Gay Rights Upheld in Okla. Schools : 4-4 Supreme Court Vote Does Not Set National Precedent

WASHINGTON — An evenly divided Supreme Court today barred Oklahoma public school boards from firing teachers who advocate, encourage or promote homosexuality.

The justices, by a 4-4 vote, upheld a federal appeals court ruling that an Oklahoma law allowing such firings violated teachers’ free-speech rights.

High court tie votes, however, do not set binding legal precedents because it is possible that in some future case on the same issue, all nine justices will participate.

A tie vote automatically upholds the lower court ruling in the particular dispute, but unlike most of the Supreme Court’s decisions it does not set any national precedent.

Justice Lewis F. Powell, who missed hearing oral arguments in the Oklahoma case in January because he was recuperating from prostate surgery, did not participate in the Oklahoma case.

The Oklahoma law stated that a teacher could be fired or otherwise denied work for engaging in “public homosexual conduct or activity.”

Activity Defined

The law defined that as “advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting public or private homosexual activity in a manner that creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of schoolchildren or school employees.”

The National Gay Task Force challenged the law in a test case lawsuit against the Oklahoma City Board of Education. The suit attacked the law as written without ever alleging that it had been used against any teacher or teacher applicant.

National Gay Task Force spokesman Ron Najman in New York City called the court’s ruling a key victory.

He said the court “has affirmed that gay men and lesbians have the same First Amendment free-speech rights as other Americans.”

In another case, the court ruled in a victory for national insurance firms that states generally may not impose higher taxes on out-of-state businesses than in-state firms.

The court, by a 5-4 vote, said an Alabama tax violated the constitutional rights of out-of-state insurance firms.

Powell, writing for the court, said states may not impose higher taxes on out-of-state companies if the only purpose is to promote in-state business.