Youre aware of theFeresDoctrine, Mr. Barr? Ramsey asked, referring to the 1950 Supreme Court opinion first granting immunity from lawsuits to the military. Barr smiled. Unfortunately, yes.

Arent you asking us to overturn fifty years of Court precedent? Ramsey looked up and down the bench as he said this. How can we decide this case in favor of your client without turning the military and this Court on their heads?

Knight did not let Barr answer. The Court did not allow that argument to dissuade it from overturning the segregated school system in this country. If the cause is right, the means are justified, and precedent cannot stand in the way of that.

Please answer my question, Mr. Barr, Ramsey persisted.

I think this case is distinguishable.

Really? There is no question that Barbara Chance and her male superiors were in uniform, on government property and performing their official duties when the sexual episodes occurred?

I would hardly call coerced sex, official duties. But nonetheless, the fact that her superior used his rank to coerce her into what amounted to a rape, and

And, Knight cut in, seemingly unable to remain quiet, the superior officers at the base in question and the regional command were aware these events had taken place had been advised in writing of them, even and had taken no action to even investigate the matter other than in a cursory fashion. It was Barbara Chance who called in the local police. They undertook an investigation which resulted in the truth coming to light. That truth clearly establishes a cause of action that would result in damages with respect to any other organization in this country.

Fiske stared from Ramsey to Knight. It was suddenly as though, instead of nine justices, there were only two. In Fiskes mind, the courtroom had been transformed into a boxing ring, with Ramsey the champ and Knight the talented contender, but still an underdog.

Were talking about the military here, Mr. Barr, Ramsey said, but he looked at Knight. This Court has ruled that the military issui generis.That is the precedent you face. Your case deals with chain-of-command issues. An inferior personnel to her superior. That is just the issue that this Court has several times in the past addressed and unequivocally decided that it would not intrude upon the militarys presumptive immunity. That was the law yesterday, and it is the law today. Which gets me back to my original statement. For us to hold for your client, this court must reverse its position on a long and deeply followed line of precedents. That is what you are asking us to do.

And as I mentioned earlier,stare decisisis clearly not infallible, Knight said, referring to the Courts practice of adhering to and upholding its previous decisions. Back and forth Knight and Ramsey went at it. For every salvo fired by one, there was an answer fired by the other. The other justices, and Mr. Barr, Fiske thought, were reduced to interested spectators. When the lawyer for the United States, James Anderson, stepped forward to deliver his argument, Knight did not even let him begin a sentence.

Why does allowing a damage suit against the Army for condoning a hostile environment for women interfere with the chain of command? she asked him.

It clearly impacts negatively on the integrity of the relationship between superior and subordinate personnel, Anderson promptly replied.

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. By allowing the military over the years to poison, gas, maim, kill and rape its soldiers with impunity, and stripping the victims of any legal recourse, that will somehow improve the relationship, the integrity, of the military and its personnel? Im sorry, but Im not quite getting the connection.

Fiske had to stop himself from laughing out loud. His respect for Knight as a lawyer and judge increased tenfold as she finished her statement. In two sentences, she had reduced the Armys entire case to the level of absurdity. He looked over at Sara. Her gaze was trained on Knight, with, Fiske thought, a great deal of pride. Anderson reddened slightly. The military, as the chief justice has pointed out, is a unique, special entity. Allowing lawsuits to fly at will can only inhibit and destroy that special bond between personnel, the need for discipline that is at the very core of military preparation and readiness.

So the military is special?

Right.

Because it serves to defend and protect us?

Exactly.

So we have the four branches of the Armed Forces which are already covered by that immunity. Why dont we extend this immunity to other special organizations? Like the fire department? The police department? They protect us. The Secret Service? They protect the president, arguably the most important person in the country. How about hospitals? They save our lives. Why not let hospitals be immune from suit in the event male doctors rape female personnel?

We are getting far outside the boundaries of this case, Ramsey said sternly.

I think those boundaries are precisely what were trying to determine, Knight fired back.

I believe thatU.S. v. Stanley Anderson began.

Im glad you mentioned it. Let me briefly recount the facts of that case, Knight said. She wanted this heard. By her fellow justices, several of whom were on the Court when the case had been decided, as well as by the public. To Knight, theStanleycase was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in history and represented everything that was wrong with the Court. That had also been Steven Wrights conclusion in his bench memo. And she intended to make those conclusions heard both today and when it came time to win a majority vote on this case. When Knight spoke, her voice was strong and resonating.

Master Sergeant James Stanley was in the Army in the fifties and volunteered for a program which he was told had to do with testing protective clothing against gas warfare. The testing was conducted in Maryland, at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Stanley signed up for it, but he was never asked to wear any special clothing or do testing with gas masks or anything. He only talked to some psychologists for great lengths of time about a variety of personal subjects, was given some water to drink during these sessions and that was it. In 1975, Stanley, whose life had gone downhill inexplicable behavior, discharge from the Army, divorce received a letter from the Army asking him to participate in a follow-up exam by members of the Army who had been given LSD in 1959, because the Army wanted to study the long-term effects of the drug. Under the pretense of testing clothing against gas warfare, the Army had slipped him and other soldiers LSD without his knowledge.

A collective gasp went up from the general publics seats as they heard this, and the spectators started talking to each other. Perkins actually had to bang his gavel, an almost unheard-of event. As Fiske sat there and listened, it occurred to him how important this case was. Rufus Harms had filed an appeal with this Court. Was he also seeking to sue the Army? Something terrible had happened to him while in the military. Certain men had done something to him that had ruined his life and resulted in the death of a little girl. Rufus wanted his freedom, wanted justice. He had the truth on his side, Rufus had proclaimed. And yet even with the truth, under the current law, it didnt matter. Just like Sergeant Stanley, Private Rufus Harms would lose. Knight continued, secretly well pleased with the audiences reaction. The psychologist was employed by the CIA. The CIA and the Army had undertaken a joint effort on the study of the drugs effects, because the CIA had received reports that the Soviet Union had stockpiled the drug and the Army wanted to know how it might be used against its soldiers in wartime. That sort of thing. Stanley, who rightly blamed the Army for destroying his life, sued. His case finally made it to the Supreme Court. She paused. And he lost.