WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined yesterday to review an Iowa Supreme Court ruling allowing a United Methodist Church member to sue over a warning that "the spirit of Satan" was at work in her congregation.

The high court without comment rejected an appeal claiming that the Iowa justices had no authority to interfere in what essentially was a religious matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court also:

• Refused yesterday to get involved in a dispute between North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and his opponent in the last election over an advertisement.
• Earlier this month turned away an appeal by former city council candidate Jerry Rubin, who was challenging a California city's refusal to print "peace activist" as his occupation on the ballot.

Meanwhile in the Iowa case, "There's no doubt that the (Iowa high court) ruling was unconstitutional," said Hiram Sasser, staff attorney with the Plano, Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute, which filed the appeal on behalf of the church. "This case may very well end up back before the Supreme Court in a few years… ."

At issue is a letter written by the Rev. Jerrold Swinton, a former district superintendent of the church, after a dispute among members of the United Methodist Church of Shell Rock drew the attention of church officials.

According to court records, Swinton wrote the letter after speaking with Jane Kliebenstein, a church member.

"Folks, when is enough, enough?" he wrote. "When will you stop the blaming, negative and unhappy persons among you from tearing down the spirit of Jesus Christ among you?"

His letter also called on members of the congregation to acknowledge that "the spirit of Satan" was at work in the church, prompting Kliebenstein and her husband, Glen, to file a defamation suit.

A lower court dismissed the case, but the Iowa Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the lawsuit could proceed. The justices said the letter went beyond ecclesiastical matters and had been circulated outside the congregation.

Jane. Kliebenstein said yesterday that she was happy to hear of the high court's decision not to hear the case.

"Well, I'm very pleased with that. I'm not allowed to say much, because there will still be a trial... . I'm very happy to hear that," she said.

Sasser said the case is bound for a local courtroom.

"I sympathize with the judge and jury ... they have to delve into internal church procedure and governance in order to arrive at some sort of decision," Sasser said.

Sasser said there's no indication why the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, but the action doesn't reflect on the legal merits of the case. He noted that the Court already had agreed to hear two important church autonomy cases "and I guess it didn't have any room on the docket."

North Carolina
The Court's refusal to hear the dispute between North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and his opponent in the last election means that Dan Boyce can pursue a defamation lawsuit against Cooper. Cooper charged in a 2000 campaign commercial that Boyce and his law firm charged excessive fees in a case they won against the state.

Philip Isley, Boyce's brother-in-law and partner at the law firm Boyce & Isley, said he didn't expect the Court to take the case. "Essentially the courts have ruled four times that we could go forward," the Raleigh City Council member said.

Boyce was out of town yesterday and couldn't be reached for comment.

John Bason, a spokesman for Cooper, referred questions to Cooper's private attorney, Jim W. Phillips Jr., who said the ruling didn't surprise him because in the time since the original petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, the state Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the motion.

Some experts say Cooper's potential testimony and relinquishing of documents could set a national legal precedent on what political candidates can say about each other in their ads.

Boyce's lawsuit alleges the commercials were wrong and damaged the law firm he has since formed.

Cooper's lawyers have argued that Boyce could run against Cooper again in 2004, and Cooper would be relinquishing memos and research used for commercials, polls and other data that could be useful to an adversary.

"We have both said publicly that we have no desire to run against Roy Cooper for the North Carolina attorney general office," Isley said. "Clearly Mr. Cooper cares more about his political future than trying to expeditiously get this case to a jury."

The disputed ad argued that Boyce and his law firm charged $28,000 an hour in a lawsuit by thousands of North Carolina taxpayers against the state for taxing their stock in out-of-state corporations while exempting state companies' stocks.

The lawyers in the case — including Boyce's father, Gene — won $150 million and asked for 16%, or $23 million, in fees. The judge calculated that as $28,000 an hour but reduced the fee to $1.5 million.

Boyce contends he didn't work on that case but assisted his father in a companion case. Boyce's law firm also didn't exist when the tax lawsuit was settled.

Cooper's lawyers have said Boyce's own ads and campaign literature talked about the tax lawsuits in general and didn't distinguish between them.

Isley said both sides are waiting to hear about a different motion to throw out the case but that they intend to move forward with the lawsuit for however long it takes.

California
Jerry Rubin, a former Santa Monica City Council candidate, had his appeal turned away earlier this month by the U.S. Supreme Court. He was challenging the city's refusal to print "peace activist" as his occupation on the ballot.

But Rubin has a new plan: On Oct. 16, he filed for a legal name change so that he'll be known legally as Jerry Peace Activist Rubin. A Superior Court hearing on the request is set for Dec. 11, Rubin's 60th birthday.

"It's going to be my birthday present to myself," he said on Oct. 17.

Rubin has been listed in the local telephone book for years as Jerry Peace Activist Rubin to avoid confusion with the deceased "Chicago Seven" defendant Jerry Rubin, who lived in the same area.

The city refused to print the "peace activist" designation after Rubin's name when he unsuccessfully ran for City Council in 2000. City election officials contended the phrase violated state rules that ban misleading occupational descriptions.

Rubin sued in federal court and lost. Then he appealed and lost. In July, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined earlier this month to hear the case.