Coulee Catholic: Of Loopholes and Legislating

Wednesday, in a case called Coulee Catholic Schools v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the “ministerial exception” to state laws prohibiting employment discrimination applied to a teacher in a Catholic grade school. As a result, the teacher’s claim against the school for age discrimination must be dismissed.

There a few points worth making. First, it is inaccurate and misleading to call the decision, which was written by Justice Michael Gableman and joined by Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler, “legislating from the bench.” Although this exception is not spelled out in the applicable statute, it is fairly implied from the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the freedom of conscience clause in Article I, sec. 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. In fact, courts everywhere recognize it and it is consistent with a general reluctance on the part of courts to examine the internal decision making of religious organizations on matters that implicate the organization’s religious mission and precepts. To determine whether the plaintiff in this case was terminated due to her age, an administrative agency or court would have to examine the school’s decision in light of its religious mission and that would lead to state evaluation of religious judgments.

Second, it is also unfair to say that the Court found a “loophole,” although I can see that there is some poetic justice in the charge for critics of Gableman campaign ads that used that term in connection with certain of the Court’s criminal law decisions. 

Continue ReadingCoulee Catholic: Of Loopholes and Legislating

The Sotomayor Hearings: Supreme Court Citations to International and Foreign Law

As the Senate hearings addressing the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court proceed through the thickets of legal concerns, one issue that appears to be rather arcane to the average American may be among the most significant. Indeed, it reflects a philosophical dispute that underlies many of the questions at the hearings. Does Judge Sotomayor believe the Supreme Court should be able to cite international and foreign law in its decisions? Let’s be frank: considering some of the esoteric sources cited in many Supreme Court opinions, why would anyone spend more than a moment on what sources the Court will refer to? Yet, this issue has become a focus of significant debate.

Although many members of the Court have cited to international and foreign law at one time or another (including Justices William Rhenquist, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor), none have asserted that international and foreign law have any determinative or precedential value in the U.S. legal system. Moreover, citation to international and foreign law in common law cases has rarely been challenged. Rather, the issue is centered on the reference to international and foreign law when the Court is addressing the Constitution. In fact, this issue has served as a cloak for the ongoing debate between the “originalists” (those who assert that the original wording of the Constitution and its context at the time are the sole measure as to the meaning of the Constitution) and the “evolutionists” (those who assert that we must measure the meaning of the Constitution with at least an eye on its contemporary context) over the appropriate way to interpret the Constitution. In effect, the “originalist” argument states that to allow reference to foreign and international law is not merely to align oneself with foreign interpretations that could be inconsistent with the context of American constitutional law (because the sources and therefore the meaning arises in different contexts), but that the use of these foreign sources undermines the very meaning of the Constitution’s drafters and by implication American sovereignty itself. Therein lies the bedrock debate: although international and foreign law is neither mandatory nor precedential, the fear is that these references will be used as tools to pervert the essence of the “originalist” philosophy of constitutional purity. 

Continue ReadingThe Sotomayor Hearings: Supreme Court Citations to International and Foreign Law

Confrontation and Criminal Trials: What’s Actually in Play

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts finally came down on June 25, 2009.  See my prior post here.  Neither the majority opinion nor the dissent yield many clues about what took so long (this was the last case from the Court’s November sitting), and on the surface at least there is little that is portentous.  Yet the case is ultimately about far more than hearsay evidence in criminal trials.  It reveals significant discord about the nature of the modern adversary trial as well as skepticism over the use of science in the courtroom. 

The case addressed whether the government may introduce a crime laboratory report (hearsay) against a defendant without calling as a witness the analyst who performed the test.  The Court held that such reports are manufactured expressly for use at trial against the defendant; hence, they constitute “testimonial hearsay” that cannot be introduced without the declarant (the lab analyst) on the witness stand, available for cross-examination.

Continue ReadingConfrontation and Criminal Trials: What’s Actually in Play