IT'S CRUNCH TIME FOR SOME OF HIGH COURT'S BIGGEST DECISIONS

Chief Justice May Make Major One: Will He Stay or Go

WASHINGTON -- At the Supreme Court, the first Monday in June marks the
beginning of crunch month. Decisions in the most significant cases of the
nine-month annual term usually are due, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist
prods his colleagues to finish their work before the court's traditional
summer break.

Justices writing opinions in the most difficult cases are trying to secure
the support of four others to form a majority and are refining the legal
rationale that will support the vote. Fence-sitters among the nine justices
must decide where they stand -- or get a nudge from Rehnquist.

"Toward the end of the term when there are a lot of opinions outstanding
that haven't come in yet," Justice Antonin Scalia said at a recent forum at
the National Archives, Rehnquist "is wont to say, 'Ladies and gentlemen,
time to stop thinking and start writing.' "

Among the cases to be decided are those that test whether certain public
displays of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional; whether states may
legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes; and whether companies
that produce Internet file-sharing programs can be held liable for illegal
copying by consumers.

The disputes from Kentucky and Texas over presentations of the Ten
Commandments have drawn nationwide interest, in part because of increasing
tensions over efforts by local governments and Evangelical Christians to
erect or maintain religious displays. The cases recall the debate caused by
Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who installed a 5,300-pound monument of the
biblical Commandments in a state judicial building three years ago and then
tried to defy a federal order to remove it.

The current disputes involve a 6-foot-tall, 3-foot-wide monument at the
Texas Capitol that has been in place since 1961 and plaques at two county
courthouses in Kentucky that were erected in 1999.

The high court's decision could clarify rules for myriad types of religious
displays on government property, including the Nativity scenes, menorahs
and other winter holiday presentations that routinely draw protests.

Of the major disputes awaiting resolution, the one that has lingered the
longest tests a California law, similar to those in about 10 other states,
that permits patients under a doctor's care to use marijuana to ease their
pain.

The question, which was argued before the justices in November, is whether
U.S. anti-drug law overrides state policy and allows the prosecution of
patients. The case requires the justices to review larger issues of the
lines of authority between the U.S. government and states.

This June, other questions hang over the court: Will Rehnquist, who is 80
and is being treated for thyroid cancer, retire? If so, when and how will
he do it?

This is no simple matter. When Lewis Powell decided to retire from the
court in 1987, it was announced from the bench on the last day of the term
(June 26), on a day when the court made its final rulings of the annual
session. Rehnquist made the brief announcement and Powell later held a news
conference.

When Byron White made his retirement public in 1993 he did it on March 19,
a relatively calm day at the court in which no opinions were issued. White
gave President Clinton plenty of time to find a successor before the new
term began the following October.

Justice William Brennan revealed his retirement on July 20, 1990, after
finishing the term a month earlier and expecting to return that October. A
mild stroke led Brennan, then 84, to step down.

The next year, Thurgood Marshall made his retirement public on the last day
of the term. In a news conference the next day, Marshall, 82, was asked why
he was stepping down. He responded memorably, "I'm getting old and coming
apart."

In recent years, most retiring justices have notified their colleagues in
writing the same day they told the White House, and they have included
notes of appreciation. "I think each of you fully appreciates how very much
it has meant to me to know each of you as a colleague and a friend during
our years of service together," Brennan wrote as he enclosed a copy of his
letter of retirement to the first President Bush.

White, who had been a deputy attorney general in the Kennedy
administration, laced his memo to his colleagues with a political-insider
flavor about who might become the new junior justice. (The newest justice
has the duties of keeping notes and answering the door when the justices
are in their twice-a-week private conferences.)

Alluding to the fact that Clinton had suggested that he might choose New
York Gov. Mario Cuomo to be a justice, White's note said, "I have just now
written the president that I am retiring.... And what could be a better
birthday present for Nino (Scalia) than a new colleague? Can you imagine
the governor answering the door?"

In the end, Clinton chose Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appeals court judge, as
his first appointee to the Supreme Court.

[sidebar]

MAJOR CASES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS TERM

The major cases awaiting decisions by the Supreme Court for this term, and
the questions they pose:

McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; Van
Orden v. Perry -- Do displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky
courthouses and on a monument at the Texas Capitol amount to impermissible
government promotion of religion?

Gonzales v. Raich -- Does U.S. anti-drug law override state laws that allow
the medical use of marijuana to relieve a patient's pain?

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. -- May a city use its eminent domain
power to condemn private property that is not in a blighted area and that
would be turned over to private economic development?

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster -- Can Internet file-sharing
services be held liable under U.S. copyright law for users who illegally
download music and movies?

Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales -- Is an individual's right to due
process violated if a police department fails to enforce a judge's
protection order without meaningful consideration or explanation? The case
involves a woman whose three daughters were killed by her husband.

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line -- Does the Americans with Disabilities
Act, a 1990 law that protects the disabled from discrimination in public
places and transportation, cover cruise ships that operate under foreign
flags but stop in U.S. waters?