Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 24, 1994 TAG: 9402240208
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Federal officials already can be sued over alleged constitutional violations under a 1971 Supreme Court ruling. Allowing lawsuits against federal agencies would end the deterrent effect of the earlier ruling, Wednesday's unanimous decision said.
"If we were to recognize a direct action for damages against federal agencies, we would be creating a potentially enormous financial burden for the federal government," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
The court also issued separate decisions letting federal agencies refuse to give employees' home addresses to unions that want to use the information to seek new members, and making it easier for some people to win civil rights lawsuits against government officials.
The case involving lawsuits against federal agencies stemmed from the 1982 firing of John H. Meyer from his job as an executive at Fidelity Savings and Loan in San Francisco.
The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. had been appointed federal receiver for the thrift, and Meyer was fired with no chance to contest the action. He sued the FSLIC.
Meyer said California law gave him a constitutionally protected right to the job he had held for 16 years, and said the federal agency could not take his job away without giving him some type of due process, such as a hearing.
Thomas also wrote the court's unanimous opinion in the case involving union efforts to get federal workers' home addresses.
"Disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," Thomas said .
The Privacy Act of 1974 generally bans disclosure of personal information, but it allows agencies to disclose information that must be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The decision came in cases from Mississippi and Texas.
The high court also ruled unanimously in the case regarding civil rights lawsuits against government officials.
Federal appeals courts must consider all legal precedents - even those not raised by the people who appeal - in reviewing rulings that shielded government officials from lawsuits, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote.
The decision reversed a ruling that said if a person fails to find the right legal precedent to support his case, it is not up to an appeals court to do it for him.
The case involved a man who said Idaho police improperly arrested him in his home without a warrant in April 1987. Charles K. Elder's lawyers failed to cite the right legal precedent.
by CNB