Dateline: 10/07/02

After a relaxing summer recess, the U.S. Supreme Court today begins hearing arguments from an October 2002-2003 docket packed with what may be the most controversial cases these justices have faced since they first sat down together in 1994.

In the months ahead, the court will decide cases on the constitutionality of terror-fighting laws, affirmative action, the rights of sex offenders, and "three strikes" laws, among others. Their very first headline case, however, will take the justices into an area they hate to go -- elections.

Elections Back in Court
Even before their robes are wrinkled, the justices will be asked to decide if New Jersey Republicans can stop New Jersey Democrats from replacing the recently-resigned Sen. Robert Torricelli on the Nov. 5 mid-term election ballot with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg. [See: Torricelli's Withdrawal Dims Dems' Hopes] New Jersey's State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 last week that Lautenberg could replace Torricelli, despite the fact that the state's legal time limit for candidate replacement had expired. The Republican Party immediately appealed the state court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Holding a slim 50-49 Senate majority going into the election, Democrats cannot afford to let New Jersey go without a fight. With political control of the U.S. Senate possibly hanging in the balance, this case is bound to remind the justices -- and their critics -- of the court's history-making decision that awarded the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.

Update 10/07/02 -- The Supreme Court today refused to hear the Republicans' challenge to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court allowing New Jersey Democrats to replace resigned Sen. Robert Torricelli with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the Nov. 5 ballot. The court's action will allow Lautenberg to appear on the ballot.

Terror War v. Civil Liberty
In response to the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. Justice Department detained and questioned hundreds of people based on possible violations of immigration laws. In August 2002, a federal appeals court ruled that interviews of the detainees could not be held in private. Fearing that making the results of such "terror-fighting" investigations public will compromise their efforts to prevent future attacks, the Justice Department will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Government lawyers are expected to argue that the courts do not have the constitutional authority to decide such cases.

Three Strikes Law Questioned
In the case of Gary Albert Ewing v. California, the court will decide whether California's three-strikes law, providing for a twenty-five years to life prison term for a third strike conviction, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a defendant whose third strike conviction was for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction. The case is currently set to be argued on Nov. 5.

Burning Crosses and Freedom of Speech
Under a Virginia law, "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony." Do such laws violate the cross-burners' First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech? The court will answer that question in the case of Virginia v. Black.

Affirmative Action Challenged Again
Affirmative action laws are intended to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, gender or ethnic background from educational and employment opportunities. Under some of these laws, organizations are required to satisfy "racial quotas" in their admissions and employment practices. In a landmark 1978 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, while universities could consider race in admissions decisions, they could not base admissions decisions on a need to meet racial quotas, the basis of affirmative action plans. This year, the court will decide if it will hear the case of a white woman who alleges that the University of Michigan law school denied her application for admission solely because of her race.

Megan's Laws v. Sex Offenders' Rights
Under laws know as "Megan's Laws," the names, current addresses and other identifying information about convicted sex offenders must be made readily available to the public. However, do the requirements of Megan's Laws apply to sex offenders who had already fully served their prison sentences before the laws were enacted? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? Those are the tough questions the Supreme Court will be asked to answer when it hears arguments in the case of Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I, et al, set for Nov. 13. A related case, Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. John Doe, et al, asks if states can place sex offenders on public registries without allowing them hearings to determine their danger to society.

Other Sex-related Cases
The court may also decide to hear challenges to a Texas law making it illegal for gays and lesbians to have sexual relations inside their own homes and to a federal law under which libraries are required to "filter" or remove information presented via the Internet considered potentially harmful to minors.