Jewish Groups Welcome Court’s Decision to Hear Hate-crimes Case

Jewish groups have welcomed a decision Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Wisconsin ruling striking down a state hate- crimes law.

“It is important at a time when tensions and unrest are rising that the Supreme Court clarify its position on the constitutionality of hate-crimes statutes,” said Jess Hordes, director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington office.

The court’s ruling has implications nationwide, where over 20 states have similar legislation on the books. Most of the laws are based on an ADL hate- crimes model rule that boosts penalties for crimes motivated by bias.

“We’re going to be spared endless litigation,” by a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, said Mark Stern, co-director of the American Jewish Congress Commission on Law and Social Action, which joined ADL in a friend-of-the-court amicus brief urging the justices to hear the case.

Stern said legal challenges similar to the one that brought down the Wisconsin law are currently in the pipeline in several states. “We will now have an answer to the question of whether the enhancement statutes are constitutional.”

The American Jewish Committee joined in welcoming the court’s decision and said it may file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Wisconsin law.

The National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council was among the other Jewish groups that lined up behind the appeal. Non-Jewish groups who filed briefs included the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Wisconsin appealed to the Supreme Court in September, after the state’s highest court ruled that enhanced penalties for certain crimes infringe on free speech.

The case involves a 1989 incident in Kenosha, Wis. A young black man, Todd Mitchell, and a group of younger black teen-agers were standing together after seeing “Mississippi Burning,” a film which shows a black child being beaten by whites.

When a white teen, Gregory Riddick, walked by, Mitchell urged the others to “go get” the “white boy.” They attacked Riddick and beat him unconscious; the boy suffered extensive injuries and possibly permanent brain damage.

Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, for which he was sentenced to two years in jail. He received another two years for his motive in selecting the victim. He appealed the additional sentence, claiming the hate-crimes law penalized free speech.

The Wisconsin ruling finding the law unconstitutional came last June on the heels of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last June to strike down a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that banned the display of a Nazi swastika or a burning cross. The high court ruled that the ordinance violated guarantees of free speech.

Hordes of ADL said supporters of the Wisconsin law draw a distinction between its provisions and those of the St. Paul statute.

The St. Paul rule criminalized conduct that showed bias, while Wisconsin’s law called for stiffer sentences for crimes already on the books, when those crimes are committed out of bigotry. “Someone has to commit a criminal act before (the Wisconsin law) is triggered,” explained Hordes.

Enhanced penalties signal that crime motivated by hate and prejudice will be treated more severely “because of the impact they have on society as a whole,” said Hordes.

“We believe the Wisconsin law is constitutional,” said Richard Foltin, director of governmental affairs at the AJCommittee. “It is our hope that the Supreme Court has granted review so that it can make clear the (St. Paul) case does not prevent the enactment of hate-crimes legislation.”

Ohio separately appealed a state-court ruling striking down its hate-crimes law last September, the same week that Wisconsin filed its appeal. Its legislation was similar to Wisconsin’s. Hordes said it is not clear why the court chose to hear the Wisconsin case, but he said he was pleased at the choice, since a strong dissent in the Wisconsin court’s decision would make for a stronger case on appeal.