AAJ's Center for Constitutional Litigation Wins Important Nevada Case

On March 22, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Angle v. Guinn, a decision issued last summer by the Nevada Supreme Court in a controversial school funding/tax increase case.

The U.S. Supreme Court's order, issued without dissent, completely rejects a call for it to take supervisory control of the Nevada Supreme Court. The Justices' decision not only vindicates the Nevada Court as the final authority on questions of state constitutional law but also amounts to a stunning rebuke to former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese and Prof. John Eastman of Claremont University's Institute for Constitutional Jurisprudence, who had filed a petition for certiorari in January on behalf of 24 dissident state legislators asking the Justices to reverse the Nevada Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution.

Citing Bush v. Gore, Meese had argued that the state court's July 2003 decision -- in which it had construed the state constitution as authorizing the legislature to balance the state's budget and fund the state's schools, even at the cost of higher taxes -- violated various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as the Guarantee of a Republican Form of Government. The Court decision signals that state courts have breathing room to interpret their own constitutions as they see fit, free from interference by federal judges unless they violate the federal constitution.

Ned Miltenberg, Senior Counsel of the Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL), served as Counsel of Record for the brief in opposition to certiorari that was filed on behalf of the Nevada Legislature. He was joined on the brief by CCL President Robert S. Peck, USC Law Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, and Brenda J. Erdoes, head of the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau. They argued, and the High Court evidently agreed, that cert should be denied because the case involved inherently "political questions" that are better left to state courts, state legislatures, and state voters.

They also argued that a decision overturning the Nevada court would fundamentally undermine the U.S. Constitution's federalist design by transforming the U.S. Supreme Court into the court of last resort on every state constitutional issue. Finally, they argued that the Court should repudiate Meese's petition for two technical reasons: first, the case was rendered "moot" when the Nevada Legislature passed a tax bill by a two-thirds margin, and second, the dissidents never gave Nevada courts a chance to review and rule on their federal constitutional arguments

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision was even more remarkable because Meese's petition had garnered significant attention and support throughout the country. Indeed, the Pacific Legal Foundation, a ultra-conservative think tank, had filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari on behalf of 36 California legislators, while another amicus brief was filed on behalf of the National Taxpayers Union, the Nevada Manufacturers Association, and 10 other groups.

For more information, click the links below:

Center for Constitutional Litigation