Covering the Supreme Court

Of all the beats that reporters cover, few are as challenging as the Supreme Court. First, there are the legal complexities of the cases that reach the court. Then there is the fact that discussions are held behind closed doors and decisions are privately written in chambers. Finally, there is the long-standing reluctance of the 9 justices to explain their actions or speak about court matters in public.

"They (the justices) don't need the press the way other public figures do," says Jess Bravin, the Supreme Court correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.

Recently, Bravin joined Maria Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, and Garret Epps, constitutional law professor at the University of Baltimore and Supreme Court correspondent for The Atlantic Online for a discussion at the National Archives about covering the highest court in America.

The panel discussion, moderated by Bill Grueskin, a professor at the Columbia Journalism School and an executive editor at Bloomberg News, was entitled Courtroom Drama: Covering the Supreme Court.

"The beat is different in that there is so little contact," Coyle said. "The justices are reluctant to grant interviews or release any personal information. You have to go to the oral arguments and that is where you are going to learn about them."

"The issues are difficult, they are complicated, but they are interesting," she added. "And if you look beyond the legal question, there is someone who has a problem."

Given the secrecy surrounding the court, it takes a long time to develop credibility and acquire sources, all 3 reporters agreed. "If you stay at the court long enough, you begin to see certain patterns. There is a lot of value to staying with it for years to see what is happening," Coyle said.

Of course, just like it has for journalists everywhere, the advent of the internet, social media, and the 24/7 news cycle has changed the way reporters cover the Supreme Court.

"It's made deadline pressure intense," says Coyle. "We used to have time to develop and write in-depth." Now she says, after a day at court, she has to check for soundbite selections from any rulings for fellow broadcasters to use, compose blog entries and tweets, analyze the happenings, write a brief summary and then her story, and then appear live on TV that night to explain cases to viewers.

Epps says the "voracious appetite for content" works in his favor since he doesn't do deadline reporting, but instead writes pieces examining constitutional issues. He gave an example of just how difficult it is to get a non-case story from the court. He wanted to write a feature about the court's legal library, but was told "no employee of the library will talk to you."

The current court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been criticized for issuing rulings strictly along party lines. There are 5 Republican appointees and 4 Democratic appointees on the bench.

"We use the liberal and conservative shorthand, but the justices are all intellectual and have very deeply thought out positions on the issues," Bravin said. "That being said, there is often remarkably little diversity in their lineups."

"It looks very political," Coyle said. "We've had a real run of culture war issues. All the justices will say they never practice politics, but they are the sum of their lives and their experiences."

Is Supreme Court for Big Business and Against the Worker?

Lee Saunders is convinced that a series of Supreme Court decisions is leading to an America where the wealthy and big business can control the political process, silencing the voices and votes of millions of American workers.

Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSME) which represents 1.6 million members, spoke recently at the Center for American Progress and delivered a strong attack against recent court decisions such as Citizens United that are concentrating political power in the hands of a wealthy few.

"Most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Supreme Court, but the court is making decisions that are leaving more and more families behind. The decisions are pushing the Supreme Court closer to Wall Street and business and further away from Main Street," Saunders said. "More and more billionaires will have the power to turn our democracy into a plutocracy."

The union leader expressed grave concern about the business-friendly court's upcoming decision in Harris v. Quinn, a case where it has been asked to decide if agency shop, which allows unions to take money from workers its bargains for even if those workers decline to join the union, is constitutional. That decision is expected next month.

"Now our right to represent these workers is under question," Saunders said."When the Supreme Court said corporations are people too they can hold more sway than the voices of actual people. The power of big money is trying to buy our democracy. We need an America that works for everyone."

Saunders said you can clearly see the pro-business side of the current John Roberts court even in its decisions of what cases it will hear. On average, the Court agrees to look at about 1 in every 100 cases submitted. However, Saunders said that the court agrees to take on 32% of cases backed by business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce.

The union leader contended that the combined efforts of union workers is vital to combatting the power of the extremely wealthy, a task which is difficult even under the best of conditions. In an America where political power more and more means money, Saunders cited an important statistic in the inherent inequality in the funding field. In the 2012 election cycle, the two Koch brothers, the poster boys for the wealthy who are attempting to control American politics and government, spent $412 million of their own money. Union contributions totaled $153 million.

Unions are vital to continuing American success, Saunders contended. "When union density is bigger, the middle (class) becomes stronger. But now they are coming after us to reduce that density," he said.

