Supreme Court preserves plaintiffs' access to state courts.

In its first case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL) earned a unanimous verdict that reinforces the right of plaintiffs to seek remedies in state court once federal claims have failed.

Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in Jinks v. Richland County affirmed the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. [section] 1367(d), a provision that was designed to protect plaintiffs and prevent traffic jams between jurisdictions. (No. 02-258, 2003 WL 1906299 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2003).)

The section tolls the statute of limitations on state claims when they are brought in federal court in conjunction with a federal suit. Thus, federal judges can dismiss cases they feel properly belong in state court without fearing that plaintiffs will be unable to pursue them because time has run out.

Writing for the Court, Scalia called the stature "conducive to the administration of justice because it provides an alternative to the unsatisfactory options that federal judges faced" before Congress enacted [section] 1367(d). Those options, he said, were "obviously inefficient" and, if reinstated, would "produce an obvious frustration of statutory policy."

"By providing a straightforward tolling rule in place of this regime, [section] 1367(d) unquestionably promotes fair and efficient operation of the federal courts and is therefore conducive to the administration of justice," Scalia said.

The stature was called into question in 1996 when Susan Jinks sued Richland County, South Carolina, after her husband's death in the county jail. She simultaneously brought a federal civil rights claim and state wrongful-death and survival claims in federal court. When the federal court granted summary judgment to the county, Jinks pursued her claim in state court, where a jury awarded her damages.

The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed that ruling, agreeing with the county that Jinks's claim was time-barred by the state's two-year statute of limitations. The court ruled that [section] 1367(d) violated the Tenth Amendment protection of state sovereignty by imposing the will of the federal judiciary on the state.

After the Supreme Court announced its decision, Robert Peck, CCL's president and Jinks's attorney, said, "We're ecstatic." CCL, a for-profit law firm that was created in 2001, handles constitutional litigation, with a particular emphasis on challenges to state tort "reform" laws.

Peck acknowledged that the ruling "defied expectations," since a majority of the Court is known to be sympathetic to the cause of states' rights. The fact that Scalia, one of the Court's more outspoken supporters of states' rights, wrote the unanimous opinion proved to Peck that CCL's strategy worked.

"Scalia is the primary voice of the new federalism on the Court," he said. "I worked hard to fit our argument into the exceptions he's pronounced."

The Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision and remanded it there "for proceedings not inconsistent" with Scalia's opinion. The state court has yet to rule on two issues that were not addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michael Allen, an assistant professor at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida, who has followed the case, said the decision signaled the Court's hesitancy to extend defenses of states' rights beyond the sovereign immunity protection enshrined in the Eleventh Amendment.

"It seems the Court sees the sovereignty of a state as unique," Allen said. "It's the ultimate 'do not disturb' sign. But beyond that, there's more of a balancing. They appear to interpret state sovereignty very powerfully, but very narrowly."