TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Supreme Court Passes On 2 Church-State Cases

ADVERTISEMENT

By PETE YOST and MARK SHERMAN, The Associated Press

Published: October 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court returned to work Monday by sidestepping two church-state cases that social conservatives had hoped the justices would use to chart a rightward course.

The justices decided not to consider a challenge by religious groups to a New York law requiring health plans to cover birth control pills, and a California case in which an evangelical group was denied use of a public library for religious services.

'We were hoping the Supreme Court would provide broader protections for religious liberties, and both these cases were excellent vehicles to do that,' said Jordan Lorence, an attorney for the evangelical group turned away from the library in Antioch, Calif.

Monday's session, the first of the term, opened with Chief Justice John Roberts, who suffered an unexplained seizure during the summer, questioning lawyers in two cases argued before justices.

The cases involved a Washington state dispute over its political primaries and New York City's challenge of a court ruling forcing it to pay private schooling for a special education student who never tried out public schools.

Monday also marked publication of Justice Clarence Thomas' autobiography, 'My Grandfather's Son.' As part of the book's sales effort, Thomas had lengthy interviews with two television networks and conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. In court, he was no less reticent than usual, asking no questions in two hours of argument.

One of the two oral arguments was over forcing New York City to pay for private schooling for a special education student, a case notable because the man who sued the city is Tom Freston, a former CEO of Viacom.

Justice Antonin Scalia, among several justices skeptical of Freston's case, said affluent parents who have no intention of using public schools might think, 'What the heck, if we can get $30,000 from the city, that's fine.'

In the argument over the Washington case, the political parties want more say over how candidates identify their party affiliations on the ballot.

Justice David Souter said candidates were unlikely to identify themselves with a party unless they agree broadly with its principles.

Earlier, the court issued a list of cases it would not hear this year.

Among them was a dispute over a New York state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT