Word from the high court.

• Author: Savage, David G.
• Position: Supreme Court decisions on cases involving states and their powers - Includes related article on whether states can be sued for "environmental racism"

This year's Supreme Court session featured close votes on a number of state cases that included some important victories.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term in midsummer with rulings that blocked Indian tribes from expanding their tax-free zones, shielded state and local governments from paying damages for high-speed police chases, and reaffirmed the principle that all legislators are immune from being sued for the laws they pass.

The justices also cleared the way for state prosecutors to seek fast-track federal appeals in death penalty cases. And in a test of the First Amendment, the high court said state-licensed broadcast networks are free to exclude marginal candidates from televised debates.

But unlike recent years, the states lost nearly as many cases as they won in the just completed term. Opening the courthouse door to a new wave of prison lawsuits, the justices ruled state inmates who claim to be disabled can sue for relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act. They also rejected the claim that the states own all the historic shipwrecks found in their coastal waters. And in a controversial 5-4 ruling, they cast doubt on a successful, but little known, state-authorized program that skims the interest accumulated in law firm trust accounts to pay for legal aid for the poor.

None of this year's decisions is likely to be remembered as a landmark, however. The justices chose to take a breather from deciding major constitutional questions testing the powers of the states. This comes as a mild surprise only because recent terms have been dominated by federalism. The Rehnquist Court has strengthened the states' powers under the 10th Amendment (New York vs. U.S.), shielded them from being hauled into court under the 11th Amendment (Seminole vs. Florida) and said that Congress does not have general power to pass laws regulating traditional state functions such as education and crime (U.S. vs. Lopez).

A SLIM MAJORITY

Still, these major rulings came on a close vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist bringing along his four conservative-leaning colleagues. The narrow majority may explain why the Court has passed up some new opportunities to expand its federalism decisions. For example, the justices have declined to hear appeals challenging the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics. Anti-abortion activists argued, unsuccessfully, that this federal regulation invades a traditional state function of law enforcement. In June, San Bernardino County, Calif., officials urged the justices to rein in the Endangered Species Act for imposing unwarranted federal regulations in situations where a threatened insect or bird lives within only one state. This appeal too was denied without comment.

Soon, however, the justices will have to resolve disputes that have arisen as a result of their pro-federalism decisions. For example, can a state agency be sued in federal court for infringing on a copyright or violating a patent? The Copyright Act and U.S. patent laws say claims must be filed in federal court only, yet the high court's Seminole Tribe decision says states cannot be hauled into federal court. Suppose a state university is charged with illegal copying. Not surprisingly, the lower courts are divided.

TRIBAL DECISIONS

This year's term, by contrast, focused on practical interpretations of federal law. In several cases, state lawyers succeeded in winning reversals of rulings that could have had troubling consequences if they had been affirmed.

A Minnesota case tested whether Indian tribes, flush with cash from new...