Monday, March 10, 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) --The Supreme Court agreed Monday to examine the court system's ability to enforce deals that states often strike to end mass lawsuits and whether states can later claim they are immune to allegations that they had not lived up to the bargain.
The case about Medicaid benefits for the poor could further the Supreme Court's recent line of states' rights rulings that have increased state powers at the expense of individuals and Congress.
At issue is a 1996 court-approved settlement that ended lawsuits over health care for poor children in Texas. The state did not admit liability but agreed to make a variety of improvements.
A group of poor children returned to federal court in 1998, complaining the state had violated the agreement. Among cases they cited were a 2-year-old cerebral palsy patient who could not hold up his head up because he had not received proper physical therapy and a 7-year-old who was not given a hearing test that would have diagnosed his deafness.
The Texas attorney general claimed that the state was immune from the challenges under the Constitution, and the agreement was not fully enforceable in court. The Constitution's 11th Amendment makes state governments immune to most individual federal lawsuits, but there are exceptions.
Lawyers for children covered under Medicaid argued the state had agreed to the settlement, even urged a federal judge to approve it, and thus should not be allowed to shirk its duty.
"If the federal courts can't enforce things the state has agreed to, then what can federal courts do?" asked Jane Kathryn Swanson, one of the children's lawyers.
A federal appeals court ruled for the state last year. Texas did not waive its constitutional immunity, and the federal court did not have far-reaching jurisdiction to enforce portions of the 1996 agreement, the appeals court said.
The lawsuit centers on the federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program, which covers about 1.5 million Texas children. The program is supposed to provide poor children with comprehensive and periodic checkups, including evaluations of children's development, nutritional and dental status, vision and hearing.
The case is Frew v. Gilbert, 02-628.
In other action Monday, the high court:
• Granted the Bush administration permission to present its views during oral arguments in a marquee affirmative action case next month. The administration opposes the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policies but is not a party to the case.
• Rejected an Internet trash talk case that would have clarified where someone can sue after being libeled on the World Wide Web. The court refused to be drawn into a dispute between two Egyptology scholars whose disagreements spilled over into exchanges on the Web.
Alabama college instructor Katherine Griffis sued after being called a phony who got her degree from a Cracker Jack box.
The case is Griffis v. Luban, 02-754.
• Turned back a free-speech appeal from New York real estate agents over a law that prevented them from soliciting clients in some neighborhoods.
The 1969 law is intended to stop agents from scaring residents into selling their homes cheap, with insinuations that new neighbors are driving down house prices. The law banned "blockbusting," in which homeowners are persuaded to sell cheap on claims that a neighborhood is being changed racially, ethnically or by religion.
The case is Anderson v. Treadwell, 02-639.
• Turned down an appeal from parents of a severely disabled boy who claim they should have been able to call off the drastic measures doctors took to save the Wisconsin boy's life after birth. Emanuel Vila was born extremely premature, at about 23 weeks gestation, and quickly developed serious health and developmental problems.
The case is Montalvo v. Borkovec, 02-997.