independent medical review of their claims for treatment? California and most other states have adopted such laws recently, but the health insurance industry that these measures violate the federal law that regulates employee benefits. (Rush Prudential HMO vs. Moran, 00-1021)

Judicial elections--Do elected judges and their challengers have a free-speech right to take stands on controversial issues, or can states forbid judicial candidates to speak out on issues that might come before the courts? (Republican Party of Minnesota vs. Kelly, 01-521)

Sidewalk solicitors--Can cities require door-to-door solicitors to register and obtain a permit, or does this violate free-speech rights? The Jehovah’s Witnesses are fighting an Ohio village, but the ruling could set new national rules for solicitors. (Watchtower vs. Village of Stratton, 00-1737)

Census sampling--Despite a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting most sampling, the Census Bureau says it “imputes” a number for the residents of households that do not respond to requests. This practice resulted in an increase of 1.2 million in the census count, or just 0.4%. But the extra numbers shifted the last seat in the U.S. House from Utah to North Carolina, and Utah’s lawyers are urging the court to outlaw the use of these “imputed” numbers.

Disabled workers--Employers may not refuse to hire a qualified but disabled worker, except where doing so would pose “a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals.” Chevron turned away Mario Echazabal for a job at its oil refinery in El Segundo when company officials learned he had liver problems. They said workplace chemicals and solvents would pose a “direct threat” to his health, but he sued, alleging the choice was his, not an employer’s. (Chevron vs. Echazabal, 00-1406)

Bus search--Can police or federal agents walk down the aisles of buses and other public vehicles and ask to search passengers’ bags for drugs, or would this amount to an “unreasonable search,” banned by the 4th Amendment? Bush administration lawyers said these searches are needed to fight the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. (U.S. vs. Drayton, 01-631)

Death sentences--In Arizona and eight other states, judges rather than juries decide which convicted killers receive a death sentence. But that system is being challenged under a recent high court ruling that said jurors must decide the key facts in a criminal case. If the justices take the same view in the case of Ring vs. Arizona, they could upset as many as 800 death sentences.