Public Interest Briefs

Center Cases Figure Prominently in United States Supreme Court Docket

Center litigation is figuring prominently in the current U.S.Supreme Court docket. One Center case has already made national headlines this year and two more could be of major national importance during the coming Supreme Court term.

The two cases that may be decided this coming year are likely to get widespread attention because of their subject matters–mail covers that invade the right of privacy and employment discrimination.

In one case, Choate v. US., U.S. the Center has asked the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of “mail covers.” When the Postal Service places a mail cover on an individual or organization, a detailed record is made of all information appearing on the outside of first-class envelopes, including return addresses, postmarks, and postage meters. This information is turned over to the requesting local, state, or federal law enforcement agency and can be used in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of mail covers although they are widely used. During 1973-1974, some 9,130 mail covers were in effect for a total of 339,425 surveillance days.

Last year, in related cases, the Court held that customs inspectors may open mail originating outside the United States if there is a reasonable cause to suspect the envelopes contain contraband. The Court, however, ruled that it is illegal for authorities to open domestic mail or mail originating in the U.S. without first obtaining a search warrant.

In the Choate case, the Center is appealing a 2-1 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that a “mail cover” performed by a postal employee without a search warrant does not invade the reasonable expectation of privacy of the sender or addressee. On behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the Committee for Public Justice, and Mr. Choate Center attorneys have asked the Court to grant certiorari in the case. The Center will argue that recording such information constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

The first U.S. Supreme Court review of a Center-litigated case, Van Davis v. County of Los Angeles, is scheduled for fall. It charges the Los Angeles County Fire Department with using racially discriminatory practices in hiring county firefighters.

It was brought by the Center in 1973 under both Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act at a time when only 9 (.41%) of the 1900 county firefighters were black and 40 (2.1%) were Mexican-American. Yet those two minority groups comprised 29% of the County’s general population.

Title VII of the 1964 Act has been the primary basis for most of the Center’s litigation challenging employment discrimination. Court interpretations of the Act have focused on the effects rather than the purpose of a challenged employment practice. If statistics demonstrate that a particular job requirement (such as having to pass a written test) excludes a disproportionate number of minorities, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the requirement is “job-related.” The plaintiffs need not prove that the employer intentionally discriminated.

At trial in Federal District Court, the Center proved that the County’s recruitment and testing procedures for firefighters which excluded virtually all minorities were not job related and, therefore, discriminated unlawfully in violation of Title VII. Judge William P. Gray ordered the Fire Department to hire at least 20% blacks and 20% Mexican-Americans in each new class of firefighters until parity with the surrounding population was reached. This was the first case in which a hiring order had been imposed on an employer by the Central District of California Federal Court.

(continued in full brief)