The Supreme Court today issued five decisions, summarized for us by The SCOTUS blog:
In the first of several rulings on the merits, the Court split 5-4 in deciding that a federal agency that is required by law to take a specific action under one federal law does not have to follow the conflicting mandate of the Endangered Species Act. The decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., came in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (06-340) and a companion case.
In the second decision of the day, also written by Alito and again dividing the Court 5-4, the Justices ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to sue to challenge the White House program on federal aid to faith-based organizations. The Court did not overrule Flast v. Cohen, as two Justices in the majority urged it to do so. The case was Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (06-157).
The third decision, written by Justice David H. Souter, found over two Justices' partial dissents that government employees carrying out their official duties and not for personal benefit are not subject to damage claims against them personally based on a lawsuit asserting that they violated the RICO anti-racketeering law or private property rights. The decision came in Wilkie v. Robbins (06-219).
The fourth ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., over three full dissents and one partial dissent, declared that public school officials do not violate a student's free speech rights by punishing the student for words or actions that promote a drug message. The ruling in Morse v. Frederick (06-278) also should count as a 5-4 decision because Justice Stephen G. Breyer would have decided the case on qualified immunity grounds, and not reach the First Amendment issue.
The Court issued its fifth ruling of the day, concluding that a Wisconsin abortion rights group had a First Amendment right to aid during election season campaign ads that named a candidate running for the Senate. Three of the five Justices in the majority urged the Court to overturn the part of a 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections. The Chief Justice's main opinion, joined fully by Justice Alito, said the case did not provide an occasion to revisit that ruling. Justice Souter recited at length from the bench for the four dissenters -- who were in the minority in four of the five rulings on Monday. The ruling came in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and a companion case.
The Justice's busy day prompted WaPo reporter Andrew Cohen to offer up a story headlined Conservatives go 4-4 today at the Supreme Court:
Legal and political conservatives hit for the cycle Monday morning when they "won" four long-awaited rulings from the United States Supreme Court. The Justices further chipped away at the wall that separates church and state, took some of the steam out of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, neutered federal regulators in environmental cases to the benefit of developers and slammed a high school kid who had the temerity to put up a silly sign near his high school.
Nonsense on stilts. Cohen's attempt to fit these cases into a pre-conceived left-right model is a few french fries short of a happy meal.
- There were five opinions issued today, not 4.
- Cohen criticized the majority for having "slammed a high school kid who had the temerity to put up a silly sign near his high school." This case shouldn't count as a "conservative win." After all, as AP reported "Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration [backed the student] out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion."
- Cohen says the majority "neutered federal regulators in environmental cases to the benefit of developers." The ESA case hardly amounts to a spaying of federal officials. It simply held that a conflict between the general rules of the ESA and a specific requirement of another statute is to be resolved in favor of the latter. The ruling only comes into play where it is not legally possible for a federal agency to "simultaneously obey" the relevant ESA provision and a conflicting mandatory provision of another statute.
- Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn't change First Amendment Establishment Clause doctrine or the so-called wall of separation. Instead, it's just a standing case. And it is well-established that taxpaters qua taxpayers generally do not have standing to challenge federal spending programs. Although there is an Establishment Clause exception to that rule, the plurality correctly indicates that it needs to be interpreted narrowly and the concurrence makes a convincing case for getting rid of it.
- As for the case that "some of the steam out of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law," anybody who cares about free speech ought to say "huzzah!"
