HIGH COURT RULINGS WERE A MIXED BAG

In terms of the number of people affected, the most important decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court session just ended was probably the Cleveland school
voucher case. Although voucher advocates sometimes overestimate popular
support for voucher systems, a number of voucher plans had been "on hold"
awaiting the court's decision. Now they'll be able to move forward.

Some have complained that since most of the voucher money in Cleveland went
to religious schools, the decision authorized government aid to religion,
weakening the separation between church and state.

But the court's bottomline principle was equal treatment -- if you set up a
voucher system, you can't treat those who prefer to use it at a religious
school differently from those who don't -- which is healthy.

As John Eastman of Chapman University Law School noted, Justice Clarence
Thomas' concurring opinion offered a reinterpretation of the "establishment
of religion" clause that could give states more flexibility in cooperating
with religious institutions. Professor Eastman thinks this opinion will
wield influence in years to come.

Beyond that decision, it is difficult to see a "theme" in this court
session, and it included plenty of decisions worthy of criticism.

One of the worst was the Tahoe land-use decision. The court held that
property owners prevented by an oft-extended building moratorium from using
their property --and thus victimized by a regulatory partial taking of
their land -- were not entitled to compensation.

Roger Pilon, constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, said the result
was that "those owners who had already built, thereby contributing to the
pollution the government wanted to control, had their property values
increased. Those who hadn't built lost their entire investment, having done
nothing to worsen pollution. The situation cried out for justice, but the
court was oblivious."

The court did better on straight First Amendment cases, invalidating
overreaching Internet regulations touted as being "for the children."

It will be tested when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill
comes before it during the next session.

On drug issues the court was awful, continuing to carve out more drug-war
exceptions to the Bill of Rights. A decision to authorize blanket
drugtesting of students who engage in suspicious activities like joining
the chess club was beneath contempt. A decision to allow the eviction of
grandparents from public housing if their grandchildren smoked a joint
three blocks away without their knowledge showed a dedication to drug-war
tactics that defies common sense.

Perhaps the court's next session will see a more principled adherence to
constitutional liberty.