Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Compulsion: The Only Tool for the Job?

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on race-based student assignment programs is pretty clear: public school districts cannot simply use racial balance targets to determine where children will go to school.

A key point in the ruling is that districts must exhaust racially neutral means of achieving their diversity and minority achievement goals before race-based student assignment can even be contemplated. In both cases before the court, the districts failed to do that.

This central point of the ruling apparently escaped CNN judicial analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who made the following statement in a live interview: “the school districts were told they couldn’t integrate their schools.”

Live TV is an unforgiving medium, especially when covering breaking news, so it’s not entirely clear that this is what Toobin meant to say. What is clear is that it is 100% nonsense.

Integration is a goal. There are many possible ways of achieving it besides government compulsion. As I pointed out in a blog post on Thursday afternoon, it can in fact be much better achieved through voluntary school choice programs that make both public and private schools financially viable options for all families. Summaries of some of the relevant studies, along with links to the full text in several cases, can be found here.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Free Speech

Libertarians sometimes say that they are “liberal on free speech but conservative on economic freedom,” or that “liberals believe in free speech and personal freedom, while conservatives believe in economic freedom.” That proposition got another test in the Supreme Court yesterday. Conservatives and liberals split sharply on two free-speech cases.

And let’s see … in two 5-4 decisions, the Court’s conservative majority struck down some of the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaign speech and upheld a high-school principal’s right to suspend a student for displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner. Liberals disagreed in both cases.

So the liberals strongly defend a student’s right to engage in nonsensical speech that might be perceived as pro-drug, but they approve a ban on speech criticizing political candidates in the 60 days before an election.

Now I’m for free speech in both these cases. But if you had to choose, which is more important–the right of a high-school student to display silly signs at school-sponsored events, or the right of citizen groups to criticize politicians at the time voters are paying attention? Political speech is at the core of the First Amendment, and conservatives are more inclined to protect it than are liberals. That’s a sad reflection on today’s liberals.

The liberal attitude toward speech is also on display on the front pages of our leading liberal newspapers. A banner headline in the Washington Post reads “5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads/Ruling on McCain-Feingold Law Opens Door for Interest Groups in ‘o8.” This long headline mentions “TV Ads” and “Interest Groups” but never uses the words “speech” or “First Amendment.” But the sidebar on the high-school case is headed “Restrictions on Student Speech Upheld.” For that issue, a straightforward understanding that speech is involved. And the New York Times website leads with “Justices Loosen Ad Restrictions in Campaign Finance Law,” while the sidebar on the school case reads, “Vote against Banner Shows Divide on Speech in Schools.” Though I should note that the old-fashioned, tree-destroying version of the Times does have a subhead reading “Political Speech Rights.”

Maybe libertarians should try to describe their philosophy by saying “libertarians believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, and the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in.”

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus

A few weeks ago, when I introduced ACLU executive director Anthony Romero at a Cato Book Forum, I began by asking

which right the American Founders considered most basic, that is, indispensable to securing all the others. Is it the right to property, which Arthur Lee described as “the guardian of every other right,” because without it we are all at the mercy of whoever controls all the resources? Is it the right to keep and bear arms, without which resistance to the state is rendered toothless? Is it, as Thomas Jefferson said, the right to trial by jury that protects citizens from the arbitrary power of the state? Is it the case that, as Winston Churchill said – not an American Founder, of course, but always good for a quote – “A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize”? Or could it be the writ of habeas corpus, known as the Great Writ, which in 1969 the Supreme Court called “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action”?

Afterward, my smarter colleague said, “It’s habeas.”

So that’s why it’s good that the ACLU has declared today a “Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice.”  ACLU members and others are rallying on Capitol Hill and visiting congressional offices asking Congress to restore the right of habeas corpus.

