Adherence to Constitution not a sometimes thing

On Jan. 14 the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Klotz v. St. Anthony's, a case that challenges the constitutionality of the caps that the Missouri General Assemble has imposed on damages in medical negligence cases. One week later, on Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a case that challenged the constitutionality of the ban Congress had imposed on political expenditures by corporations and unions.

By holding that the ban Congress imposed on political contributions violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown the Missouri Supreme Court how it must rule in the Klotz case.

Citizens United was a case involving the First Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Klotz is a case involving the right of trial by jury that is found in both the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which provides that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved") and Article I, Section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution (which provides that "the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate").

Each of the constitutional provisions clearly prohibits legislative bodies from enacting laws that violate principles held sacred by our Founding Fathers: freedom of speech and the right to trial by jury.

The U.S. Supreme Court adhered to and enforced the First Amendment right to freedom of speech in Citizens United. The Missouri Supreme Court must, in Klotz, adhere to and enforce the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment and the Missouri Constitution.

Although Citizens United and Klotz involve different constitutional rights and principles, the cases are strikingly analogous. In Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment was "premised on mistrust of governmental power" and that "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."

In Klotz, the Missouri Supreme Court is confronted with the constitutional right to trial by jury. When our Founding Fathers provided, in the Seventh Amendment, that "the right to trial by jury shall be preserved," they clearly did so because of "mistrust of governmental power."

By imposing caps on the damages that may be awarded in medical negligence cases, the Missouri General Assembly has substituted its judgment for that of a jury. To be consistent with the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United, the Missouri Supreme Court must hold in Klotz that the constitutional right to trial by jury "must prevail against laws which would suppress it by design or inadvertence."

Congress enacted the ban on political contributions by corporations and unions because a majority believed there were public-policy reasons for doing so. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the constitutional right to free speech trumps those public-policy concerns.

The Missouri General Assembly placed caps on damages in medical negligence cases because a majority believed there were public-policy reasons for doing so. While Missouri's legislators represent the people, juries are composed of the people. The Missouri Supreme Court must follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court and recognize that the constitutional right to trial by jury trumps the legislature's public-policy concerns.

Conservative commentators have uniformly praised the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, citing the duty of the Supreme Court to find a law unconstitutional when it violates principles our Founding Fathers held sacred. Our Founding Fathers recognized that juries are the very essence of democratic government, and they entrusted the people, rather than government, with the power to resolve civil disputes.

Any attempt by the Missouri General Assembly to usurp the power of juries violates the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment and the Missouri Constitution.

The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United serves as a compelling reminder to the Missouri Supreme Court that it too must demand strict adherence to the sacred constitutional principles upon which our democracy is based.

Paul J. Passanante is an attorney in St. Louis and a past-president of the Eastern Missouri-Southern Illinois chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates.