Media Inflating Roberts' Medical Episode

Yesterday, CJ Roberts was treated at a hospital in Maine for his second seizure in 14 years. The first seizure apparently occurred while he was going through his confirmation hearings for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Some have pointed to stress as a triggering factor for Roberts' first seizure. This time, Roberts was on vacation when the second seizure occurred.

Because of Roberts' two seizures, medical doctors now consider Roberts to have epilepsy. Among some of the options for treatment are medication (which apparently can have some unpleasant side effects) or doing nothing and waiting. Some states prohibit sufferers of epilepsy from driving until they can prove that their condition is under control.

Admittedly the Justice is not in the best of health. However, it appears that the media and in specific, Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times in an article, takes a rather extreme view of what has happened. A man in his early 50s has visited the hospital for a condition which medicine can treat. There's nothing more and nothing less. Greehouse seems to imply that the legal world will now face great changes using almost hyperbolic language. She says:

"In October, when he returns to his seat at the center of the Supreme Court bench, will colleagues and courtroom spectators see the same golden youth whose trajectory was unmarked by setback or sorrow? Or will they see someone suddenly vulnerable, with a medical condition that, while treatable and shared by millions, can still inspire fear?

Or to dig deeper, might this encounter with illness even change the way John Roberts sees himself, his job or the world?"

She continues:

"Nearly two years ago, after Chief Justice Roberts took the oath of office, he was accompanied down the steps of the court by Justice John Paul Stevens, 35 years his senior. Justice Stevens stumbled slightly, and the waiting crowd held its breath as the new young justice helped him regain his balance. Justice Stevens is still playing golf and tennis. It is John Roberts for whom the country now holds its breath."

Greenhouse draws a contrast between Stevens who is the oldest justice sitting on the bench and Roberts, the youngest justice currently presiding over the Court. It is highly unlikely the majority of the country is even giving a second thought to Roberts and his more than likely 30 year stint to come on the Court.

Greenhouse and the rest of the media need to calm down, relax, and instead of holding their breath for an obviously in-good-health justice, take a deep breath. Perhaps even take a chill pill.

Response to America's View of an Increasingly Conservative USSC

A recent Washington Post article has found that an increasing percentage of Americans view the USSC as "too conservative." While about half of the respondents in a Washington Post-ABC News poll view the Court as issuing "balanced" decisions (perhaps as many ideologically conservative decisions as liberal decisions), there was a jump in the percentage that felt the Court was "too conservative": 31 percent, up from 19 percent in 2005. Those who felt that the Court issued "balanced" decisions also decline from 55 percent to 47 percent in the last two years since the nominations of CJ Roberts and Justice Alito.

The poll is interesting in trying to gauge and analyze how the general American populus views the Court. Given the fact that most of the decisions regarding abortion, race, and free speech this term have been quite complicated it seems that the majority of the Americans surveyed in this poll have oversimplified the issues and the opinions of the newly appointed justices currently sitting on the Court.

While the bottom line of these decisions (regarding abortion, race, and free speech) was against what one normally would view as a liberal position on these issues, the decisions themselves and how the justices reached their respective conclusions matters in how future justices and judges will interpret their decisions. Admittedly, the free speech test applied in Morse was slightly confusing and rather vague in its application, but those decisions regarding abortion and race all
are very careful in how they talk about restricting the rights of abortion and also the use of race in high school admissions.

Perhaps most of the sentiment among Americans about the shift in the High Court comes from what they read and listen to on a daily basis: the media. The media works under time constraints and caters to a public that does not necessarily have the time to digest complicated legal analysis or jargon. Perhaps the bottom line of these decisions is the only real thing that is communicated by the media to the public and having seen only the bottom line, the public perception of the Court and its justices' thinking is not fully understood.

Race in Schools: A Move Beyond Integration to Diversity

Many journalists have categorized the recent decision regarding race-based assignments in high schools as a win for conservatives. After all the decision, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, seems to turn back the clock on progress that has been made regarding race and race relations in the United States.

Yet summing up the decision in so many words is not that simple. The 185 page decision is quite nuanced. The conservative plurality authored by CJ Roberts, and joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy is quite careful in not striking down any race based means of achieving the high school's end goal of creating a diverse student body, but only goes so far as to say that purely race based means of doing so are unconstitutional. The opinion does not overturn any past precedent, but merely serves to clarify it. Kennedy's concurrence serves to emphasize this distinction.

