The Supreme Court in summation

The court didn't gut a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of voting discrimination to clear changes in election procedures with the Justice Department, though Roberts' opinion in the 8-1 decision put Congress on notice that it should reconsider whether those states have redeemed themselves. It did not declare unconstitutional a rule requiring employers to show that tests that disproportionately exclude minorities are job-related, even as it held 5 to 4 that New Haven, Conn., misread that principle in discarding a test on which no black firefighters earned a promotion. It upheld on a 5-4 vote punishment for broadcasters who inadvertently air vulgar expletives, but left for another day whether such reprisals violate the 1st Amendment. In one action that does suggest the court might soon abandon a precedent, it postponed a ruling on whether an anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton documentary violated part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. In September, it will hear arguments on whether that section of the law violates the Constitution.

Other rulings were unalloyed victories for those who depend on the court to right wrongs committed, or ignored, by other institutions. By an 8-1 vote, the court ruled that school officials violated the rights of a 13-year-old girl when they strip-searched her on suspicion that she was hiding a prescription painkiller. By a 5-4 margin, it held that an elected West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a lawsuit involving a major campaign benefactor. In another 5-4 vote, it ruled that the 6th Amendment's confrontation clause requires that forensic experts be cross-examined about their findings, a recognition that crime labs aren't infallible. Deferring to Congress' decision to make special accommodations for disabled students, it ruled 6 to 3 that parents may be reimbursed for private-school tuition if a public school is found to have ignored a child's disability.

There was one decision that can only be deplored as a dereliction of the court's duty to provide a last resort for victims of injustice. By another 5-4 vote, it ruled that convicted defendants have no constitutional right to DNA evidence that might exonerate them. Roberts' majority opinion rationalized inaction by noting that most states offer access to DNA results, small comfort for prisoners who live elsewhere.

--

Questions for Sotomayor