|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| SUPREME COURT REVIEW | |
 November 9, 1998 
|
||
|
|
|
|
PHIL PONCE: Here to tell us about some of the decisions the court made today is NewsHour regular Jan Crawford-Greenburg, National Legal Affairs Reporter for the Chicago Tribune. Jan, the administration had a couple of setbacks today, one case involving attorney-client privilege. Remind us what the facts were in that case.
PHIL PONCE: And what was the independent counsel's argument in response to that? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, he maintained that this is information that he is entitled to. He's investigating criminal misconduct, and certainly a federal grand jury should be able to hear what some of these conversations were. |
|
||||||||||||
| The Supreme Court sides with Starr. | ||||||||||||||
|
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The lower courts always sided with Mr. Starr, and the Supreme Court today refused to step in and say we think the lower courts were wrong. PHIL PONCE: So at this point, what's the impact of it? Is it going to mean - just to clarify - this applies to government-paid attorneys. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. PHIL PONCE: In a criminal case. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. PHIL PONCE: Which means what, if the President has a private attorney in a criminal case, the attorney-client privilege continues? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Certainly. And Justice Breyer, who would have heard the case - he wrote in dissent today - as well as Justice Ginsburg - said that's really what's going to happen - that now presidents and other government officials will be forced to consult with private attorneys, or they may just not tell government attorneys everything. So they would argue - the White House and Justice Breyer - that struck a chord with him - that now they're going to have to go to private attorneys. But, of course, Mr. Starr maintains and so do the lower courts - agree that these attorneys are paid by the taxpayers and they should be required to testify if they have information about criminal misconduct for heaven's sakes, so that was their argument, and the court today decided that they were not going to step in and say the federal lower court's got it wrong. PHIL PONCE: So what is the practical impact of this case on - JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: In ongoing investigations, right.
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, as you know, Mr. Starr is still continuing his investigation into other matters - I guess - Bruce Lindsey could be summoned back to his grand jury to testify for the fifth time and answer some of the questions that he had argued; he shouldn't have to answer statements - PHIL PONCE: And, as you mentioned, it just doesn't apply to Bruce Lindsey, this is a case involving - JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. PHIL PONCE: -- government attorneys - JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Sure. Sure. PHIL PONCE: -- who are on the government payroll, who had to work in the White House. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. PHIL PONCE: The Secret Service case, what was that about? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Another legal dogfight between the White House and Kenneth Starr, this one involving whether or not Secret Service officials have to testify before Starr's grand jury. The Clinton administration argued that this is totally inappropriate that Secret Service officials should not have testify about what they've seen or heard the President say and do. They maintain that if the President worried that they would be called to testify, you know, against him, that he would distance himself from them and therefore put his life in jeopardy. |
 |
|||||||||||||
A new Secret Service privilege? |
||||||||||||||
|
PHIL PONCE: And the administration actually was arguing for the creation of a new privilege, is that right?
PHIL PONCE: In other words, Congress could come up with something called the protective function privilege? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. PHIL PONCE: Are these two - since the court decided not to take these cases on appeal, I mean, are they binding on future presidents? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, in the circuit you could say that would be, but this issue is going to - if it comes up again in the court, it certainly set no national precedent say for government attorneys, so government attorneys in other circuits outside of say the District of Columbia wouldn't necessarily be bound by it. PHIL PONCE: Reaction from the parties? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the White House issued a very terse statement saying it was disappointed with the ruling or decision not to get involved in the government attorney's case, but Starr's office issued a surprisingly detailed and pretty combative - I thought - statement in which it said it was gratified by the decision, but then it didn't stop there. It went on to say that the White House's arguments were novel and with utter lack of merit and amounted to a gross misuse of public funds and I said that all it had done is delay and impede the grand jury's investigation. I think that the statement today really reflected just how bitter some of this legal wrangling has become between Starr and the White House. |
||||||||||||||
| Saying yes to school vouchers... | ||||||||||||||
|
JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: And this case certainly can have a tremendous impact across the country as school districts and state legislators and parents are trying to find ways to solve problems with struggling school systems and diminishing test scores. Specifically, this case asks whether or not a program in Milwaukee in the state of Wisconsin that would allow parents to use state money to send their kids - certain low income parents to send their kids to private schools, whether or not that violated the Constitution. Opponents of this school voucher program argued that it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it essentially amounted to the state government subsidizing religious schools, because it would allow the parents to use state money as tuition in a sense. PHIL PONCE: And what had the Wisconsin Supreme Court held?
PHIL PONCE: Again, not taking this - this case on appeal - it's not a decision and what - does it have any precedential value at all? JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: No. And the opponents of school vouchers were very quick to make that point today that this decision has this decision not to get involved, has no national - sets no national precedent. And there's all these other cases being decided and certainly let's say, for example, when the Ohio Supreme Court issues its ruling, you can be sure that whoever is on the losing side, they'll be back asking the Supreme Court to step in and decide this issue. But right now what we have is the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and that is law in Wisconsin and that stands and that says this school voucher program in Wisconsin that has already this past year benefited upwards of five or six thousand students is okay under the Constitution. PHIL PONCE: Jan Crawford Greenburg, thank you very much. |
 |
|||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
JAN
CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, this case came about when the independent
counsel, Kenneth Starr, tried to get presidential confidante Bruce Lindsey
and other White House attorneys to testify before his grand jury. They
maintain the White House and the lawyers maintain that they shouldn't
have to answer certain questions because of the attorney-client privilege,
which, as you know, protects lawyers from testifying about conversations
they've had with their clients. 
PHIL
PONCE: And what happened in the lower court and what did the Supreme
Court do today? 
PHIL
PONCE: In ongoing investigations. 
JAN
CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right, and they call it a protective function
privilege. But the lower court said no way, we're not going to do this.
If this something important, which we don't think it is, it's never
come up in the past, this is something that Congress does - 
PHIL
PONCE: Another big case today, one out of Wisconsin involving school
vouchers - again, the court decided not to take the case on appeal.
What was the case about? 
JAN
CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The Wisconsin Supreme Court didn't buy that argument.
They said, no, this doesn't violate the First Amendment. For one thing,
the state's not trying to advance religion; it's letting parents choose
whether or not they're going to send their kids to say a religious school
or a non-religious school, so the state's not really making this decision;
it's the parent. It's up to the parent. So according to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, the school voucher program was fine. And that was the
ruling that the court let stand today. This case was very, very closely
watched by groups across the country that are thinking about or are
trying similar programs and there are other legal challenges now brewing,
four different states are paying for it, has this exact issue or a very
similar issue now before them. So even though the court does not get
involved today, certainly they're going to have another opportunity
in the future, perhaps as soon as next year.