But the struggle, while difficult given the court's rulings, is not over, Saunders said. "We have to go back to basics. We've got to organize. We've got to educate. We've got to get the power that comes with building a community."

"We all must be active and engaged in the battle because this truly is about the future of our nation," he added.

A Glimpse at Some Upcoming Supreme Court Cases

Here is a sampling of what is at stake in the new U.S. Supreme Court term, which begins tomorrow. 

• Privacy and the Police (can a roommate waive your 4th Amendment right to protect your residence against illegal search and seizure?)
• Abortion 1 (can people who don't have business at a reproductive health care facility - most often abortion protesters - be kept from congregating within a buffer zone around the facility?)
• Abortion 2 (how far can states go in restricting abortions by enacting laws ostensibly directed at making abortions safer?)
• Campaign Finance (should billionaires be allowed to give massive dollar donations to single candidates, which would leave those candidates extremely grateful to those large donors?)
• Housing Discrimination (In the case of Mt. Holly NJ, the court will be asked to rule on disparate racial impact in housing)
• Affirmative Action (the court will consider whether states can ban consideration of race in university admission)
• The Future of Unions (a case which could decide the future of neutrality agreements where employers agree to remain neutral on a union attempt to organize its workforce)
• Clean Air (a decision on whether the federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates downwind pollution too much and doesn't defer enough to states to solve the problem)

Public Prayer Dispute Heads to Supreme Court

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose new term begins Monday, will hear a case about public prayer that could change what is and what is not permitted when it comes to praying before official public meetings of groups such as town councils and local school boards.

Currently, in the town of Greece, NY, the town governing board opens its meetings with a Christian prayer. However 2 town residents have argued that the prayer sends a message to non-Christians that they are unwelcome at board meetings and that the board does not properly represent non-Christian concerns.

A district court upheld the town board's practice, but, on appeal, the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 2011 decision, found that the Greece's governing body prayer practice was unconstitutional. The town appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

"There is a coercion and a sectarianism in Greece that we find Constitutionally problematic," says the Rev. Barry Lynn, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. "With the prayer, you better act like you believe it or you will be viewed as an outlier. People feel compelled to participate in a matter in which they disagree."

Even though the Supreme Court has previously found that legislative bodies can begin a meeting with nonsectarian prayer, Lynn contends that the prayers in Greece are Christian, a premise which violates the idea of separation of church and state specified clearly in the documents on which America was founded.

Lynn contends that for 10 years, Christian clergy have offered virtually every prayer that has opened the town meetings in Greece. Research shows that two-thirds of the recorded 120 prayers contain specific references to Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. During that time only 4 non-Christian payers have been given, two by Jewish laymen, one from the chairman of a local Baha'i congregation, and another from a Wiccan priestess.

In their argument, the plaintiffs contend that the sectarian prayers are also coercive. They say that the town meetings are different from state legislatures or Congress sessions, which people visit to observe from the gallery. Town meetings, however, are the only place residents can go to participate in their local government and serve as the only chance residents have to petition the local government to take action on matters that directly impact their lives such as zoning ordinances or requesting better neighborhood police protection.

In their legal position, the plaintiffs contend that if the Supreme Court issues a ruling for the town of Greece, it would be permitting the government to endorse Christianity above all other faiths, a move prohibited by the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Lynn says that people should not assume an attitude of why should I care if a town in upstate New York wants to open its meeting with a Christian prayer. "Prayer does matter," Lynn says. "If you believe in a deity and pray to that deity, then it is not trivial".

The Greece v. Galloway case may prove to be only one wide-reaching religion case the Court hears this term. Legal experts think it may agree to also hear Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. In that case, Hobby Lobby, a large craft retailer known for offering all types of craft-centric material, is balking at providing certain types of medical care for its employees, care that the firm owners contend violates their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby has 559 stores across the country and brings in $3 billion in revenue each year. It is owned by the Green family - devout Christians who believe that human life begins at conception and that using certain types of birth control is against their beliefs.

The Greens have asked the federal government to exempt their for-profit corporation from the Affordable Care Act's requirement with businesses with more than 50 employees offer health plans covering contraception. Opponents counter that the firm is trying to impose its religious beliefs on its 22,000 workers.

"Just because you have a do-it-yourself pink Pelican key chain, that doesn't make that a religious icon and that does not make you a church," Lynn says.