Supreme Court PreviewAuthor(s): ANDREA NEALSource: ABA Journal, Vol. 74, No. 12 (DECEMBER 1, 1988), p. 36Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20760253 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 08:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:10:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BY ANDREA NEAL Supreme Court Preview

FAMILY LAW McNamara v. San Diego

Department of Social Services (No. 87-5840)

Argued Nov. 28, 1988

The Supreme Court tackles a new breed of family law cases in this appeal by an unwed father fighting to gain custody of a daughter who was given up for adoption.

The Court must decide in this case whether termination of the pa rental rights of Edward McNamara violated the equal protection clause.

"The right to parent one's chil dren has been vindicated in a long line of cases. It is a fundamental right," argues the appeal by lawyers for McNamara, whose daughter, Ka tie, was born July 18, 1981.

McNamara had dated Katie's mother for three months in 1980, but the relationship ended before either party knew of the pregnancy. Shortly after Katie's birth, the mother asked the San Diego County Department of Adoptions to place the child with fos ter parents, who eventually adopted her.

McNamara, who had two sons from a previous marriage, learned of the birth of his child on Aug. 1,1981, and sought custody. The trial judge who heard the case, however, de cided it was in the girl's best interest to remain with the foster family and in December 1981 terminated Mc Namara's parental rights, despite finding that McNamara was "a good parent [who] can provide a good, lov ing home for this child."

The case, the first of its kind to be considered by the Court, hinges on whether terminating the parental rights of an unwed father who is oth erwise fit to be a parent violates his right to equal protection under the laws.

Lawyers for the County of San Diego Department of Social Services are urging the court not to disrupt the life of McNamara's daughter. "In this case, the family unit was and re mains Katie and Mr. and Mrs. Moses. This is the only family that Katie has ever known," they say.

Andrea Neat is a reporter for UPI in Washington, D.C.

Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases is a publication of the Public Education Division of the American Bar Association in cooperation with the Association of American Law Schools and the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Preview contains descriptions of current cases, with their issues, facts, background and significance. It is published every two weeks during the Supreme Court's term and may be obtained for $95 annually from ABA Order Fulfillment No. 235 2000,750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611.

PRIVACY RIGHTS U.S. Department of Justice v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

(No. 87-1379) To be argued Dec. 7, 1988

More than 24 million Americans are the subjects of FBI "rap sheets" containing their arrest and convic tion records. The justices will decide this term if the data generally must be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

The case involves two FOIA re quests filed in 1978 by CBS News cor

respondent Robert Schakne and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The requests sought identifica tion records or "rap sheets" on Wil liam, Phillip, Charles and Samuel

Medico, who were being investigated for illegal dealings in connection with federal contracts arranged by two Pennsylvania congressmen.

Although the requests were lim ited to information that is already part of the public record in local law enforcement agencies, the govern ment refused to turn over the records for Charles Medico?the only living subject?on grounds that releasing the information would violate his privacy.

Government lawyers argue that it would be difficult for the FBI to compile a national data bank on criminal suspects if local agencies knew the information might be made available to anyone who asks.

But the lawyers for the reporters committee say there "can be little, if

any, privacy interest in arrests, in dictments, convictions and other for mal actions that occur in the course of criminal prosecution."

STATE IMMUNITY Will v. Michigan Department of

State Police (No. 87-1207)

To be argued Dec. 5, 1988

The Supreme Court will use a case involving Michigan's "Red Squad" to determine if states may be sued in state courts for violating the constitutional rights of their citizens.

The case hinges on whether states are "persons" under Section 1983 of the 1971 Civil Rights Act,

which specifies that "every person" who violates the constitutional rights of others "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law."

Although states generally are ex empt from lawsuits filed by citizens in federal court, Supreme Court prec edents have allowed such actions when state officials deliberately vio late the rights of others through un constitutional policies.

The Court, however, has not ad dressed the extent of immunity a state enjoys from civil rights suits in state court.

The appeal was brought by Ray Will, a computer analyst with the state of Michigan since 1969. Will filed suit against the state in 1977 when he learned that he was denied a pro

motion in 1973 because his brother, Charles, was the subject of a Red Squad file.

The Red Squad was a special unit of state police officers whose job was to monitor college activists. Its activ ities were declared unconstitutional in 1976.

Will's lawyers say the term "per son" should be given "the normal

meaning assigned to it by the Dictionary Act?a definition that in cludes "bodies political and corpo rate."

But lawyers for the Michigan state police say the history behind the civil rights law does not indicate "that Congress intended to subject the states to suit on a federal cause of ac tion in their own courts for a Civil Rights deprivation.'' El

36 ABA JOURNAL / DECEMBER 1, 1988

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.199 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:10:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions