Judicial Rulings
U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28 that racial quotas may not be used by schools in their admissions policies, but race may be taken into account in admissions decisions. The somewhat self-contradictory ruling came on a 5-4 split decision explained by seven separate opinions. It is seen as the first key test of affirmative action programs in jobs and admissions programs throughout the U.S. Essentially the court ruled that, while quotas are illegal, it is permissible for schools to help the victims of discrimination by giving them some preference in admissions. Race may be a factor—so long as it is not the only factor. Specifically, the court ruled that Allan Bakke's suit for admission to a California state medical school on grounds that he was the victim of reverse discrimination was valid, and he must now be admitted. Many gray areas were left by the decisions in the Bakke case, including the question of how schools may consider race as a criterion for accepting students. But, according to American Council on Education President Jack W. Peltason, "Most of the affirmative action programs that are now in place will not require any changing." It is hoped that future rulings will clarify other ambiguities raised by the Bakke decision, especially as to how it will affect hiring practices. In the wake of the decision some black leaders said they fear that employers will feel less constrained to hire minorities. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., was the key vote on the prevailing side of each of the two main points of the decision — that quotas may not be imposed and that race may be a factor — both of which were agreed to by a different 5-4 coalition of justices. Illinois' public aid program The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 6 that Illinois is not required to provide emergency family services to all needy families in the state under a strict Emergency Assistance (EA) program. Instead the state may offer a "special needs" program under its Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This "special needs" program may be limited to those families already receiving welfare, instead of applying to all families who need help due to loss of shelter— as EA programs must do by statutory definition. The court ruled that Emergency Assistance programs are optional for state participation. AFCD is a mandated program, the court said, and past decisions have held "special needs" programs as proper AFCD components, eligible for federal funding. The Illinois proposal is not necessarily an improper AFCD function just because it deals with a nonrecurring need that could as easily be dealt with under an EA program. Illinois had sought to avoid the heavy cost of meeting the full requirements of the EA program, while still trying to help needy families. The state Department of Public Aid tried to conduct a program similar to EA, under a different name, and thus hoped 30/September 1978/Illinois Issues to qualify for federal funding under a different federal act. The federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare attempted to prevent the state from receiving federal funds for doing so. In effect, the court ruling means that states may define eligibility more narrowly than federal law does, either for non-mandatory welfare programs such as EA, or for a permissable "special needs" component of AFCD. The ruling was 8-0, with Justice Harry A. Blackmun taking no part in the consideration or decision of the case, Quern v. Mandley. No unwarranted safety inspections In a May 23 5-3 split decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may no longer inspect business workplaces without a search warrant. A section of the law which established OSHA empowered the agency to conduct surprise visits to search for safety hazards. The court ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." However the court majority said OSHA need not show that probable cause of safety violations exists in order to obtain a warrant, "but merely that reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular establishment." Justice William J. Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case, Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
Illinois Supreme Court The Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a law that limits eligibility of a newspaper to publish tax assessment lists. The case, Garcia v. Tully, involved the Suburban Trib (published by Area Publications Corp., a Chicago Tribune subsidiary), with nine suburban editions, which had been given permission to publish a list of Cook County tax assessments on personal property and real estate. The court found that such lists are not free speech protected by the First Amendment. Justice Joseph H. Goldenhersh wrote the opinion saying the law "in no manner limits Area's right to publish the tax lists in question — it prescribes certain qualifications which must be met in order that a newspaper, for compensation, be eligible to publish them." The court also found that the Suburban Trib does not qualify to publish the tax assessment lists because it does not meet a statutory requirement that says a newspaper must be published within the township or tax assessment district covered by the list. The ruling came down May 23. September 1978/Illinois Issues/31
|
|||||||||||||||
