>Does anyone sub to the WSJ? It is the only newspaper I have found
>which does not let you access it online if you don't subscribe. If
>so, could you post to LBO the article today by Rbt. Greenberger on
>the Supreme Court and states rights. Muchas Gracias
Wall Street Journal - January 12, 2000
Court Says States Are Shielded From Age-Bias Federal Lawsuits
By ROBERT S. GREENBERGER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- With protesters outside chanting support for the Violence Against Women Act, a number of Supreme Court justices questioned a provision in the 1994 law that allows rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court.
Christy Brzonkala, then a freshman at Virginia Tech, used the statute to sue two football players who she alleged had raped her in September 1994. In March 1999, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled Congress overreached its authority in passing the statute. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case; oral arguments were conducted Tuesday.
Almost as soon as Julie Goldscheid, an attorney representing Ms. Brzonkala, began arguing that the federal law is warranted because widespread violence against women affects interstate commerce, Justice Antonin Scalia unleashed a blistering attack. He said that by that logic there should be federal laws for all crimes, since all crimes affect the nation's economy. He also challenged Ms. Goldscheid's contention that providing a federal action in such cases would supplement, not pre-empt state law.
The outspoken and conservative Justice Scalia's criticism wasn't unexpected, but the skepticism expressed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could foreshadow the high court's decision, which is expected before July. Justice O'Connor has frequently joined the 5-4 majority that has ruled in recent cases favoring states' rights over federal power. She is considered a swing vote on this case because sometimes she favors the women's rights side of an issue. Justice O'Connor wondered whether Ms. Goldscheid's approach would lead to a proliferation of federal remedies "for alimony, or child support or contract disputes."
Joined by Solicitor General Seth Waxman in defending the law's constitutionality, Ms. Goldscheid argued that Congress was justified in using its authority under the constitution's Commerce Clause because gender-based violence is a pervasive national problem. She said that finding was "fully supported by evidence."
During four years of congressional hearings, lawmakers produced ample anecdotal evidence to illustrate gender-based violence, as well as the unequal treatment many female victims receive in local courts. But reliable national statistical evidence is hard to come by, partly because gender-based violence sometimes is lumped together with other assault and battery information. For example, Harri Kramer, spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Violence Against Women office, says "There just aren't good statistics on domestic violence," which is a major component of gender-based violence. (Brzonkala vs. Morrison)
In another case involving states' rights, the high court ruled 5-4 that state employees can't use federal law to sue their employers for age discrimination.
Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor noted that the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act contains a "clear statement" of Congress's intent to abrogate states' immunity from such suits. But, she added, "Congress had virtually no reason to believe that state and local governments were unconstitutionally discriminating against their employers on the basis of age" when it wrote the law. Moreover, she said, state age-discrimination statutes protect state workers in almost every state in the nation.
The language of the opinion also raises the prospect that the court believes states also may be protected from worker-discrimination charges in other areas, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act. "States may discriminate on the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest," Justice O'Connor wrote. (Kimel et. al. vs. Florida Bd. of Regents)
In a separate case Tuesday, the court held that a defense lawyer's agreement to hold a trial beyond a 180-day deadline barred his client from later seeking to overturn a conviction based on speedy-trial rights.
The unanimous decision reinstated a New York man's second-degree murder and robbery conviction. The state's highest court had thrown out Michael Hill's convictions and ordered the charges against him dropped. The state court said prosecutors failed to bring Mr. Hill to trial within the time required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, a 1957 compact among nearly all the states. (See the full text of the decision in New York vs. Hill.)