Standing in the Courthouse Door

So far in this election there has been a great deal of talk about representing the "people, not the powerful." Unfortunately, in the context of the past legislative session, this phrase represents more than just charged rhetoric. In the last two years, Congress has been remarkably concerned with the welfare of businesses and employers, and has repeatedly attempted to limit access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged. Three bills stand out as examples of how this past Congress--and specifically the more partisan House of Representatives--has gone out of its way to hand out judicial plums to those who need them least, and to deny the protection of the courts to those with most to fear.

The first bill--the "Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act"--passed the House Feb. 2. It would have restricted the liability of durable goods manufacturers to 18 years after their products were first sold. Workers eligible for workers' compensation would have been directly targeted by the bill; Most compensation programs cover only economic damages, such as lost wages or medical bills, so a worker injured by a defective machine would be unable to collect damages for injuries such as death, loss of limb, loss of child, permanent disfigurement or chronic pain. In one 1995 case identified by House Democrats, Reginaldo Gonzalez lost an arm due to a defective printing press made in 1973. The manufacturer had recognized the defects in the press in 1974 and altered the model, but neglected to tell previous buyers about the danger the machines posed. Under this bill, Gonzalez would have been unable to sue for non-economic injuries. Had the machine injured a visitor to the plant as well, the visitor would have been able to sue, but not Gonzalez. As a final injustice, even though Gonzalez would be shut out of the courts, his employer would still be able to sue to recover the profits he lost over the episode. Most remarkable of all, the bill would have preempted state laws adopted to protect citizens, letting the federal government interfere--often unconstitutionally--in completely intrastate suits.

The "Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999," which passed the House Sept. 23, 1999, would have forced almost all class-action suits into an already clogged federal court system. Worse still, the bill would have unilaterally imposed federal standards onto state class-action claims, meaning that many cases previously heard as state class actions--often involving the environment, civil rights or consumer protections--would be sent to federal court, divided up into thousands of individual cases and sent back to the states to clog their courts as well. No wonder the Conference of Chief Justices, whose state courts would be responsible for hearing those suits, wrote in terror that the bill would be "an unwarranted incursion into the principles of judicial federalism."

Perhaps the most stunning case of legislative malfeasance was found in the misnamed "Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act." That bill would have again preempted state law and retroactively denied access to the courts to workers exposed to asbestos, forcing them to go through a new bureaucracy and jump through a series of arbitrary medical hoops with no basis in existing science before becoming eligible to file suit. Even greater obstacles to compensation would be placed in front of the spouse or children of asbestos workers who contracted lung cancer from breathing fibers off of work clothes. All of this would come as a handout to the main asbestos defendants, such as W.R. Grace and Owens-Corning, who have told their stockholders that their profits are not expected to suffer due to asbestos suits. Luckily, an assurance of a Presidential veto helped keep this monstrosity from getting to the floor, but under a new administration, there's no telling what would happen: Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, has spent over $99 million settling asbestos claims from exposed workers, with almost 50,000 new lawsuits filed this year, and both the company and Cheney personally have contributed to the campaigns of the sponsors and supporters of the bill.

None of these bills eventually became law. But the message they send--other than a contemptuous disregard for the states' right to protect workers and consumers--is that the GOP-dominated House has little interest in those disadvantaged by an expensive legal system. Large manufacturers don't need these get-out-of-jail-free cards; meanwhile, consumers and citizens looking to the courts for protection are increasingly coming away empty. In 1996, Congress cut by a quarter the funding of the Legal Services Corporation, which helps the poor find lawyers in civil cases. That same year, Congress prohibited Legal Services money from being used in class-action lawsuits, illegal immigration cases, and welfare disputes--the issues most likely to affect the poor.

In this election year dominated by tones of compassion, it's worth remembering what priorities a Republican-dominated Congress showed months away from an election, when no one was watching. It's worth remembering whether Congress has supported the rights of those in need--or whether it has stood in the courthouse door.

Stephen E. Sachs '02, a Crimson executive, is a history concentrator in Quincy House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.