The uncontentious court.

• Author: Savage, David G.
• Position: US Supreme Court

This term the Supreme Court took a middle course, sidestepping fiery issues like abortion and affirmative action.

The Supreme Court ended its term this year on the same note as last year by restricting the reach of the Voting Rights Act, and limiting the responsibility of states with regard to drawing minority districts.

In its final opinion last year, the high court said the "racial gerrymandering" of electoral districts is unconstitutional. That 5-4 decision in Shaw vs. Reno called into question the many oddly shaped districts that were created after the 1990 census with the hope of sending more minority representatives to Congress. Until that ruling, the Justice Department, along with many state lawmakers, had assumed that districts must be created at all costs no matter how bizarre their shape might be to ensure that racial and ethnic minorities could elect representatives of their choice.

But the Court's opinion in Shaw, which addressed North Carolina congressional districts, said that district lines drawn solely for racial reasons violated a white voter's rights to "equal protection of the laws."

This year, on the last day of the term, the justices said the Voting Rights Act itself does not require states to "maximize" the number of seats for minorities when redrawing district boundaries. Acting on an appeal filed by the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, the Court overturned a federal court decision that said the Legislature could have, and should have, created two additional seats for Hispanics in Dade County.

In a related case from Georgia, the Court said plaintiffs cannot challenge the size of a governing body under the Voting Rights Act. This 5-4 decision closes the door to civil rights lawyers who wanted to force county commissions or state legislatures to increase their size to allow more representation for minorities.

These two important victories for the states in voting rights cases were preceded by an equally important victory in a California tax case. In a 9-0 opinion, the justices not only upheld the state's use of the unitary taxing method for multinational corporations, but also said that only Congress, not the executive branch, has the constitutional authority to limit the taxing policies of the states.

But those wins for the states were offset by several key defeats. In a boost for property rights, the Court said that government officials cannot demand a dedication of land from a developer unless they can show that it is closely linked to the burden imposed by the development. The decision in an Oregon case (Dolan vs. Tigard) may leave state agencies vulnerable to lawsuits if they require property owners to set aside some land for trails, beach access, wetlands or open space.

The Court also made it harder for city and state officials to regulate the flow of solid waste. Reaffirming its view that garbage is just another commodity, the Court struck down an Oregon law that set higher dumping fees on out-of-state trash and invalidated a municipal "flow control" ordinance in New York that required garbage haulers to take their shipments to a city processing plant. Both laws violated the Constitution's prohibition of discrimination...