Of Kids, Congressmen and Cancer

Days of judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court

Like college students with term papers due, U.S. Supreme Court Justices begin to churn out opinions at a fast clip as the court's October-to-June term draws to an end. Their most notable decisions last week:

Capitol Immunity. When Congressman Henry Helstoski appeared before a grand jury investigating political corruption in New Jersey in 1974, he came voluntarily and promised "full cooperation." Two years and nine grand jury appearances later, Helstoski was no longer volunteering information or even answering questions. By then the Congressman himself was a target of the probe. In June 1976 he was indicted for taking bribes in exchange for introducing private bills in Congress that allowed aliens to stay in the U.S.

That was the end of Helstoski's twelve-year congressional career. Tainted by the charges of corruption, he was defeated in the November election. But he has continued to enjoy one of the privileges of his former office. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Government could not use any evidence against Helstoski that referred to his past legislative activity. The reason: the Constitution states flatly that "for any Speech or Debate in either House," members of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other place."

Helstoski had argued that the bribery charges against him should be thrown out. Though Justice William Brennan agreed, the rest of the court would not go that far. The Government can still show that Helstoski promised to introduce bills.

But it cannot show that he actually delivered. "Without doubt," acknowledged Chief Justice Warren Burger, "exclusion of evidence will make prosecutions more difficult." The Justice Department argued that it would make some bribery prosecutions against Congressmen "nearly impossible." At week's end, the Government was still deciding whether or not to drop its case against Helstoski.

Laetrile in Limbo. While scientists have diligently searched for treatments for cancer, enterprising entrepreneurs have foisted off remedies ranging from peat moss to a paste made from glycerin and Limburger cheese. For the past three decades the most popular anticancer nostrum has been Laetrile, a derivative of the pits of apricots and other fruits, which is used by as many as 75,000 cancer patients. Since the Federal Government has never found Laetrile to be safe and effective, it is barred from interstate distribution. Two years ago, however, a U.S. court of appeals ruled that the ban does not apply to terminally ill cancer patients. The court reasoned that since the patients were going to die anyway, the Food and Drug Act's "safe and effective" standard is irrelevant; thus the Government should not deny them the drug.

The Supreme Court refused to buy that argument, unanimously declaring that the law's protection does reach the terminally ill. The decision will not stop the traffic in Laetrile, however. It has always been easily smuggled, and 20 states have legalized its use. Even the Federal Government cannot prevent interstate shipment of the drug until other legal issues are resolved, such as whether terminally ill patients have a constitutional right of privacy that allows them to use the drug even though it has not been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration.

Child Rights. Almost 300 years ago, a Pennsylvania man asked local officials to confine his mentally disturbed child. Agreeing that the child had "turned quite mad," they ordered "a little blockhouse" built for "said madman." Mental hospitals have long since replaced blockhouses, and parents now frequently commit children to them. In the past few years, however, so-called voluntary commitment has come under attack. Several court challenges were brought on grounds that parents were simply unloading unwanted children and that the children's constitutional rights were being violated.

In two cases, from Georgia and Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled that children do have some due process rights of their own. A "neutral fact finder," who can be a hospital psychiatrist, must independently decide that the child should be admitted. The court also insisted that "the child's continuing need for commitment be reviewed periodically by a similarly independent procedure." But the court rejected the argument that a child should have a formal hearing, with the right to a lawyer to represent him. The law has historically recognized "that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children," wrote Burger. Parents do not always have "an absolute and unreviewable" right to institutionalize their children, but Burger warned against "pitting parents and child as adversaries."

The court's decisions effectively uphold the commitment procedures of more than 30 states. Children's rights advocates denounced the rulings--and promised more litigation.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.