One of the most frightening elements of the powers asserted by the Bush administration in the war on terror is the power it claims to arrest American citizens and hold them without access to a lawyer or a judge. The conservatives of the American Freedom Agenda have joined the ACLU in calling for repeal of the Military Commissions Act and restoration of the right of habeas corpus. Cato adjunct scholar Richard Epstein petitioned Congress not to curtail habeas corpus as it considered the Military Commissions Act last fall, to no avail. This issue will provide a good test of the proposition that divided government is a good thing. Will the Democratic Congress do the right thing and restore our constitutional rights?

Enough is Enough

Three years ago the U.S. Supreme Court handed down McConnell v. FEC, a decision that upheld McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on political speech. The future seemed bleak for any limits on government regulation of speech and association.

But things are looking up. Today the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

McCain-Feingold made it a federal crime for any corporation to broadcast, 30 to 60 days before an election, any communication that mentions a federal candidate for elected office and is aimed relevant voters.  Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) is an ideological corporation that accepted funding from other corporations. Its members wanted to run ads in 2004 urging citizens of their state to contact its two senators and urge them to oppose a filibuster of judicial nominees. Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the senators and a co-author of the law in question, was running for re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life’s advertising plans thus constituted a federal crime. At least, they were a crime if the relevant part of McCain-Feingold was constitutional as applied to WRTL. In fact, McCain-Feingold was constitutionally invalid in this case and probably many others.

To understand why requires a quick summary of campaign finance law. Congress long ago prohibited contributions to candidates from the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions. But corporations could fund ads commenting on the issues of the day. However, if those ads directly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, they became an attempt to circumvent the ban on corporate contributions and thus a federal crime. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court said such “express advocacy” contained words like “elect” and “defeat.” If an ad did not use the words, it was not express advocacy and hence, not subject to campaign finance regulation.

In the 1990s some businesses and labor unions started funding advertising that met the legal standards for issue advocacy. The ads were legal and often highly critical of vulnerable members of Congress in the run up to an election. McCain-Feingold made such speech illegal. It said corporations could not fund ads that mentioned a candidate for federal office with 30 to 60 days of an election. The McConnell Court went along arguing that the ads in question were the “functional equivalent of express advocacy.” In the WRTL decision, the author of the majority opinion, Justice Roberts, has contracted rather than expanded the scope of government regulation. He has done so by redefining the meaning of express advocacy: “a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” The WRTL ad seemed to a reasonable person to be attempt at grassroots organizing. Hence, WRTL wins.

But this standard implicates more than this case. Many of the ads in the 1990s that were the target of McCain-Feingold might have been free of regulation under this standard. Reasonable people could have believed that the ads were attempts to persuade voters to contact their representatives. The political space free of government regulation seems to have expanded. Indeed, it seems possible that many fewer ads will be judged the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” in the future.

So, the good guys won one at last. “Enough is enough,” as Justice Roberts writes in considering efforts to further expand government control of politics.

But still there is reason to worry. The majority did not declare the relevant part of McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. Justice Alito did suggest a willingness to hear constitutional challenges to the McConnell decision (and hence, to McCain-Feingold). Justice Roberts also set out some criteria for the “express advocacy” that are fairly broad. An ad that mentions “an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; or [that takes] a position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office” could become express advocacy depending on future judgments by the Court and perhaps, by the Federal Election Commission.

An important battle has been won. The war continues.

Free Speech, Loophole, or Partisan Politics?

One of the things I find striking about today’s Supreme Court rulings is the extent to which the free-speech angle is downplayed in media coverage of the Wisconsin Right to Life decision. Consider the LA Times write-up of today’s decisions:

The Supreme Court gave President Bush and Republican leaders two important victories today by clearing the way for corporate-funded broadcast ads before next year’s election and by shielding the White House’s “faith-based initiative” from challenge in the courts.

