dictionary

U.S. Supreme Court contemplates
the rules of golf

By Charles Bierbauer
CNN Senior Washington Correspondent

DOCUMENTS PGA Supreme Court brief in PGA v. Casey Martin 9th Circuit opinion in Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.

VIDEO CNN's Charles Bierbauer reviews the case and talks with lawmakers and golfers Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has its rules. You stand when the justices enter and leave the chamber. Each side gets 30 minutes to make its case. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist blows the whistle.

Professional golf has its rules. The PGA Tour told the justices allowing one golf pro to ride while others walked would be a "fundamental change" in the game. Casey Martin contends that he plays the game by its rules. But his disability -- a congenital circulatory disorder -- keeps him from walking from tee to green.

So far, Casey Martin has persuaded lower courts that the Americans with Disabilities Act covers his condition. Martin alone has been allowed to use a golf cart. But in hearing the PGA Tour's appeal, the justices differed on their view of rules.

"All sports rules are silly rules, aren't they?" Justice Antonin Scalia suggested. Baseball's strike zone, for example. Scalia, who would bait umpires by nature, said it would be "a much greater sin" not to know the rules of baseball than the rules of golf.

"Wait a minute," said avid golfer Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor shot a hole-in-one last month.

Was it just the nature of sports that had the justices on the edge of their seats in lively debate? Or were they as intrigued by rules as laws? They knew about major league pitcher Jim Abbott and wanted to know if baseball had changed any fundamental rule --manipulating the ball or deceiving the base runner -- to allow him to pitch without one hand.

The justices were up for the case that would ask them to decide if the ADA applies as much to the competitors "inside the ropes" at golf tournaments as to accommodating the spectators "outside the ropes." Outside the court after the arguments, the ADA's chief author Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, "I don't think we meant to say there was any line."

The justices have addressed the ADA rules before, both expanding and narrowing the scope of the 1990 law. This is the first time they've had to contemplate extending it to professional sports. They will have to decide whether they can or should compel the PGA Tour to alter its walking rule without fundamentally changing its game.

Justice John Paul Stevens, also a golfer, noted that carts are used when professionals seek to qualify for the PGA Tour.

"It puzzles me how a fundamental rule would not apply at qualifying," Justice Stevens said.

"Logistics," the tour's lawyer Bartow Farr answered.

"If logistics are sufficient reason, why not a handicap?" Justice Stevens asked.

The PGA Tour contends all the rules have to be the same for all the players. But the ADA is geared to accommodating each individual according to his or her needs.

The court's conundrum is whether golf should have a one-size-fits-all rule or whether it should be custom tailored -- like the major league strike zone.

Charles Bierbauer, CNN's senior Washington correspondent, covers the U.S. Supreme Court and public policy issues. Send comments to Charles Bierbauer by writing to charles.lawcenter@cnn.com.

U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in disabled golfer case
January 17, 2001
Disabled golfer's good ride could be spoiled in court
June 5, 2000

Supreme Court
PGA Tour
Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University
On the Docket 2000-2001
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh
History of the Federal Judiciary

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.