HIGH COURT HIGHS AND LOWS

In its term just ended, a divided U.S. Supreme Court commendably
underscored "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," as stated
in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and issued a mixed bag of
rulings with respect to the rights of minorities and the downtrodden.

The court, correctly, also put religious clubs on equal footing with
secular ones in the use of school facilities after class, wrongly struck
down state laws permitting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and
rightly upheld federal authority to regulate emissions into the air.

But as momentous as those rulings may be, the case of Bush vs. Gore
overshadowed the entire term. For the first time in American history, the
justices in effect picked the president. The court interpreted the
so-called equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in a novel fashion,
articulating a brand-new standard: Elections must be uniform statewide.
Actually, that rule may make future elections fairer, even though the
timing of its introduction has left deep scars in American politics and
tarnished the court's image in public opinion polls.

That Bush-Gore decision illustrates three traits about the court during
this term:

Narrow division. Bush vs. Gore was among a huge number of cases - 26 - that
the court decided by a 5-4 vote. Right now, conservatives enjoy the edge,
but Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy sometimes switch to
the moderate side, allowing it to prevail. Any vacancy on the court may
affect this ideological balance. In naming Bush president, the conservative
majority in effect gave staying power to its side.

Inconsistency on states' rights. The Rehnquist court has been quick to
rebuff Congress for infringing on the authority of the states. This term,
for instance, the court held that Congress erred in applying the Americans
with Disabilities Act to state employees. Yet even though the Constitution
puts states in charge of voting, the court did not hesitate to dictate to
Florida how to run an election. Another example of this inconsistency is
the ruling that federal drug laws trump state laws permitting medicinal
marijuana.

Activism. Its articulation of a new election standard shows that this court
does not shrink from creating new law. This term, the court perhaps
illustrated best its propensity for overturning precedent in another
ruling, which narrowed the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Going
against decisions of previous Supreme Courts, going against even the intent
of Congress, the court held that, to get relief from a judge, a person must
prove that the intent of a public policy is to discriminate. Previously,
the person had to show only that the impact was discriminatory.

Still, the court did much good. The war on drugs has worrisomely eroded
Fourth Amendment protections - a trend the court started to reverse during
this term. And none too soon, since new technological devices are making
the invasion of privacy easier. Drug checkpoints on roadways are a no-no,
the court said. So, too, is an outlandish practice of a Charleston hospital
to snitch on pregnant women who test positive for drugs. And police must
get a warrant before pointing a heat sensor at your home with the hope of
determining the activity inside.