[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE SUPREME COURT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 9, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, July 9, 1997, into the Congressional Record.

                           The Supreme Court

       The U.S. Supreme Court recently completed its 1996-1997 
     term with a flurry of landmark opinions on a wide range of 
     issues, including assisted suicide, religious freedom and the 
     Brady gun law. This term of the Court showed the 
     extraordinary role and power of the Supreme Court in 
     redesigning the institutions of our government and in 
     allocating power among them. With unusual assertiveness and 
     confidence, the Court struck down three federal laws in a 
     single day and sided against the White House on cases 
     involving Paula Jones and Whitewater.
       The Court, particularly its conservative majority, has 
     strongly-held views about the structure of our constitutional 
     form of government, and is not afraid to exercise judicial 
     authority to that end. Restraining federal power is one 
     overarching theme in the Court's decisions this term. The 
     Court struck several blows for states' rights at the expense 
     of Congress, limited claims of immunity by the White House, 
     and even acted to curtain federal judicial authority in 
     certain matters.
       The Court continues to be narrowly divided on many issues. 
     Seventeen cases were decided by 5-to-4 votes. The 
     conservative justices--Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, 
     and Kennedy--voted together on many of the key decisions, 
     including the decision overturning the Brady gun law. But 
     this term lacked the rancorous debate of previous years, and 
     the Court was surprisingly united on several important cases, 
     including the two decisions rejecting a constitutional right 
     to assisted suicide.
       What follows is a summary of the major decisions this term:


                            Assisted suicide

       In perhaps the most anticipated decisions of the term, the 
     Court rejected claims that there was a constitutional right 
     to assisted suicide. The Court held that the states may bar 
     or allow assisted suicide as they choose. Currently, only one 
     state, Oregon, allows assisted suicide. The decision was also 
     significant in that the Court declined to involve itself in a 
     difficult social issue, deferring instead to state 
     legislatures.


                        Federal-state relations

       The Court also addressed fundamental questions about the 
     distribution of power between states and the federal 
     government. The conservative majority has acted in recent 
     years to curb the reach of federal authority, particularly 
     when it may intrude on state powers. In 1995, for example, 
     the Court overturned a federal law banning gun possession 
     within 1000 feet of a school.
       The Court struck two more blows for states' rights this 
     term. First, the Court invalidated provisions of the Brady 
     gun law which required local law enforcement officials to 
     conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. 
     The Court said that Congress cannot ``dragoon'' state and 
     local officials into administering or enforcing a federal 
     regulatory program. The effect of the decision will likely be 
     limited because most states, including Indiana, also require 
     background checks, and because the Brady law's five-day 
     waiting period for gun purchases remains intact. Second, the 
     Court invalidated the Religious Freedom Act which aimed to 
     protect religious practices from government interference. The 
     Court ruled that Congress has the authority to enforce 
     constitutional rights, but not, as in this case, to make a 
     substantive change in the meaning of the Constitution. The 
     Court stressed that it, and not Congress, has that 
     responsibility. The decision makes it easier for state and 
     local authorities to pass laws of general applicability, such 
     as zoning restrictions, even if those laws have the 
     incidental effect of burdening a religious practice.


                           Presidential power

       The Court decided several important cases relating to 
     Presidential power. First, the Court unanimously rejected the 
     President's request for delay in the Paula Jones lawsuit 
     until he leaves office. The civil suit involving alleged 
     sexual harassment while the President was Governor of 
     Arkansas must now go forward. Second, the Court refused to 
     consider a White House claim that attorney-client privilege 
     attached to notes taken by White House lawyers during 
     conversations with Hillary Clinton about the Whitewater 
     matter. The White House has now turned over the notes to 
     Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr. Third, and in a partial 
     victory for the President, the Court rejected a challenge to 
     the line-item veto law, which gives the President authority 
     to strike certain provisions from spending and tax measures. 
     The Court said that the members of Congress who brought the 
     suit did not have ``standing'' to sue, which means that the 
     Court will not address the merits of the claim until the 
     President actually exercises the line-item veto.


                           Free speech rights

       The Court handed down important decisions relating to the 
     First Amendment. First, the Court invalidated a federal law 
     which made it a crime to knowingly send or display indecent 
     material over the Internet, where children can see it. The 
     Court unanimously said that the law would suppress too much 
     speech among Internet users. Second, the Court permitted 
     public schoolteachers to provide remedial help to students at 
     parochial schools. The Court had previously held that public 
     funds could not be spent in this way without violating the 
     separation between church and state.


                              Criminal law

       The Court upheld a Kansas law which permits states to 
     confine certain violent sex offenders in mental hospitals 
     after they have served their criminal sentences. The Court 
     also made it easier for police to conduct car searches during 
     routine traffic stops.


                               Conclusion

       The Court's major decisions this term aim to restrain the 
     exercise of federal power, particularly by Congress. For a 
     Court that often preaches judicial restraint, it did not 
     hesitate to exercise extraordinary judicial power. The 
     practical effect of the Court's decisions on future 
     congressional action, however, is uncertain. The states and 
     the public continue to look to Washington for guidance, 
     money, and leadership on many issues, including health care, 
     environmental protection and law enforcement. Congress, I 
     suspect, will continue to pass laws which impose some burdens 
     on the states, perhaps as a condition of receiving federal 
     funding or in some other manner consistent with the recent 
     Court decisions. But, in doing so, Congress will know that 
     the Court is a strong proponent of states' rights and is 
     scrutinizing its every move.

     

                          ____________________