In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two significant 5-4 decisions. In the more portentous of the two, the court ruled that Congress, using its powers under the 14th Amendment, could not make states subject to suits by their employees for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In another hard-fought case, the court struck down a law prohibiting legal services lawyers who receive federal funds from challenging federal welfare laws. Aside from the substantial impact these decisions are likely to have on important areas of law, they serve as yet two more reminders of the extraordinarily narrow margin by which this court decides many of its most significant cases. There are many ideologically neutral reasons for turning away a case.
Some cases fail to raise significant questions of federal law.
Others are procedurally flawed or have underdeveloped records. Some are so fact-specific that a ruling would be difficult to generalize to other situations and thus would not serve as a strong precedent. Many justices over the years also have voted to deny review of certain cases for overtly ideological reasons. While defensive denials have a long history, the current court is exhibiting a new and interesting dynamic in their use. This was especially true regarding cases relating to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which requires suppression of the fruits of an illegal search.