The term “speech” only appears twice in the coverage of the decision, and in both cases they’re in quotes of the majority decision. The reporter never describes the case as a free-speech case himself. And let’s be clear here: “corporate funded” doesn’t mean ads funded by Exxon-Mobil or Microsoft. In this particular case, it was a pro-life organization—a grassroots non-profit—that was being prevented from promoting its views on television. The NRA, the ACLU, the Sierra Club, and dozens of other genuine issue advocacy organizations had their free speech rights curtailed by BCRA. Now check out the coverage of the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case later in the same story:

In a third ruling, the court gave school principals the authority to discipline students who advocate the use of illegal drugs at schools. Roberts said the court was not rejecting the notion that high school students had free-speech rights, but rather making clear that these rights were limited, especially when students advocated in favor of illegal drugs.

The decision reversed a free-speech ruling in favor of a high school student from Juneau, Alaska, who had been suspended for holding up a banner that read “Bong hits for Jesus.”

So the right to unfurl a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner is a free-speech issue, but the right to air television ads critical of elected officials is just partisan politics.

You see the same sort of bias in the New York Times coverage of the ruling. The word “speech” doesn’t appear in the story until the fifth paragraph, at which point it’s used in the following sentence: “Its detractors see it as interference with free speech.” In contrast, in the second paragraph, the article states that “the high court opened a significant loophole in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.”

On the other hand, the headline in the Times write-up of the “Bong Hits” case is: “Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights.” The article starts off by saying ” The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday.”

So when a high school principal prohibits a student from displaying a nonsensical “Bong hits 4 Jesus” sign, that’s a restriction on the student’s speech. However, when Congress tells Wisconsin Right-to-Life and the ACLU that they’re not allowed to buy ads criticizing elected officials in the month before an election, that’s merely closing a loophole in campaign finance law.

Stealing Property

A headline in the Saturday Washington Post reads:

Russia’s Gazprom Purchases Siberian Gas Field From BP

The story begins:

The state-controlled energy giant Gazprom on Friday bought a vast natural gas field in Siberia from a unit of British-based petroleum conglomerate BP, continuing the Kremlin’s policy of shifting control of the country’s major energy projects from foreign to state hands.

The last part of the sentence begins to hint at what really happened, a truth that is concealed by words like “purchases” and “bought.” In fact, the Russian government and its giant energy firm Gazprom forced BP to sell, as it has forced other companies to turn valuable properties over to Gazprom and the oil company Rosneft, often through the use of trumped-up tax or regulatory issues.

Journalists should be straightforward about such things. Gazprom did not “purchase” a gas field from BP. This was no “willing buyer, willing seller” transaction. It would more accurately be described as a seizure, a confiscation, or at best a forced sale.

The Wall Street Journal used similar language. The New York Times, to its credit, was more honest and clear: Its headline read, “Moscow Presses BP to Sell a Big Gas Field to Gazprom,” and the story began, “Under pressure from the Russian government, BP agreed on Friday to sell one of the world’s largest natural gas fields to Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly, in the latest apparently forced sale that benefited a Russian state company.”

Footnote: Today is the second anniversary of the Kelo decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could take private property for the benefit of other private owners such as developers. In a stinging dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. …Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

The United States is not Russia. But O’Connor’s warning that “the beneficiaries [of forced takings] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms” is certainly borne out — not just by a new Institute for Justice report on eminent domain in action — but by the actions in Putin’s Russia.

Earmarks

As annual spending bills wind their way through Congress this year, there are ongoing battles over earmarked funding for members’ pet projects.

To get a sense of what the battle is about, check out this newly released list of earmarks in the House Interior appropriations bill.

People scour such lists looking for embarrassing bridges to nowhere in Alaska and indoor rainforests in Iowa.

But the real issue is federalism, not earmarks. Many of these funding projects are not federal responsibilities at all. Look at all the local sewer facilities on the list under the EPA. Why can’t Seattle, Buffalo, and other cities fund their own toilet pipes?

Of course, they can. But the idea of federalism has disappeared from public discussion in an orgy of state and local lobbying of compliant Washington politicians. For history and analysis of this issue, see here

(Oh, wait a minute, take that back — my guy Jim Moran (D-VA) scored $700K to clean up Four Mile Run beside where I live in Northern Virginia. Nice job Jim! You’ve got my vote!)