Posted on 05/28/2002 5:03:29 PM PDT by IoCaster
Supreme Court: State Immunity in Shipping Case
Tue May 28,11:07 AM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a further dilution of the federal government's power, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday federal regulators could not intervene in a dispute between a private operator of casino gambling ships and a state agency.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court rejected arguments by the Federal Maritime Commission that it has the power to decide a claim by South Carolina Maritime Services, a private firm that operates vessels for casino gambling, in its dispute with South Carolina port officials.
Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court majority that state sovereign immunity bars the commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a state agency.
The decision added to a string of rulings in recent years by the court's conservative majority that has expanded state immunity while cutting back on the federal government's power.
The company charged the South Carolina State Ports Authority had refused berthing space to one of its vessels and had violated the nondiscrimination requirements of a 1984 federal shipping law.
It complained the state agency has a policy of refusing to berth ships whose primary purpose was gambling while providing berthing space to other vessels that offered comparable gambling services.
The complaint asked the federal agency to order the state agency to pay reparations and to stop the alleged violations of federal law.
An administrative law judge ruled the constitutional principles of state sovereign immunity applied to a private complaint against a state entity before a federal agency.
The Federal Maritime Commission disagreed, arguing state sovereign immunity does not extend to administrative proceedings.
A federal appeals court ruled for the state. It said the same principles of sovereign immunity that applied to lawsuits in court also applied to agency proceedings.
The Supreme Court agreed, with Justices John Paul Stevens , David Souter , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissenting.
Breyer said the ruling improperly interferes with the efforts by federal administrative agencies to determine whether a complaint is well founded and whether to proceed to court to enforce the law.
"The court's decision threatens to deny the executive and legislative branches of government the structural flexibility that the Constitution permits and which modern government demands, Breyer said.
Let's hear it for the majority!
Hmmm, I guess Breyer means the US Constitution is obsolete.
Great decision. Chalk one more up for the good guys.
Keep it up Scalia and Thomas. Drip, drip, drip.
I've seen many variations of it put forth and defended at FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.