Word from the high court.

This year's Supreme Court session featured close votes on a number of state cases that included some important victories.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term in midsummer with rulings that blocked Indian tribes from expanding their tax-free zones, shielded state and local governments from paying damages for high-speed police chases, and reaffirmed the principle that all legislators are immune from being sued for the laws they pass.

The justices also cleared the way for state prosecutors to seek fast-track federal appeals in death penalty cases. And in a test of the First Amendment, the high court said state-licensed broadcast networks are free to exclude marginal candidates from televised debates.

But unlike recent years, the states lost nearly as many cases as they won in the just completed term. Opening the courthouse door to a new wave of prison lawsuits, the justices ruled state inmates who claim to be disabled can sue for relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act. They also rejected the claim that the states own all the historic shipwrecks found in their coastal waters. And in a controversial 5-4 ruling, they cast doubt on a successful, but little known, state-authorized program that skims the interest accumulated in law firm trust accounts to pay for legal aid for the poor.

None of this year's decisions is likely to be remembered as a landmark, however. The justices chose to take a breather from deciding major constitutional questions testing the powers of the states. This comes as a mild surprise only because recent terms have been dominated by federalism. The Rehnquist Court has strengthened the states' powers under the 10th Amendment (New York vs. U.S.), shielded them from being hauled into court under the 11th Amendment (Seminole vs. Florida) and said that Congress does not have general power to pass laws regulating traditional state functions such as education and crime (U.S. vs. Lopez).

A SLIM MAJORITY

Still, these major rulings came on a close vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist bringing along his four conservative-leaning colleagues. The narrow majority may explain why the Court has passed up some new opportunities to expand its federalism decisions. For example, the justices have declined to hear appeals challenging the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics. Anti-abortion activists argued, unsuccessfully, that this federal regulation invades a traditional state function of law enforcement. In June, San Bernardino County, Calif., officials urged the justices to rein in the Endangered Species Act for imposing unwarranted federal regulations in situations where a threatened insect or bird lives within only one state. This appeal too was denied without comment.

Soon, however, the justices will have to resolve disputes that have arisen as a result of their pro-federalism decisions. For example, can a state agency be sued in federal court for infringing on a copyright or violating a patent? The Copyright Act and U.S. patent laws say claims must be filed in federal court only, yet the high court's Seminole Tribe decision says states cannot be hauled into federal court. Suppose a state university is charged with illegal copying. Not surprisingly, the lower courts are divided.

TRIBAL DECISIONS

This year's term, by contrast, focused on practical interpretations of federal law. In several cases, state lawyers succeeded in winning reversals of rulings that could have had troubling consequences if they had been affirmed.

A Minnesota case tested whether Indian tribes, flush with cash from new ventures, can buy back reservation land that had once been theirs and then declare it exempt from state or local property taxes.

A U.S. court of appeals in St. Louis said yes. it ruled the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa indians could not be forced to pay taxes on parcels of land it had purchased over the past 20 years. in a friend-of-the-court brief, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and several other groups said this decision, if upheld, could result in a "serious erosion" of tax bases if indians are given "a new power unilaterally to expand their federal immunity from state taxation."

In a 9-0 ruling in Cass County, Minnesota vs. Leech Lake Band, the Supreme Court said property taxes can be imposed on reservation land that has been "repurchased by the tribe."

Similarly, an Alaska case tested whether "Indian country" could be expanded well beyond current boundaries.

Despite the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, in which the federal government paid claims for Indian lands, the tiny village of Venetie, north of the Arctic Circle, asserted it had the power to collect taxes in a huge area of northern Alaska.

In 1996, the U.S. court of appeals in San Francisco sided with the native village and defined "Indian country" in a broad way that suggested 44 million acres could be claimed as Indian lands.

But again, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the state and reversed that lower court ruling in the case of Alaska vs. Native Village of Venetie.

The tribes prevailed in one significant case. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld the principle of tribal immunity from lawsuits, even for commercial matters off the reservation. This immunity has become increasingly controversial in the Western states, where victims of auto accidents have found themselves unable to sue drivers who are Native Americans.

But the Supreme Court said it is up to Congress to change the law. The ruling in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma vs. Manufacturing Technologies Inc. shielded the tribe from being sued for having defaulted on a $285,000 debt to an Oklahoma City company.

