Court to rule on “Solomon Amendment”
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on the constitutionality of the “Solomon Amendment,” the federal law that requires the cutoff of federal funds to colleges that refuse to give military recruiters equal access to their students. The government took the case to the Court with a strong argument that its power to wage war will be impaired if college campuses – in this case, law schools – do not admit recruiters from the armed services, and give them the same aid that other recruiters get.
Law schools across the country have banned military recruiters because of the government’s ban on openly gay individuals in the military services. Law schools have long followed a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and have barred potential corporate and other recruiters for employers who discriminate against gays.
The case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, et al. (docket 04-1152) will be heard and decided in the next Court term. The Third Circuit last November barred enforcement of the Solomon Amendment, finding it likely that challengers would win on their First Amendment challenge. The Circuit Court, however, stayed its ruling pending the government appeal to the Supreme Court.
The petition raises this question: “Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment’s equal access condition on federal funding likely violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and in directing a preliminary injunction to be issued against its enforcement?”
That case has not yet gone to trial, but the Court granted review nevertheless. The Solomon Amendment has been struck down in a separate case in a final order by U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall of Bridgeport, Conn. The judge barred enforcement of the Amendment against Yale University, in a case filed by a majority of the Law School faculty. On April 26, the members of the faculty filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court (Burt v. Rumsfeld, 04-1434), asking the Court to hear and decide the case before the 2d Circuit reviews it. That case may be held for the ruling in the government’s appeal.
The Court also granted review on Monday of LaMarque v. Chavis (04-721), another case on the suspension of the one-year filing deadline for federal habeas petitions. The question presented is: “Did the Ninth Circuit contravene this Court’s decision in Carey v. Saffold [2002] when it held that a prisoner who delayed more than three years before filing a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court did not ‘unreasonably’ delay in filing the petition — and therefore was entitled to tolling during that entire period — because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition without comment or citation, which the Ninth Circuit construes as a denial ‘on the merits’?”
In another order issued Monday, the Court ordered the Sixth Circuit to reconsider a ruling last July 27 that it is unconstitutional for a state to arrange high school girls’ sport seasons at different times of the year from boys’ seasons, when that puts the female athletes at a disadvantage. The order came in Michigan High School Athletic Association v. Communities for Equity, et al. (04-1021). The Sixth Circuit based its decision on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Circuit Court was told to examine that ruling in the wake of the Supreme Court’s March 22 decision in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (03-1601). The Court said there that a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 cannot be pursued when a federal law provides an exclusive judicial remedy for violations of a federal statute. That case involved the Telecommunications Act. The Michigan high school sports case involves Title IX.
The Michigan association, in taking the case to the Supreme Court, sought to raise the Title IX issue as well as the equal protection question decided by the Sixth Circuit. The other side argued that the Title IX issue was not present, since it said the association did not raise that issue below and, in addition, had claimed that it was not covered by Title IX.
Among the cases denied review, without comment, were these:
EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Stark (04-1056), challenging on due process grounds an arbitrator’s award of punitive damages in a mortgage collection case. The punitive award was 3,000 times higher than the award of ordinary damages — $6 million, compared to $2,000.
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, et al. (04-1055), asking the Court to clarify when recycled waste material from a business is to be considered “solid waste” that must be disposed of safely under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The case involved burning of grass by Idaho farmers after they had harvested it for bluegrass seed. The burning raised large clouds of smoke and particles.
The Solomon Amendment
Per SCOTUSblog, The “Big C” Court will rule next term on the so-called “Solomon Amendment” – a federal law that cuts off funds to educational institutions that refuse military recruiters access to campuses and students. I, like several others who post …
Comment by i'm just waiting for the robot invasion — May 2, 2005 @ 10:24 am
Solomon Heads to the Supremes
The Supreme Court accepted certiorari in the Solomon Amendment challenge out of the Third Circuit, Rumsfeld v. FAIR (pdf). The challenge to the amendment — which conditions receipt of federal funds to colleges on allowing military recruiters on campus…
Comment by Law Dork — May 2, 2005 @ 1:03 pm
SCOTUS to hear “Solomon Amendment” appeal
(Via SCOTUSblog) The Supreme Court has decided to hear the government’s appeal of last…
Comment by INTEL DUMP — May 2, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
Against Institutionalism
The Supreme Court has decided to decide the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment (which conditions federal funds on a school’s willingness to open up to military recruiters). I’ve posted on this before (1, 2, 3) and I think there is…
Comment by Crescat Sententia — May 2, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
Against Institutionalism
The Supreme Court has decided to decide the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment (which conditions federal funds on a school’s willingness to open up to military recruiters). I’ve posted on this before (1, 2, 3) and I think there is…
Comment by Crescat Sententia — May 2, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
Is there a Circuit split on the Solomon Amendment, or is the Third Circuit the first appeals court to consider it?
TG Responds: there is no split; the Court has an essentially categorical rule of granting cert when a federal statute or program is declared unconstitutional.
Comment by Ian — May 2, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SOLOMON AMENDMENT CASE
The SCOTUSBlog writes about the cert. grant here. You can get the Third Circuit’s opinion here. The Georgetown University Law Center has a running repository of FAIR v. Rumsfeld litigation here. NOTE: The Centrist was a contributing author to the UCL…
Comment by JAG CENTRAL — May 2, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
Supremes on Solomon
Supreme Court to decide constitutionality of Solomon Amendment. You knew it was coming. It was only a matter of time. I’m interested to follow this case….
Comment by Don't Know It From Adam — May 2, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
SOLOMON AMENDMENT
The Supreme Court will decide the Constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that withholds federal funds from colleges that prevent the military from recruiting on campus. SCOTUSBlog has a brief history of the amendment. Paul Horwitz at…
Comment by Begging To Differ — May 2, 2005 @ 11:54 pm
Or, in this case, *probably* unconstitutional. Does the Court always take cases in which a federal program is preliminarily enjoined? How likely is it that the Court will also take the Yale case, since it at least has reached final judgment after a full hearing?
(The 3rd circuit’s decision is reported at 390 F.3d 219 and freely available at http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2004/034433p.pdf; the district court’s Burt opinion is reported at 322 F.Supp. 2d. 189 and freely available at http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/013105.JBH.Burt.pdf.)
TG responds: It’s very unlikely the Court will grant cert. before judgment unless there is some extraordinarily unique feature about the legal issues in the Yale case, without which the issues re the Amendment can’t be decided.
Comment by Michael F. Wasserman — May 3, 2005 @ 6:51 am
Gay Day in Law Land
Anyway, to move on, the US Supreme Court will make a decision about the Solomon Amendment. There’s more detail over at the SCOTUS blog.
Comment by Only Solutions — May 4, 2005 @ 11:16 am