Supreme Court lets school district ban Ten Commandments from ballfield

April 17, 2000
Web posted at: 5:48 p.m. EDT (2148 GMT)

In this story: Bus rider entitled to baggage privacy Can state employees sue? Railroads win protection from some crossings lawsuits Term limit measure challenged Cigarette advertisers turned away RELATED STORIES, SITES

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in one of a series of actions Monday, let stand a Southern California school district's ban on the Ten Commandments from a fence at a high school baseball field.

MESSAGE BOARD The Supreme Court

The action set no legal precedent because it was a denial of review, not a decision.

The dispute began when Edward DiLoreto, a Downey, California businessman, paid $400 to advertise on the Downey High School baseball field fence. The ad listed the Ten Commandments after stating, "Meditate on these principles to live by."

After the ad was rejected, DiLoreto sued on the grounds that the school district's decision unlawfully discriminated against religious speech and violated religious freedom.

Last November, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the baseball field fence "a forum limited to certain subjects and not open for indiscriminate use by the general public." Therefore, the appeals court said, DiLoreto's free-speech rights had not been violated.

The school district was free to exclude subjects "that would be disruptive to the educational purpose of the school," the appeals court said, noting that a Planned Parenthood ad also had been rejected.

The justices have under study, and are expected to decide by late June, a Texas case asking whether public school districts may allow students to lead football stadium crowds in prayers before high school games.

In another case on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that even a bus passenger carrying illegal drugs in his baggage has an expectation of privacy.

The justices overturned the conviction of a bus rider caught with drugs, citing the Constitution's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search.

A border patrol agent checking a Greyhound bus near the Texas-Mexico border discovered the drugs when he squeezed the soft-sided luggage that passenger Steven Bond had placed in the overhead rack above his seat.

But the court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled Bond had "sought to preserve his privacy" by carrying the drugs in an opaque bag and, as a passenger, might expect others to move his bag but not to explore it.

"The agent's physical manipulation of (Bond's) bag violated the Fourth Amendment," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority.

However, the ruling does not exclude all possibilities of random law enforcement searches.

For example, airline passengers could not make Bond's claim of privacy since there is a public expectation that airline luggage will be examined as a safety factor.

In another action, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether state employees are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, using a lawsuit brought by two Alabama state employees.

At issue is whether Congress exceeded its power by giving state employees the right to sue in federal court under the ADA.

In a similar case, the court in January barred state employees from suing over age bias. The justices said Congress exceeded its authority by allowing employees to sue their bosses under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because the law cannot trump states' 11th Amendment immunity against being sued in federal courts.

In the Alabama case, Patricia Garrett sued the state after allegedly encountering on-the-job bias at the University of Alabama after being treated for breast cancer, while Milton Ash sued for alleged bias at his job because of severe asthma.

A federal judge, after combining the two cases, dismissed them on 11th Amendment grounds. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case, ruling that states have lost their constitutional immunity from lawsuits that invoke the ADA.

In another case involving federal vs. state laws, the court ruled that a state court cannot hold the Norfolk Southern Railway liable for the death of a Tennessee man at a grade crossing if the federal government has paid for and approved the warning signs in place at the crossing.

The court's vote in the case was 7-2.

The widow of Eddie Shanklin was originally awarded $430,000 in her suit against Norfolk Southern. But the Supreme Court ruling reverses that and sends the case back to lower courts for further examination of the conditions at the rural grade crossing at the time of the 1993 accident.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that nothing precludes a state from evaluating the adequacy of warning signs and installing additional devices with its own funds.

Critics say there are tens of thousands of dangerous crossings throughout the United States that are unmarked or inadequately marked. The crossing in Milan, Tennessee, had a wooden "crossbuck" railroad warning sign, but no lights or gates.

"Rail safety has taken a serious blow," said Robert Pottroff, a Manhattan, Kansas, lawyer who represents such groups as Angels on Track, Railwatch and the Coalition for Safer Crossings. "Lives are being lost. I can't believe Congress and the Federal Highway Administration will allow this regulatory scheme to stand."

Norfolk Southern Railway spokesman Frank Brown called the decision "a good one" that "heads off second-guessing about the adequacy of warning devices after they've been installed with federal money."

Congress has provided states with more than $3 billion since 1975 to increase safety at most of the nation's 170,000 public grade-level crossings. During that time, the number of fatal accidents at crossings has dropped from more than 1,500 per year to 431 in 1998.

In another case, the court agreed to decide if states can require congressional candidates to support term limits for members of Congress or be labeled an opponent on the election ballot.

In 1995, the justices ruled only a constitutional amendment can limit the number of terms people can serve in Congress.

After that decision, Missouri and some other states enacted "scarlet letter" measures instructing their members of Congress to push for term limits or be named an opponent.

In Missouri, those who do not comply will carry the label "disregarded voters' instruction on term limits" next to their name on the election ballot.

Congressional candidate Donald Gralike challenged the measure in federal court, where a judge ruled the measure unconstitutional.

Missouri's lawyers, in their appeal, said the ballot label was not punishment but lawful "public commentary on the behavior of congressional candidates."

Rulings on Missouri's term limit measure and the ADA lawsuit are expected sometime in 2001.

On another issue, restrictions on outdoor cigarette advertising in New York City and Chicago survived a Supreme Court challenge.

The court, without comment, turned away cigarette advertisers' arguments that a 1969 federal law pre-empts cities from imposing their own ordinances barring outdoor advertising.

The 1969 law requires health warning labels on cigarette packages and bars broadcast cigarette advertising.

The law also says states cannot enact any prohibition "based on smoking and health ... with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes."

Correspondent Charles Bierbauer and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Supreme Court ruling a victory for campaign finance reform
January 24, 2000
Supreme Court to hear arguments on protest restrictions
January 18, 2000
Supreme Court to rule on late-term abortions and gay Scout leaders
January 14, 2000
House passes bill to make harming fetus a crime
September 30, 1999
Judge delays enforcement of Missouri abortion ban
September 17, 1999

Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw: Supreme Court Opinions
The Federal Judiciary Homepage: News and information about the Federal Courts
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection
Law News Network's Supreme Court Report
The American Center for Law and Justice - ACLJ

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.