WASHINGTON — The Bush administration won a Supreme Court case Monday over the president's choice for a civil rights commission.
The court ended a nearly yearlong dispute over the appointment of conservative Cleveland lawyer Peter Kirsanow, turning back an appeal by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the woman who claimed she still had the commission job.
An appeals court had ruled earlier this year that Kirsanow could join the commission. Justices left the ruling undisturbed without comment.
A majority of commission members tried to block Kirsanow from participating in meetings after his appointment last December. They argued that the term of Victoria Wilson, appointed by President Clinton in 2000, had not expired.
The panel investigates civil rights complaints but has no enforcement power.
"The commission has been charged with performing an important mission, and history shows that its mandate is best fulfilled when the commission operates free from presidential interference," lawyers for Wilson and the commission told justices in a filing.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, Bush's top Supreme Court attorney, told the court that Wilson was serving only a partial term of a commission member who died. Olson, quoting a lower court, said if Wilson was allowed to serve a full six-year term it "would invite the very sort of political manipulation" that Congress wanted to stop.
The court's refusal to intervene does not end the controversy over Kirsanow's choice.
Two civil rights groups called for his removal this summer after he said that another attack by foreign terrorists might result in public calls for increased detention of Arab-Americans.
Also on Monday, the court:
Broadened its review of the death penalty, agreeing to consider when death row inmates with bad lawyers deserve a second chance.
Justices will review the case of a man who claims he was unfairly sentenced after being convicted of drowning an elderly woman in her bathtub. The court could use the case of Maryland death row inmate Kevin Wiggins to clarify the threshold for ineffective counsel claims in capital cases.
Agreed to take a new look at federal limits on campaign contributions to candidates.
The court will decide whether certain advocacy groups can contribute to candidates' campaigns. Currently, only individuals, political action committees, political parties and other campaign committees can give to candidates.
This case is unrelated to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which bans unlimited corporate, labor and individual contributions to the political parties. Opponents have challenged that law in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court has been more willing to uphold limits on contributions, which justices have said could give the appearance of corruption. In June 2001, a very divided court ruled 5-4 that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in January 2000, the court voted 6-3 to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
Agreed to consider more limits on lawsuits by the disabled, this time involving a state medical board's refusal to license a mentally ill doctor.
Justices will decide whether agencies, like the California Medical Board, have constitutional protection from lawsuits under a federal disability law.
The high court heard four cases involving the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act in its last term, and all four rulings went against the disabled. The 1990 law forbids discrimination against the disabled.