SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

High court won't revive post 9/11 torture lawsuit WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The appeal asked the court to examine two controversial aspects of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, "the extraordinary rendition" program that sent the suspects to secret prisons and the "state secrets privilege." The high court has refused several other appeals based on the government's invocation of state secrets to derail lawsuits. The case involved five terrorism suspects who were arrested shortly after 9/11 and said they were flown by a Boeing Co. subsidiary to prisons around the world where they were tortured. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco cited national security risks in dismissing the men's case last year. The terror suspects sued Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan in 2007, alleging that the extraordinary rendition program amounted to illegal "forced disappearances." They alleged that the San Jose-based subsidiary conspired with the CIA to operate the program. A trial court judge quickly dismissed the lawsuit after the Bush administration took over defense of the case from Chicago-based Boeing and invoked the state secrets privilege, demanding a halt to the litigation over concern that top secret intelligence would be divulged. A three-judge panel of the appeals court reinstated the lawsuit in 2009, but a larger group of judges split 6-5 in saying the case could not go forward. After reviewing public and classified documents, the majority concluded that at least some information the government wants to protect "are valid state secrets." The five dissenters said the men should be allowed to try to prove their case using publicly disclosed evidence. Two of the five plaintiffs remain in prison in Egypt and Morocco. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case because she worked on it when she served in the Justice Department. The case is Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, 10-778. Court refuses to hear 'So help me God' challenge WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is brushing aside an atheist's challenge to religion in government, refusing to hear a complaint about President Barack Obama adding "so help me God" to his inaugural oath of office. The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Michael Newdow, who argued that government references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs. Many presidents have added "so help me God" to the oath. Newdow sued to keep Obama from doing so and lost. He wanted overturned an appeals court's ruling saying it would be useless to ban Chief Justice John Roberts from prompting Obama to say "so help me God" because the president could have easily found someone else to administer the oath. Justices side with police in warrantless search By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence. Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment. The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence. Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant. But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame." In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases. "Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said. The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home. The issue was whether warrantless entry was justified after the officers' knock on the door triggered a reaction inside that sounded like the destruction of evidence. An odd set of facts led to Monday's ruling. Police were only at King's apartment building because they were chasing a man who sold cocaine to a police informant. The man entered King's building and ducked into an apartment. The officers heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors. They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left. In fact, the suspect had gone into the apartment on the right. Police eventually arrested him, too, but prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that were not explained in court papers. ---------------- Associated Press writer Jesse J. Holland contributed to this report. Court says FOIA request cannot be used in lawsuit WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says a Freedom of Information Act request cannot be used to trigger a False Claims Act lawsuit. The court on Monday voted 5-3 to agree with arguments by Schindler Elevator Corp., which sought to get a lawsuit against it dismissed. Daniel Kirk, a former employee, sued on behalf of the government, claiming Schindler had not complied with reporting requirements involving the employment of Vietnam veterans. But a judge threw out his lawsuit, saying Kirk's information came from a FOIA request. The False Claims Act says that lawsuits cannot be filed using publicly disclosed information. The judge said FOIA reports were public information. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City overturned that decision but the high court said it was correct. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented and was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate because she worked on this case while serving as solicitor general. The case is Schindler Elevator Corp. v United States, 10-188. Case over anonymity in school lawsuit nixed WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to hear a dispute over whether students challenging a private Hawaiian school system's admissions policy must be identified. The court on Monday left in place lower court rulings against four non-Hawaiian students who object to the Kamehameha Schools' policy that gives admissions preference to those of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted. The challengers wanted to file their suit anonymously because of concerns about public humiliation and retaliation if they are identified. Published: Wed, May 18, 2011