He says:

"This Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated societythat ensures equal opportunity for all of its children. A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered. What the government is not permitted to do, absent a showing of necessity not made here, is to classify every student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on that classification. Crude measures of this sort threaten to reduce children to racial chits valued and traded according to one school’s supply and another’s demand."

Both liberals and conservatives should agree that this crude classification of children solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. It goes against the very meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. It would also go against the very individualized method of review that the Court in Grutter approved. The court made it explicit in the two University of Michigan affirmative action cases that the reason for approving one system of review and striking down another was the more individualized method of review where race was not equated with diversity, but one of many factors that could contribute to the meaning of diversity. Justice Kennedy should be applauded for upholding and making special note of this precedent, even though he did not join in the majority's opinion in Grutter.

The decision conforms to what much of Bakke, Grutter, and Gratz have told us over the past 30 years. The days of pure race based integration measures for simply remedying for the effects of past discrimination are over. We have moved beyond integration for the sole purposes of integration. Integration serves a new goal now. That new goal is diversity. The goal, it appears, serves a dual purpose: 1) increasing education and tolerance among members of society and 2) remedying for the effects of past discrimination.

While remedying for the effects of past discrimination may not be necessary anymore at some point (as O'Connor prophetically said in Grutter that affirmative action measures would be expected to end in 25 years), it seems that as long as there is a society that values education and tolerance, race will be an ever present factor in discussions about diversity and society will never truly be colorblind.

Student Free Speech Decision: Yields a Confusing Test

Yesterday, the Court handed down its opinion in one of two blockbuster cases remaining to be decided: Morse v. Frederick. The case decides whether an Alaska school can limit student free speech regarding illegal drugs. The student, Joseph Frederick ,was suspended after displaying a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and he subsequently sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

The decision seems to chip away at a clear and applicable test for restricting First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. Precedent has usually cited safety as a primary concern for restricting freedom of speech and the Court's decision in Morse expands the definition of safety slightly too much.

CJ Roberts writes the opinion for a highly fractured majority: Scalia joins with Roberts, Alito and Kennedy write concurring opinions, and Breyer joins in the outcome of the case, but for a different reason than the other four justices. A common thread among all five justices, however, is that the school should win. Save Justice Breyer, the Court found that the student banner which was displayed at a parade reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was speech that "materially and substantially disrupted the work and discipline of the school." How? By encouraging illegal drug use which has become an enormous problem among adolescents. Therefore restricting this speech will lower peer pressure to use illegal drugs such as the one in this case, marijuana.

The connection between the banner and increased drug usage is tenuous at best. The Court provides no evidence showing that the school experienced or would experienced increased numbers of students using drugs after being exposed to the sign. Moreover, the strongest stimulus of peer pressure, which would cause students to use illegal drugs, is not removed by the sign and subsequent speech being banned by the school. The ban shows disapproval, but would adolescent teens ever really listen to an adult's simple disapproval?

Stevens in his dissent gets it right. He writes:

The Court’s test invites stark viewpoint discrimination. In this case, for example, the principal has unabashedly acknowledged that she disciplined Frederick because she disagreed with the pro-drug viewpoint she ascribed to the message on the banner, see App. 25—a viewpoint, incidentally, that Frederick has disavowed, see id., at 28. Unlike our recent decision in Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U. S. (2007) (slip op., at 3), see also ante, at 3 (ALITO, J., concurring), the Court’s holding in this case strikes at "the heart of the First Amendment" because it upholds a punishment meted out on the basis of a listener’s disagreement with her understanding (or, more likely, misunderstanding) of the speaker’s viewpoint. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).

In addition, he cites Tinker again, placing emphasis upon the fact that "Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance." CJ Roberts draws too many lines and has to make too many assumptions in showing the connection between Frederick's sign and an increase in student drug use. There is no "significant fear of disruption." At least none in the opinion was shown or advocated by the school itself.

One other danger of "viewpoint discrimination," as Justice Stevens calls it, would be that moral judgments either on the morality of gay marriage, stem cell research, or abortion would become at least conceivably regulated under the school's policy of anything that "materially or substantially would disrupt the work or discipline of the school." Resolving teenage pregnancy through abortion may very well be an increasing problem for America, but does the school have a right to limit speech which may advocate for a pro-choice position? The test the Court lays out in Morse would appear to affirm a school's decision to limit that kind of speech.