POLICE PURSUIT OK'D

The ruling in the police pursuit case also reverses a lower court decision that could have led to huge damage verdicts against state and local law enforcement.

More than 300 Americans die every year as a result of accidents during high-speed chases, and countless others are injured. But police officials said they should not be held liable for the damage caused by fleeing criminals.

Two years ago, a U.S. court of appeals in San Francisco ruled that police agencies can be forced to pay damages when a jury decides an officer "recklessly" chose to pursue a fleeing vehicle. Unanimously reversing that decision in the case of County of Sacramento vs. Lewis, the high court said police cannot be held liable in pursuit cases, except in the rare instance where a police car deliberately rams into a person or a vehicle.

In the past, the Court had said state legislators cannot be sued for the laws they pass. This year, the immunity was extended to cover local lawmakers as well.

The 9-0 ruling overturned a damage verdict against two members of the Falls River, Mass., city council who allegedly targeted a city department head for retaliation and then eliminated her job from the budget.

"Regardless of the level of government, the exercise of legislative discretion should not be inhibited by judicial interference or distorted by fear of personal liability," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the case of Bogan vs. Scott-Harris.

The ruling on death penalty appeals is a procedural win for the states, but not a final victory. Two years ago, Congress responded to complaints about the lengthy, costly and seemingly endless federal appeals by state Death Row inmates by authorizing a new fast-track procedure. Those states that provided "competent counsel" for condemned murderers during their state appeals can qualify for expedited appeals in the federal system, according to the law.

So far, however, no state has won the right to fast-track appeals. On the day President Clinton signed the bill into law, a class action suit was filed on behalf of California's Death Row inmates claiming the state failed to provide the required "competent counsel" for all inmates. A federal judge agreed and blocked the state from even seeking expedited appeals. Similar class action suits were filed in several other states with capital punishment.

In the case of Calderon vs. Ashmus, the high court threw out the prisoners' lawsuit and said states are entitled to seek the speedier appeals on a case-by-case basis. This procedural decision does not finally resolve the matter, but it clears the way for state prosecutors to try.

The ruling on state-licensed broadcast networks keeps alive the possibility of televised debates among candidates. If all candidates, even the most marginal ones, must be included in debates, none will be aired, broadcasters said.

The U.S. court of appeals in St. Louis had ruled that all candidates who qualify for the ballot have a First Amendment right to appear on debates sponsored by public networks, but the high court reversed that decision in the case of Arkansas Educational TV vs. Forbes.

PRISONERS' RIGHTS 

The biggest setback for the states was the ruling in the case of disabled prison inmates, although the outcome came as no surprise. in the 1990 law, Congress said its antidiscrimination provisions apply broadly to "any department, agency, special purpose district or other instrumentality of a state."

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, joined by 33 other states, asserted the ADA did not cover inmates in state prisons. The case of Pennsylvania vs. Yeskey arose when a judge recommended Ronald Yeskey, a first-time offender, for a motivational boot camp when he was sentenced to 18 to 36 months in a state prison. However, the state-run boot camp denied Yeskey admission because he had a medical history of hypertension. Yeskey sued, claiming he was a victim of discrimination prohibited by the ADA. The law says "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity."

In a brief opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the "plain text" of the 1990 law clearly covers the states, including "any department,. agency, special purpose district or other instrumentality of a state." There is no ambiguity here, he said. "The ADA plainly covers state institutions without any exception that could cast the coverage of prisons into doubt."

The ruling opens the door to all manner of lawsuits from inmates claiming to be disabled.

"I expect a lot of creative litigation on the part of prisoners," said Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supported the state. "We're now opening another floodgate."

This does not mean inmates will always win. The law speaks of institutions making "reasonable modifications" to serve those with a disability. In California, 11 of 33 state correctional facilities were modified so inmates who are in wheelchairs or are blind or deaf can be sent there.

"The decision means prisons must make reasonable accommodations for their inmates with disabilities, and what is reasonable in a prison may be different than in the workplace or at school," said Donald Spencer, director of the Prison Law Office at San Quentin, who represented Yeskey in the high court.

