Terror cases may define court term

Although they have been together since 1994, the current lineup of justices at the US Supreme Court has never confronted in a single year such an array of potential landmark cases as those looming on the court's horizon.

Terrorism-related challenges to civil liberties, affirmative action, and campaign-finance reform top the list of mega-issues expected to confront the justices in their 2002-03 term, which begins Monday.

And as demonstrated by the continuing dispute over the replacement of Sen. Robert Torricelli on New Jersey's ballot, the court remains a national lightning rod for some of the most contentious issues in America.

What is less clear is whether the justices are prepared to elevate the stature of the court, taking an aggressive stance in key cases. Nowhere is this question more crucial than in terror cases, court watchers say. Although the justices have yet to agree to review a case resulting from 9/11, analysts say one key will be how they view their responsibilities at a time of national emergency.

"What it comes down to is, How much are they willing to get the court involved in an oversight role in how the president wages a war on terrorism? That is the big-picture question hanging out there for them," says Michael Ramsey, a constitutional law professor at the University of San Diego School of Law and a former Supreme Court law clerk.

Already on the court's docket are cases examining three-strikes sentencing laws, the registration of sexual offenders on the Internet, and an effort in Maine to mandate affordable prescription-drug prices.

The justices will also consider legal disputes involving Congress's power to extend copyrights, and whether Americans have a First Amendment right to burn a cross – an act that has historically been a terror tactic of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Supreme Court's term, which runs from the first Monday in October through the end of June, already includes at least four death-penalty cases examining procedures used in trials and appeals. None is expected to raise the much broader question of the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.

Also on the docket are at least two federalism cases that may provide the court's conservative wing an with opportunity to further expand a string of decisions reining in congressional power when, in the court's view, it encroaches on the sovereignty of the states.

With 51 cases already accepted for oral argument, the justices are expected to take at least 30 more in the months ahead. Several could set the stage for landmark rulings that would elevate the current session into an historic term, court watchers say.

One such case that could be accepted is affirmative action, involving an examination of the admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School. Federal appeals courts in Texas and Michigan have issued conflicting decisions on the constitutionality of race-based college admissions programs. Many court watchers believe the justices are now prepared to decide the issue for the nation.

Page: 1 | 2