Justice Breyer also points out an interesting situation:

If, for example, Frederick’s banner had read"LEGALIZE BONG HiTS," he might be thought to receive protection from the majority’s rule, which goes to speech "encouraging illegal drug use." Ante, at 2 (emphasis added). But speech advocating change in drug laws might also be perceived of as promoting the disregard of existing drug laws.

Legal principles must treat like instances alike. Those principles do not permit treating "drug use" separately without a satisfying explanation of why drug use is sui generis. To say that illegal drug use is harmful to students, while surely true, does not itself constitute a satisfying explanation because there are many such harms. During a real war, one less metaphorical than the war on drugs, the Court declined an opportunity to draw narrow subject-matter-based lines. Cf. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943) (holding students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during World War II).

Indeed, the Court does not consider the chilling effects that their decision creates on possibly educative speech which will broaden student's horizons and force them to make educated and informed choices (whether on the use of illegal drugs or support for an unpopular war)--something which would substantially aid the work and discipline of the school, rather than disrupt.

The Court authors a problematic decision in Morse. It will likely see this case revisited once more so that they can fashion a more coherent approach to free speech in schools.

Increasing Tension in Lower Court Nominations

It is well known among scholars of the law that most of the power to decide cases lies with lower court judges rather than courts of appeal or courts of review. The rationale is that higher courts, while they have the power of reviewing lower court decisions, do not have the time to review all of the lower court decisions and therefore they usually stand as the law.

However, it appears that there is always a frenzy over appointing judges at higher levels in the court system. Alito and Roberts are examples on the USSC. On lower courts, we saw in the summer of 2005 the contentious battles over the nomination of Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown for federal courts. Owens was finally confirmed for her seat on a federal appellate court and Brown now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Recently, a similar, but less contentious battle over the Governor John Corzine's nominee for chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court has brought to light this battle over lower court nominees. Corzine nominated Stuart Rabner, former attorney general for the state, but some minorities in the New Jersey Senate criticized Corzine for Rabner's nomination citing the fact that not as much consideration was given to minority candidates.

Rabner was confirmed by a vote of 36-1 indicating that although there was concern over his nomination, this did not pose much of a threat to his nomination. It appears, therefore that either credentials were more important in state legislators decision to confirm Rabner or that his political ideology was in line with that of state legislators despite concerns over his race.

Can Roberts Continue to Forge Consensus Among the Justices?

CJ John Roberts, at last year's Georgetown Law Center commencement ceremonies, said that unanimous opinions are something for which the Court should strive. They "promote clarity and guidance for the lawyers and for the lower courts trying to figure out what the Supreme Court meant," Roberts said. At the time of his commencement address, the Roberts Court had issued 31 unanimous opinions out of 46 total--a record for the modern USSC according to CNN.com.

Yet, this term reflects a different type of demeanor on the Roberts Court. Already three justices have read dissents aloud from the bench. This technique is used rather rarely and signals a growing discomfort among some justices with what may be a shifting ideology on the Court. Stevens read aloud his dissent in a case regarding juror selection and Ginsburg read aloud her dissents in two cases: one dealing with abortion and the other pay equity among men and women.

The Court must still issue two opinions on rather controversial issues: race and freedom of expression. It will be interesting to see if they can reach some common ground. They have done so before in rather controversial cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and in a more recent case dealing with gay rights, Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006).

The First Lady of the Court: Sandra Day O'Connor

It has almost been the first full term with both CJ Roberts and Justice Alito. Without a doubt media coverage will reflect upon what these two jurists have done while on the Court and possibly how they have changed the ideological direction of the highest court in the land.

Yet, not much media attention has been earned by the first lady of the USSC since her retirement in July 2005. What has she done since and what is she planning to do?

Apparently, O'Connor has accepted a position as chancellor of the law school of William and Mary College. In addition to her other commitments such as speech and book writing, caring for her husband (who currently suffers from Alzheimer's disease), appeals court hearings, O'Connor also decided to dabble a bit with foreign policy. She served on the committee which was commissioned by Congress to find a "new way forward in Iraq."

She maintains her chambers in the USSC building till this day as all retired justices are allowed to do.