Supreme Court Updates

The U.S. Supreme Court considered a few cases during its 2008-2009 season that are of some interest to Christians.  This was an unusual year with a more conservative Court than we have seen in many decades.  These outcomes were very positive for Christians, although none of the cases dealt directly with religious liberty issues.  Unfortunately, the Court will likely be heading back in a more liberal direction with President Obama and the Democratic Senate controlling judicial appointments for the foreseeable future.

Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum

In this case, a little known Gnostic religious sect calling itself Summum wanted to erect a monument containing “the Seven Aphorisms of Summum,” in a City park where a Ten Commandments monument was already displayed.  The proposed monument would be similar in size to the Ten Commandments monument.  The President of Summum twice wrote to the Mayor of Pleasant Grove asking permission to erect the monument in the park.  Both times, the Mayor declined the request.  The City’s religion neutral policy required monuments installed in City parks to be either (1) directly related to the history of Pleasant Grove, or (2) donated by groups with longstanding ties to the Pleasant Grove community. 

In 2005, the Summum organization sued Pleasant Grove for refusing to grant permission to erect its monument.  The District Court did not require the City to grant Summum’s request.  Summum appealed, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the City could not reject the monument.  At this point the City appealed to the United States Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court held that placing a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech and that a government entity “is entitled to say what it wishes.” Because the government has the right to “say what it wishes,” the Justices upheld the City’s monument policy as reasonable.  This decision frees government entities to accept monuments like the Ten Commandments that celebrate America’s Judeo-Christian legal heritage without concern that a court will then require the City to also allow some obscure religious sect to erect a similar monument containing concepts irrelevant to the City’s history or traditions. 

This is an important decision by the Court.  Obviously, if a city were required to allow every obscure group to erect a monument in its parks, the parks might become so crowded with monuments that there would be no room for people.  This Supreme Court decision recognized the uniqueness of America’s historic and traditional heritage and it did not require similar recognition of a heritage foreign to our nation’s history and traditions.

Forest Grove School District v. T.A. 

In this case parents removed their special needs child from the Forest Grove schools and placed him in a private school when the school district determined the student did not need an Individualized Education Program (IEP).  When the child continued to have difficulties in school, his parents took him to a private specialist who determined that he suffered from ADHD and other related conditions.  The parents then sought reimbursement from the school system for the student’s private education because the school system had not offered the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

In a 1993 special needs case (Burlington and Florence County School District Four v. Carter), the Supreme Court ruled that federal law authorizes a court to order school systems to reimburse parents for the cost of private tuition when that school district fails to provide their child with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and the private school placement is appropriate for the child.  The difference in the Burlington case was that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) was inadequate.  In the Forest Grove case, the child was offered no IEP at all.  Now parents can be reimbursed in situations where a school system offers either an inadequate Individualized Education Plan or no Individualized Education Plan at all.

These cases may have a significant impact on Christian parents who seek to place their special needs child in a private Christian school when the public school is unable or unwilling to provide their child with the appropriate IEP services.  That is a question similar to one in a case the Christian Law Association took to the Supreme Court nearly a decade ago: Could a school district refuse special education services for a private Christian school student when it would have paid for the same services at a secular private school?  In that case, the matter was resolved out of court when the school system offered to fund the services for the private Christian school student before the case could be decided.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the federal government agency charged with regulating radio and television broadcasting.  This case concerned whether an FCC policy could forbid broadcasting a single offensive expletive, even when that word was not repeated. 

The specific offensive comments were broadcast on Fox Television Stations during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards.  The first incident occurred when Cher used a single expletive, while accepting a 2002 award.  The second incident occurred when Nicole Richie used two expletives in 2003 while discussing her television show, “The Simple Life.”  The FCC had determined that these two incidents both violated federal indecency law; however, the Commission had not imposed any fines or other sanctions for the broadcasts.  Despite the fact that no fines were imposed, Fox and a number of other broadcasters appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and won.  The FCC then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court held that the FCC could prohibit broadcasting even a single indecent word, and that the FCC policy was consistent with its responsibility to enforce federal broadcast obscenity law.  Therefore, the Court determined that the FCC’s strong broadcast indecency policy gives the FCC legal discretion to evaluate incidents of broadcast indecency in context.  If the Commission finds the material to be indecent, the FCC can fine a broadcaster for even a single expletive that is not repeated.

Ysursa, Secretary of State of Idaho v. Pocatello Education Association

Idaho law permits employers to deduct labor union dues from employee paychecks except when the money will be used for the labor union’s political activities.  The Pocatello Education Association, a teacher’s union, claimed this law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  The Federal District Court upheld the law as constitutional with regard to private employees and state employees, but said the state could not prohibit local government employers (counties, cities, etc.) from making payroll deductions even when the money would support labor union political activities. 

The state of Idaho appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  That court agreed with the District Court, so Idaho appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court where the decision was more favorable.  The Supreme Court held that nothing in the First Amendment would prevent a State from prohibiting its political subdivisions to make payroll deductions for political activities.  The Court based this ruling on its understanding that a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right, such as political activity, does not infringe that right.  Also, the Court noted that local governments are not sovereign entities, but are subject to the decisions of the state legislature.  For these reasons, the Supreme Court determined that a state may pass a law prohibiting an employer, either a private employer or a government employer, from deducting contributions for labor union political activities if that is what the state legislature wishes to do.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Ysursa case was similar to a 2007 decision in Davenport v. Washington Education Association, where the court held that a labor organization could not use agency shop fees paid by non union members for election or political activities unless affirmatively authorized by the employee.  “Agency shop fees” are fees that an employee can be required to pay, even if he chooses not to belong to the union.  While these fees may be required to compensate the union for negotiating on behalf of non-members, they may not be used as forced contributions to the union’s political activities.  This decision favorably recognizes the right of employees not to be coerced into supporting union political activities and causes with which they might disagree.

Please Pray for the US Supreme Court

As the US Supreme Court works on the cases that come before it, as Christians in our nation we have a duty to pray for them as they do their work.  Please remember Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices as the decisions they make ultimate impact our nation for generations to come.