IN SESSION

The U.S. Supreme Court is wrapping up one of its lightest sessions in
decades - by the time it adjourns in June it will have issued only 76
full-blown decisions, the second fewest since the early 1950s.

Among the high-profile issues the court has yet to decide:

- -The constitutionality of laws aimed at gang members that prohibit groups
from hanging out on street corners.

- -The scope of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

- -The fate of a Depression-era law that prohibits some casinos from
advertising.

On Monday, the justices settled a couple of much anticipated disputes.

Voting 7-2, the court held in a California case that states cannot pay
newer residents lower welfare benefits than those long-time residents
receive. The ruling is a victory for the concept that U.S. citizens have a
right to move freely among the states without facing discrimination. The
answer to California's problem - its generous $2.9 billion a year welfare
system attracts many people on the dole - is to reduce payments across the
board, not to punish those who have just moved to the state.

The outcome wasn't so commendable in a Florida case decided Monday. In a
matter involving the fascistic forfeiture laws, seven of the nine justices
said police do not need a warrant to seize a car suspected of being used in
a drug deal. The decision overturned the Florida Supreme Court, which
tossed out a drug conviction because evidence had been obtained during the
warrantless seizure.

The ruling represents a further erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights,
assuring more power for the authorities under the forfeiture laws, which
allow police to seize and keep property even it the owner is never
convicted or even charged with a crime. In recent years the high court has
recognized the abuses encouraged by liberal forfeiture statutes and has
placed some limits on law enforcement's use of this questionable tactic. In
the Florida case, the justices missed another good opportunity to do so.