Big Docket, and It May Get Bigger ; School Vouchers and Execution of Mentally Retarded Top List of Supreme Court Cases

Article excerpt

As the US gears up to wage a protracted war against terrorism, civil libertarians are preparing for a different kind of war - a legal struggle here in the US to preserve America's most basic freedoms. The ultimate battleground in that war will be the US Supreme Court, which today begins its new term.

It is still too early to predict what role the nation's highest court will play in the unfolding drama. There are no cases currently on the docket that directly relate to the threat of terrorism. But it is only a matter of time, analysts say.

"We can be sure that litigation is going to come out of this," says Mark Tushnet, a constitutional scholar at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.

In the meantime, with two potential landmark cases already on the docket, the court is showing no sign of seeking a lower profile in the wake of last year's controversial decision ending the 2000 presidential election.

Instead, it is full speed ahead as the justices prepare for the new term.

In addition to agreeing to decide the constitutionality of school-voucher programs and whether to declare a constitutional ban on capital punishment for the mentally retarded, the justices have agreed to resolve a wide range of other legal disputes.

The list includes an affirmative-action plan for minority contractors, attempts to regulate child pornography on the Internet, and whether private-property owners are entitled to compensation when their land is the subject of a temporary moratorium on development.

With 49 cases accepted so far, the court docket for the 2001- 2002 term is still very much a work in progress, with the justices expected to grant appeals in 20 to 30 additional cases.

At this time last year, the court's most significant case in 2000, Bush v. Gore, wasn't even on the legal horizon. The same dynamic may come into play in months ahead, as the US braces for an all-out war on terrorism.

Legal analysts will be watching closely to see what role the high court may carve out for itself. Will the justices move to rein in possible government attempts to violate long-cherished civil liberties in the name of protecting national security? Or will they issue opinions that greatly expand the government's ability to identify and root out suspected terrorists?

The war on terrorism will likely involve a full range of other laws and constitutional protections. These include: the indefinite detention of aliens by immigration authorities working closely with the FBI, the ability to introduce foreign intelligence information as evidence in a US criminal trial, and rules surrounding when and to what extent surveillance may be conducted against suspected terrorists and those with whom they associate in the US. …