Supreme Court begins new term with docket of cases on religious rights

The first Monday in October, the nine justices of the nation’s highest court assembled in Washington and sat down at the bench for the commencement of the 213th term of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The new term began with old traditions. The justices donned black robes — a tradition since at least 1800. Quill pens were placed on the counsel tables — a tradition since 1850. The justices took their places at the bench in order of seniority — a tradition since the Court’s inception in 1790.

But many of the similarities between today’s Court and the Court of centuries past stopped with quill pens and black robes. During the inaugural years of the Court, justices heard cases about land rights in post-revolutionary America and objections to state monopolies of steamship companies. Last year, the Court heard cases regarding pornography in public libraries and the legality of homosexual sex.

And the docket of this year’s 2003-2004 Supreme Court term is already filled with cases that the original Court probably would have never anticipated coming before the highest court in the land.

The justices will consider this question: Does allowing (but not requiring) students in public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance violate supposed principles of separation of church and state because it declares that the United States is “one nation under God?” An atheist in California thinks it does. Last year, Michael Newdow, father of a San Francisco elementary school student, sued the state and federal governments, as well as the local school board because he claimed the voluntary pledge was offensive because of its mention of God.

A judge agreed with Newdow’s lawsuit and ruled that the recital of the pledge is unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, and now the Bush administration and the school district is asking the Court to overturn that decision. The Court is expected to hear arguments later this year and issue a ruling in the spring. Some Court-watchers predict the justices will handle the case as quietly as possible, perhaps reversing the decision on procedural grounds or returning it to a lower court.

Religion will play a key role in another major case facing the Court this year. Justices will hear arguments from lawyers for Joshua Davey, a 23-year-old-man whose Washington-state education grant was rescinded when the state discovered Davey was majoring in religion. Washington is one of a handful of states with bans on state funds for theological education. Davey sued the state, contending that the policy infringes on his constitutional rights to religious freedom, but lost his case in the lower courts. His lawyers appealed, pointing out that there is no such ban on federal funds for religious education.

Officials at other colleges and graduate schools have weighed in on the funding matter, largely opposing the ban. Howard Wilson, vice president of Fuller Theological Seminary which has an extension campus in Washington, told The Seattle Times, “The states have been discriminating against religious education in a way that the federal government has not.”

The Court is likely to hear Davey’s case in December.

The Court will also take up complex political issues during the new term. Campaign finance will come to the fore in a case that asks whether new regulations for campaign donations and political advertising violate the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. The ruling will effect how candidates raise and spend money in next year’s federal election, according to the Associated Press.

In a move revealing the complexity of this case, the justices held an unusual, one-day session last month to get a head start on it. Many lawyers predict that as hard as they try, the justices will issue a hash of overlapping opinions that redirect the way money flows in campaigns without reducing it.

“I think the court will not give us a clear and neat answer,” Erik Jaffe, a First Amendment lawyer, told AP.

This year’s term is also likely to be marked with public speculation about the future of the Court. Six of the nine justices will be over 70 by the end of the term, and some predict retirement might be in some of their plans. That reality is sure to gain more attention as the 2004 presidential election draws near. Presidential candidates are already asking voters to consider that the winner of next year’s election will likely appoint justices to the Court as seats become vacant.

New appointments to the bench would certainly shape the future of the Court, and have long-lasting effects on the ideological bent of the highest court in the land. — E.P. News