WASHINGTON (BP)–The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law requiring public libraries to install pornography-blocking Internet filters and issued split decisions on affirmative action in rulings released June 23.
The high court voted 6-3 to reverse a ruling last year by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a portion of the Children’s Internet Protection Act. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously the federal law violated the U.S. Constitution by requiring public libraries that receive government Internet discounts to install filters on their computers to block pornography.
In the affirmative-action opinions, the justices struck down an undergraduate, racially based admissions program at the University of Michigan but upheld a law school system at the same university that provides race with less significance in admissions. The court found the undergraduate system unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision, while it voted 5-4 to affirm the law school program.
The Children’s Internet Protection Act, which was approved by Congress in late 2000, required libraries to install technology to screen out obscenity and child pornography on all computers and to block soft-core porn and other harmful material on those used by children. The Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia said in its opinion, however, the leading filters block thousands of pages of constitutionally protected speech.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote CIPA does not violate library patrons’ First Amendment rights and “is a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power.” Libraries may disable filters to provide access to wrongly blocked sites, Rehnquist said. To the contention by the Third Circuit that some patrons may be too embarrassed to make such a request, the chief justice said the Constitution “does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment.”
Joining Rehnquist in the court’s ruling were Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The high court ruled the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions system, which grants 20 points of a maximum possible of 150 to racial or ethnic minorities, is not “narrowly tailored” to meet the school’s goal of diversity. It also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Rehnquist wrote.
The breakdown by justices in the 6-3 opinion was the same as in the Internet filters ruling.
The justices, however, ruled the law school’s admissions program was narrowly tailored. Its consideration of race advanced a compelling interest “in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” O’Connor wrote in the court’s opinion.
Joining O’Connor in the majority were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Dissenting were Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas.
–30–
Additional reporting on these two cases will appear in Baptist Press on Tues., June 24.
