The Kagan Court: Kagan Takes the Bench as Supreme Court Term Begins

Cases Scheduled on Death Penalty, First Amendment; Court term begins Monday

ByABC News
September 28, 2010, 4:04 PM

Oct. 4, 2010 -- A new Supreme Court term got under way today with Justice Elena Kagan, in her first appearance on the bench, asking several probing questions about a bankruptcy case. For the first time in history, three women -- Justices Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- are sitting on the bench, each one a lively participant.

Kagan took Sotomayor's old seat on the far right of the bench from a spectator's perspective. The addition of a new justice changes the court's seating arrangement, as justices with the most seniority flank the chief justice, who sits at the center.

When the first case ended, Kagan left the courtroom, as she had recused herself from the second case. Kagan has so far recused herself from about half the cases -- 52 so far -- because she dealt with them in some capacity while serving as solicitor general.

Some of the cases before the high court this term include the following:

Most people agree that the protests by members of the Westboro Baptist Church at Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral were offensive, but the question is whether they were unconstitutional.

Members of the church carried signs saying, among other things, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags" during a protest near the funeral. Snyder, who was not gay, was killed in Iraq in March 2006.

Snyder's funeral was only one of many the church has targeted across the country, because its members believe the deaths of soldiers are related to the sins of Americans. Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued in federal court, claiming that members of the church invaded his family's privacy and inflicted emotional distress. He was awarded $5 million. But a federal appeals court overturned the ruling, agreeing with the Westboro Church that its protest was "rhetorical hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.

Albert Snyder brings his son's case to the Supreme Court, arguing in part that the court "should not extend First Amendment protection to outrageous, intentionally harmful, expressive conduct targeted at private individuals."

At issue is a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors. Lawyers for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger say the games in which players can kill, maim, dismember or sexually assault the image of a human being should be banned for sale to minors.

In court papers, lawyers for the makers of the games say the California law is the "latest in a long history of overreactions to new expressive media." They argue that it is not the role of government to decide which media are worthy of constitutional protection, and that parents don't need the state's assistance in deciding which expression is worthwhile for their children. A lower court sided with the industry.