Court puts off school holiday display appeal
on Dec 4, 2006 at 12:21 pm
The Supreme Court took no action again on Monday on a test case on the constitutioniality of public school displays of religious symbols during religious holidays. The Court had examined the case of Skoros v. New York City (06-271) for the second time at its private Conference last Friday, but Monday’s orders list showed no response yet. The appeal claims that New York City schools ban the Christian nativity scene during the Christmas season, but allow the display of symbols of the Jewish and Islamic faiths during holidays central to those faiths.
Among the cases denied review on Monday, perhaps the most significant was a failed appeal by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., seeking to limit the power of state courts to hear lawsuits against businesses that do a limited amount of commerce within the state. In its petition in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Tuazon (05-1525), the cigarette company had contended that the facts that it sold cigarettes in Washington State and had other activities related to those sales would not be sufficient to give state courts authority to hear a claim for damages from a long-time resident of the Philippines who had smoked cigarettes in his home country, and sued shortly after moving into Washington State. The Ninth Circuit Court found sufficient ties of the company to the state to permit the lawsuit of Nilo D. Tuazon to proceed to trial.
The Court also rebuffed efforts by a long list of former U.S. attorneys general and other former law enforcement officials to test the validity of a 55-year prison sentence for a Utah man, Weldon Angelos, who was convicted of selling eight-ounce bags of marijuana to an undercover informant on three occasions. He received an enhanced sentenced based on a finding that he had a gun during two of the sales. Angelos is a producer of rap music in Salt Lake City. The Justice Department had opposed Supreme Court review of the appeal in Angelos v. United States (06-26), arguing that it followed Supreme Court precedent on the Eighth Amendment punishment clause and did not conflict with other appeals courts ruling on the subject.
