The court will have a chance to take up that question again this term, while likely considering the health care reform act, decency standards on broadcast TV, privacy and use of GPS devices to track criminal suspects, and other issues. Here are three cases to be argued this week that could reveal where the court is headed this term as it examines the interests of citizens confronting institutions.
Poor Patients Take On California
As states struggle with budget cuts, the court takes up the critical question of how far they can go in cutting Medicaid, the joint state-federal program that provides health care for the poor and disabled.
Under the Medicaid law, a state that accepts federal money for the program must pay health care providers at rates high enough to ensure quality and access to care for beneficiaries comparable to what is typical in the area.
In the case to be heard on Monday, Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Medicaid recipients and providers sued California for cutting payments without regard to that provision or the impact on them.
California argues that the private plaintiffs have no right to sue because Congress included no basis in the statute for them to enforce the law. But federal officials have scarce resources to monitor compliance with the Medicaid law and few enforcement tools except cutting off funds.
A persuasive brief filed by Democrats in Congress explains that the Constitution’s supremacy clause allows private suits against state legislation that violates federal law. The right to sue, it says, helps enforce Congress’s objective: protecting Medicaid recipients.
A brief from the solicitor general’s office unwisely said providers and recipients cannot sue the state, even if that means compromised care. The court should reject this wrongheaded view, as business, consumer and other groups argue.
A Prisoner’s Right to Remain Silent
An intriguing case, Howes v. Fields, to be heard Tuesday concerns the Miranda rule, which requires that criminal suspects who are in custody be told of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, and that any statement can be used against them.
The question is whether those who are already in prison have a right to Miranda’s safeguard against coercion. A Michigan inmate, Randall Fields, was taken from his jail cell to a conference room and questioned by two sheriff’s deputies for seven hours about conduct outside the prison unrelated to the disorderly conduct conviction for which he was serving time. He was not given a Miranda warning.
During questioning, Mr. Fields admitted to sexual conduct with a minor. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled last year that he was entitled to a Miranda warning, under established law. It set a clear, useful test: a Miranda warning must be given when an inmate is isolated from the general prison population and interrogated about conduct outside prison.
The State of Michigan and the Obama administration, however, argue unconvincingly that applying Miranda in this situation would threaten prison order. Overturning the appeals court decision would wrongly deny inmates a critical constitutional protection for no good reason.
Fired by a Religious School
Under the First Amendment, the government cannot interfere in a church’s management of “ministerial employees” when they perform religious functions. But is a teacher at a religious school that kind of employee?
A case on Wednesday is a dispute between Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the church’s school in Redford, Mich. When she became sick and turned down the offer of a modest payment to leave, the school fired her and she filed a grievance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she could sue the church for illegal retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The issue is whether enforcement of that law violates the church’s right to free exercise of religion. Ministers and other religious workers are barred from suing their church employers. Lower courts have said teachers are also barred from suing when they teach religious subjects or have a central role in the mission of the church.
That doesn’t describe Ms. Perich. Her primary duties were to teach math, language arts and other nonreligious subjects. For 30 minutes a day, she taught religion or took her class to a service, and she led her class in prayer. But she was not required to be a Lutheran, and non-Lutheran teachers and Lutherans had the same largely secular duties.
Congress intended the rule against retaliation to apply to churches as it does to secular groups. Ms. Perich’s suit does not interfere with religious freedom. It will give her a basic protection of the disabilities law — the chance to have her day in court.