Editorial: Court’s decision alarming

Friday, June 25, 1999 | 10:20 a.m.

No one can say that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't go out with a bang Wednesday, issuing its final decisions for this term. A bitterly divided court ruled 5-4 in three separate cases to place severe curbs on Congress' power to ensure that states comply with federal laws.

The justices threw out one lawsuit in which state probation officers accused Maine of violating a federal law that requires public employees to be paid overtime. In addition, the court dismissed two lawsuits in Florida where state government was charged by private firms with violating federal patent and trademark laws. The rulings mark a significant philosophical shift on the Supreme Court regarding the relationship between the states and the national government, decisions that could unfortunately leave individuals and businesses with no recourse if they've been harmed by their state governments.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Maine case asserted that the Constitution shields states from being sued in federal courts. The majority asserted that the principle of sovereignty for the states was cherished by the Founding Fathers, but the justices who dissented ridiculed this argument. Justice David Souter noted in the minority opinion that some of the Framers of the Constitution believed that sovereign immunity from lawsuits "was an obsolete royalty prerogative inapplicable in a republic ..." The court's opinion means that while the federal Fair Labor Standards Act says the nation's 4.7 million state employees have the right to be paid time-and-a-half for any overtime work, there essentially is no recourse to enforce this through the courts.

Justice John Paul Stevens made a stinging -- and correct -- rebuke of the court majority's embrace of sovereign immunity from lawsuits. "The doctrine, I fear, is much like a mindless dragon that indiscriminately chews gaping holes in federal statutes," Stevens said. "The principle that 'no man is above the law' -- which applies to the president of the United States as well as the lowest public servant -- should apply equally to the states."

It is true that America has become an increasingly litigious society, but the answer isn't to restrict lawsuits. If someone brings a frivolous lawsuit, then the plaintiffs and the attorneys should be sanctioned by the judge hearing the case. Restricting the rights of Americans to pursue a remedy through the courts is just plain wrong.

Ironically, for years conservatives complained about judicial activism by liberal jurists that overturned laws passed by state legislatures and Congress. But now a new judicial activism seems to be sprouting, this one conservative. The court's decisions are ominous and make the presidential election in 2000 even more important, since the winner likely will have the opportunity to replace justices retiring from the high court. This could either solidify this new view of federalism or restore the more traditional understanding that has prevailed for many years.