DATE: Saturday, June 28, 1997               TAG: 9706280005

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B8   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   89 lines

U.S. SUPREME COURT DEFINING POWERS

U. S. Supreme Court justices cleared their desks this week in order to recess until October. In a last-minute flurry, they handed down sheaves of opinions touching on issues from religious freedom to free speech.

Two of the most important cases concerned the tender balance between church and state. The court's decision in both cases was proper. One case concerned the ability of public schoolteachers, as part of a federally funded program, to give remedial assistance to children in parochial schools. The other was a challenge to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress four years ago.

By a 5-4 vote the court ruled that public schoolteachers could enter church-sponsored schools to give remedial help to needy students.

This was a common-sense decision, which will allow public schools to save hundreds of millions of dollars incurred complying with a 1985 Supreme Court decision forbidding public schoolteachers to enter church schools.

After that ruling, many public-school systems set up computer hook-ups, mobile units and leased classrooms to teach church-school students.

Now, though the court has moved the line regarding church/state separation and public schools, it remains unclear where it will be redrawn. Remediation services by public-school employees are permitted, but what about electives not offered by church schools? More litigation seems certain.

In the second church-state case, the court ruled the Religous Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional and said Congress exceeded its power in passing it.

The act was designed by Congress to trump a Supreme Court decision lawmakers found objectionable. But the justices sternly reasserted their authority and cautioned the other branches of government against trespassing into areas reserved for judicial scrutiny.

This decision, no doubt, will leave some in Congress scrambling to amend the U.S. Constitution, their only remaining recourse.

Meantime, government may limit the actions of religious groups that use illegal drugs, sacrifice goats in city streets or mutilate the genitals of infant girls, all under the auspices of religious freedom.

Other important Supreme Court rulings:

Doctor-assisted suicide: In a truly landmark decision, the court ruled unanimously that Americans do not have a constitutionally protected right to doctor-assisted suicide. We applaud that ruling.

The specter of Dr. Kevorkian unleashed may have been enough to push the entire court into the preservation-of-life corner, or perhaps it was the notion of lawyers deciding when a patient could be certified to be terminally ill.

We hope the decision will not goad overeager prosecutors into invading hospitals and medical records to second-guess private medical decisions that resulted in the death of critically ill patients.

Internet: In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled that Congress violated free-speech rights when it tried to curb smut on the Internet by passing the Communications Decency Act.

This was the court's first foray into cyberspace, and the justices ruled unconstitutional a provision of the 1996 law against indecency online.

In its attempt to protect children from sexually explicit material online, the court said that Congress had also deprived adults from seeing the same material. The rights of adults prevailed.

Even the justices who dissented on other points agreed that the law unconstitutionally restricted communication among adults.

Insider trading. The court was asked to decide if people not affliliated with the actual companies involved can be convicted of insider trading if they profit from information not available to the public. The answer was ``yes'' in a decision that the Securities and Exchange Commission believes will help keep markets honest.

Asbestos. The court ruled that lower courts had exceeded their authority in the settlement of a class-action suit regarding asbestos liability. The majority opinion said courts don't have the power to make such sweeping settlements. Congress must do so.

By implication, the pending deal with the tobacco industry won't pass judicial muster either if it isn't ratified by Congress.

Advertising. A case concerning agricultural advertising offered a reminder that a law can be constitutional - and dead wrong. Under a 1937 law, the Agriculture Department was granted power to regulate many aspects of farm life. In this case, some farmers protested a requirement that they fund generic advertising.

The court said the law was perfectly legal. While the court may not have the power to throw the law out, Congress does and should.

Line-item veto. The court refused to rule on the constitutionality of the presidential line-item veto.

The case was brought by six members of Congress who asserted that the veto usurps power from the legislative branch. Since the veto hasn't yet been used, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the six ``have alleged no injury to themselves.'' He asserted that the law could be challenged, however, by anyone affected by a line-item veto after the president exercises that authority. Stay tuned.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu