Supreme Court asked to protect access to state courts.

In its first case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the two-year-old Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL) asked the justices to reverse a South Carolina ruling that restricts plaintiffs' access to state courts once federal remedies have failed.

The case, Jinks v. Richland County (No. 02-258 (argued Mar. 5, 2003)), centers on the legitimacy of 28 U.S.C. [section] 1367(d), a plaintiff-friendly provision that protects litigants who seek redress for injuries in federal courts.

The federal law tolls the statute of limitations on state law claims when they are brought in federal court in conjunction with a federal suit. In doing so, it allows federal courts to dismiss cases they believe should be heard in state court, without fear that the plaintiff's claims will be barred by a state statute of limitations.

The case of Carl Jinks, who died in a South Carolina jail while being held for failure to pay child support, pits the federal legislation against South Carolina's two-year statute of limitations. For Richland County, the case revolves around the principle of state sovereignty enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. In the county's view, Congress violated the Constitution by imposing the will of the federal judiciary on the state.

"Congress has the authority, through preemption and through its properly enacted statutes, to limit the liability in state court actions, but cannot create liability where none existed previously," said Andrew Lindemann of Columbia, South Carolina, who presented the county's argument in the Supreme Court. "And I'd submit to the Court that I'm not aware of any single example where Congress has stepped in and [enacted] a statute that creates a state law cause of action or expands a state law cause of action to create liability where none existed."

During oral arguments, held in March, Robert Peck, CCUs president, argued that "enormous mischief will result" if Richland County succeeds.

"You leave the courts with a Hobbesian choice--a choice they've been uncomfortable with," Peck said. In the past, he added, this has led to courts' "granting motions for reconsideration, requiring waivers of a statute of limitations ... and in other instances, simply holding on to a case they would otherwise allow the state courts to [decide]."

In 1996, two years after Jinks's death, his ex-wife simultaneously brought a federal civil rights claim and state wrongful-death and survival claims in federal court. The federal court granted summary judgment on the civil rights claim to Richland County and Charles Eskridge, the detention center physician. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the rest.

Two weeks later, Susan Jinks filed the state claims in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County. The court rejected the county's view that her complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, and a jury awarded damages in her favor. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment by enacting [section]1367(d).

CCL attorneys thought the state court's opinion raised significant constitutional issues for the Supreme Court. The case seemed an ideal showcase for CCL's commitment to court access. The for-profit firm, created in 2001, represents clients in constitutional litigation, particularly challenges to state tort "reform" laws. CCL has successfully challenged such laws in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon. It currently has challenges pending in Florida, Nebraska, and North Carolina.

On first blush, Jinks might seem unlikely to sway a Court typically sympathetic to states' rights and dubious of expanding federal power both linchpins of Richland County's argument.

However, justices of all ideological stripes appeared to support the legitimacy of Congress's role as a "traffic cop" between the state and federal courts. They greeted Richland County's assertion that [section]1367(d) violates states' rights with skepticism.

"Is there an infringement on what the state would like to do?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked Lindemann. "Of course there is, but the Constitution gives the power to the federal government to do that."

Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court's most ardent advocate of states' rights, took issue with the county's argument that its position as a "political subdivision" of South Carolina enhanced its argument in favor of state sovereignty. Scalia countered that ms a matter of federal, not state, law, Richland County was no different from a private individual or a gas station.

"So long as it's not the state of South Carolina, federal sovereign immunity law is not at issue," he said.

Earlier in the argument, Scalia asked Peck, "Why would it hurt the federal courts if you lost this case?"

"If the state courts are refusing to receive these cases," Peck replied, "then the federal courts will be obligated to hear these state matters even if they are novel and complex matters in which only the state courts have the appropriate expertise."

Richland County was supported by amicus briefs from 17 states and several national associations representing state, county, and city governments. The U.S. solicitor general intervened on Jinks's behalf, arguing that [section] 1367(d) was constitutional. Jinks was also supported by an amicus brief from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.

Elizabeth Rhea, a visiting assistant professor at the Catholic University of America School of Law in Washington, D.C., has been following the case. She said plaintiffs will suffer if the Court affirms the ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Trial lawyers "would have to spend more time deciding where to file a case to make sure they didn't violate the statute of limitations," she said. "Plaintiffs might also have to file simultaneously in federal and state courts, as a protective measure."