In a separate decision in late June, the word "disability" was given a broad definition by the high court. A Maine woman who had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was deemed to have a disability even though she had no symptoms of the disease. By a 5-4 vote in Bragdon vs. Abbot, the Court said Congress intended to generously protect those with diseases or physical conditions that result in discrimination. The Court's opinion suggests that those with cancer, heart disease, epilepsy, diabetes or a host of other diseases could win antidiscrimination protection.

WHOSE SHIPWRECKS?

The states also suffered a setback in their bid to lay claim to all the historic shipwrecks found near their coasts. An estimated 5,000 such wrecks lie near the coasts or the shores of the Great Lakes.

California officials had hoped to gain ownership of the wreckage of the Brother Jonathan, a Gold Rush era steamer en route from San Francisco to Seattle that struck a submerged rock and sank in 1865. It went down with a reputed $2 million in gold and a U.S. Army payroll estimated at $250,000. For this reason alone, treasure hunters have long sought its whereabouts. In 1994, a privately funded team of explorers known as Deep Sea Research Inc. located the wreckage about four miles off Crescent City, Calif. The team had already paid for the rights to the ship held by insurance firms in San Francisco, which had paid claims following the 19th century disaster.

State officials planned to salvage the ship for its historic and educational value and to display its artifacts in a coastal museum. They also relied on the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 in which Congress said states were entitled to claim historic wrecks in their coastal waters.

However, a federal judge in San Francisco said the Brother Jonathan was "not abandoned." It has been found by private divers who owned its rights. In California vs. Deep Sea Research, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state's claim based on the 11th Amendment and sided with the divers. Because the state was not in "actual possession" of the shipwreck, it had no right to claim ownership to it, the justices said. However, the Court did not rule squarely on when a wreck is "abandoned," which leaves open the possibility state officials will fare better in other cases.

The ruling in the legal aid case may force states to rethink the funding of legal services for the poor.

Beginning in the 1980s, bar associations came up with an ingenious solution to the problem of shrinking federal and state aid for legal services. Law offices must have separate trust accounts to hold their clients' money, much of it for brief periods. For example, a client may deposit closing costs for a house on Tuesday for a closing scheduled for Friday. After 1980, when it became legal for checking accounts to earn interest, bar leaders proposed skimming off the short-term interest from their trust accounts and putting it into a fund for legal services. By the 1990s, every state but Indiana had such a program, most of which were written into state law. And remarkably, these funds generated nearly $100 million a year nationwide for legal services.

But the Supreme Court, siding with conservative activists, said on a 5-4 vote that this interest income is the property of the clients, not the state or the lawyers. Although the ruling in Phillips vs. Washington Legal Foundation does not strike down these programs as automatically unconstitutional, it opens them to being challenged in every state.

Supporters of the aid programs insist they can be saved. "I don't think this decision scuttles the program. It just means we need to go back and fix it," said Jerome Shestack, president of the American Bar Association. He suggested states give clients a right to seek a refund for any amount of interest that accumulates in their account.

WHAT'S AHEAD IN THE FALL

In the fall, the Supreme Court will consider in Seif vs. Chester Residents whether state agencies can be used for so-called "environmental racism." The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has been sued under the federal civil rights law for having approved the operation of waste treatment plants in a mostly black neighborhood in Chester, Pa.

The justices will also consider a potentially far-reaching attack on gangs, drug dealers and others who gather menacingly on the streets. During the 1960s and early 1970s, most antiloitering laws were struck down as unconstitutional, but the high court will consider reviving a Chicago city ordinance that allows the police to break up gatherings on street corners and in parks. If the city prevails in the case of Chicago vs. Morales, legal experts predicts other municipalities and states will adopt similar laws.

The issue of environmental racism has been much discussed, but not extensively litigated in the courts. The suit filed on behalf of black residents living along the Delaware River, south of Philadelphia, says state officials took steps that had the "effect" or discriminating against racial minorities. The suit does not claim state officials deliberately discriminated. In their defense, Pennsylvania officials say they paid no attention to the racial makeup of the neighborhood when deciding whether to grant or deny a permit to operate a waste treatment plant. For its part, the Supreme Court has not faced squarely the old question of whether the Civil Rights Act outlaws government actions that have a discriminatory effect, as well as those that were taken for discriminatory reasons.

David G. Savage covers the U.S. Supreme Court for the Los Angeles Times. He is a frequent contributor to State Legislatures magazine.