Supreme Court's Term Defies Easy Explanation Equal Treatment under Law, Free Speech Unite the Justices

By Compiled From News Services | St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO), July 4, 1996 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court's Term Defies Easy Explanation Equal Treatment under Law, Free Speech Unite the Justices


Compiled From News Services, St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)


FORGET THE USUAL LABELS: Liberal or conservative. Pro-government or anti-government. Activist or restrained.

The major rulings of the Supreme Court's 1995-96 term, which ended Monday, can be explained by the justices' allegiance to two constitutional principles: strict equal treatment under law and freedom of speech, broadly defined. Those two principles bring together the justices from across the spectrum, even if they yield rulings that confound the usual analysis.

Consider the three leading civil rights rulings of the term. The justices struck down an anti-gay state amendment in Colorado, opened the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to women and threw out the majority-black congressional districts in Texas and North Carolina.

The first two decisions were cheered by liberals, the third by conservatives, but each resulted from a demanding application of the 14th Amendment, which says no state shall "deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."

Colorado's voters in 1992 adopted a state initiative known as Amendment 2 that barred gays and lesbians from obtaining legal protections against discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

Normally, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court upholds state laws and defers to the wishes of the voters. But not this time.

The equal-protection clause demands "the law's neutrality when the rights of persons are at stake. . . . Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals to make them unequal to everyone else," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for a 6-3 majority.

VMI had enrolled only men in its 157 years, and officials of the military academy argued that its harsh, physically demanding style of education was unsuited to women. Federal judges in Virginia could not bring themselves to end the all-male tradition.

The Supreme Court had no trouble doing so. By a 7-1 vote, it brushed aside generalizations about the sexes and ruled that the equal-protection clause simply does not permit the "categorical exclusion" of women from a state-funded school.

But the equal-treatment principle does not always work in favor of traditional victims of discrimination, such as racial minorities or women. As this Supreme Court showed, the rule also can work against them.

In a blow to affirmative action, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to rule that "racial preferences" in public contracting are unconstitutional, except to remedy proven discrimination.

The same 5-4 majority struck down three "majority-minority" districts in Texas and one in North Carolina. The equal protection clause does not allow state officials to use race as a "predominant factor" in drawing electoral lines, the Supreme Court said.

On Monday, the Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court ruling that struck down an affirmative-action policy at the University of Texas Law School. Although it was not a final ruling, all nine justices agreed that the equal-protection clause does not allow a two-track admissions policy that sets different standards for white and black applicants.

Free speech is a similarly cherished constitutional principle but also one that sometimes yields surprising results.

In recent decades, the free-speech principle has been built into a powerful pillar of the law, one that stands just as solidly in the nominally conservative court led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In previous terms, the justices have struck down laws against the burning of flags and crosses as well as measures that outlawed "dial-a-porn." They also unanimously threw out a jury verdict over a crude satire in Hustler magazine.

This term was also a good one for the free-speech principle.

In May, the justices struck down laws in Rhode Island and nine other states that prohibited the advertising of beer and liquor prices - a decision that spells trouble for President Bill Clinton's proposal to ban cigarette ads directed at youth.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court's Term Defies Easy Explanation Equal Treatment under Law, Free Speech Unite the Justices
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.