Dissent Through the Courts

Scorn for the administration of U.S. justice may be an article of faith for some of today's protesters. Yet a remarkable number of others choose to defend their dissent in the courts rather than the streets. Moreover, the courts usually respond to reason. Among recent cases:

> Patrolman Eugene Brukiewa, head of the Baltimore police union, spoke up on a local TV show and lashed his superiors for new department policies that had caused police morale to "hit its lowest ebb." Brukiewa was put on probation for conduct unbecoming to an officer. He sued the city police commissioner, charging that his right of free speech had been violated. Ordering a reversal of the disciplinary action, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment protects outspoken policemen despite their paramilitary status.

> Although they were U.S. citizens, over 21 and literate in Spanish, two Los Angeles County residents discovered that they were ineligible to vote because they could not pass an English literacy test required by state law. Genoveva Castro and Jesus Parra challenged the requirement on the ground that it violated their 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. In a pioneering decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote cannot be denied solely on the basis of the English literacy test. "It would be ironic," said the court, "that petitioners, who are heirs of a great and gracious culture, identified with the birth of California and contributing in no small measure to its growth, should be disenfranchised in their ancestral land, despite their capacity to cast an informed vote."

> White House pickets had a new reason for protesting after the Government recently introduced a 33-item questionnaire including the requirement that demonstration leaders list their arrest and conviction records as well as their views on the use of violence before permits would be issued. U.S. District Judge George Hart, a conservative and strict constructionist, surprised many civil libertarians when he struck down 15 of the 33 questions, ruling that the exhaustive questionnaire had a chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms. The Houston Peace Coalition won a similar court victory over city officials who discouraged political parades in the downtown area while granting permits to a University of Houston golfers' march and a St. Patrick's Day parade. Ruled U.S. District Judge John V. Singleton Jr.: "The city cannot put the golf team and St. Patrick's on Main Street and war protesters on some side street."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.