The Supremes Get It Right - Twice

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a load of opinions this week, but two are of note, not just because of their subject matter, but because the court got it right in each case.

In one case, Banks v. Dretke, the Court struck down a death sentence imposed following some of the most egregious prosecutorial misconduct I've ever seen. Basically, the prosecutors withheld evidence that two of the star witnesses against Banks had been severely tainted by the state. One had been a paid informant who arranged for Banks's arrest, while the other had been intensely coached by prosecutors prior to his trial testimony. Both witnesses lied under oath when asked about such things at the trial. The state, knowing its witnesses were lying, did nothing. Then in Banks's posttrial proceedings the state had the gall to try and bounce Banks's claims because he failed to promptly discover the evidence it was covering up. All those out there who see prosecutors as the white knights of the justice system should read the Court's opinion carefully.

In the second case, Davey v. Locke, the Court upheld a Washington state constitutional provision prohibiting the funding of devotional religious education. Davey qualified for a Promise Scholarship based on his high school grades and economic status, but was denied the funds when he signed up for a pastoral studies degree at a Christian college. He sued, arguing that the denial was a violation of his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion. The Court disagreed, holding that Washington state could legally decide not to fund religious education as a way to maintain the separation of church and state.

I read a lot of the briefs in this case and it was, to be honest, a close call. I'm no fan of organized religion, much less any government support for it, but some of what can happen under the current scheme is fairly odd. For instance, Davey could have simply not declared a major for his first two years of college (the only years covered by Promise, IIRC), taken all the same classes needed for his pastoral studies degree, and then changed his major during his junior year. Similarly, someone studying for another degree and receiving the Promise money is free to take "devotional" classes if she so chooses. On the whole, however, I think the Court came to the right conclusion on this one. Read the opinion here.

As one might expect, Davey had lots of allies on the Christian right who filed briefs with the Court. A lot of these organizations were the same ones lining up with disgraced former Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore during his 10 Commandments flap last year. In that case, they argued that his refusal to follow Federal constitutional law was mandated by contrary language in the Alabama state constitution. In Davey's case, however, they argued that Federal constitutional law trump the Washington state constitution - which is it, folks?