Students and visitors packed the auditorium of the UCLA Law School on Monday to hear a panel of professors discuss the rulings made during the 2006 Supreme Court term and their implications.
The panel, titled “Whither the Court,” consisted of five UCLA law professors, each representing different programs within the school.
Brad Sears, the executive director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy and the moderator of the panel, said many attendees were lawyers and judges seeking credit in continuing education.
Professor Adam Winkler presented the first case, Morse v. Frederick. Calling the case the “decision forever to be known as “˜Bong Hits 4 Jesus,'” Winkler said the court’s narrow decision represented a reflection of the policies of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case was originally brought up when a student was suspended in Juneau, Alaska, for holding up a sign that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The principal of the school suspended the student, who proceeded to sue the school on grounds that his First Amendment rights were violated.
Winkler said the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the student’s suspension by a ruling of 5-4, which he added brings up questions regarding the nature of free speech.
“The court decided that school officials can censor speech promoting illegal use in a public setting,” Winkler said.
But he added that it was not clear whether “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” condones illegal behavior.
Winkler also noted the important role played by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted with the court majority most of the time during close votes.
Professor Ann Carlson discussed the case of Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, when Justice Kennedy served as the swing vote for the justices who usually vote in the minority.
Carlson said the decision, which forces the EPA to issue standards for greenhouse emissions, strengthens California’s emission standards, which are more stringent than federal guidelines.
But she added that the EPA, which raised concerns about the decision because it believed there was not enough scientific evidence on the effect of greenhouse gases, has “not done much” in the wake of the decision.
“I don’t think much will change until there is a new presidential administration,” she said.
The presentation from Professor Christine Littleton on Gonzales v. Carhart took a personal turn, as Littleton raised her concerns over the future of a woman’s right to choose.
The case upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 passed by Congress in a 5-4 decision.
Littleton criticized Congress for “stressing its role in the health of women” and the court for accepting the act’s definition of an unborn child.
She added that she believed it was unnecessary for Congress to intervene in personal medical matters.