Analysis: New Members of Supreme Court to Face Controversial Issues

Oct. 2, 2006 — -- More cases have yet to be added to the Supreme Court's docket for consideration during the 2006-2007 term. To date, the court has accepted matters that may rewrite the law in areas that will affect future generations.

The court will decide to re-instate a national ban on partial birth abortions. The Bush-supported law has been struck down by lower federal courts because it lacked a health exception.

Pro-choice supporters fear a newly comprised court with conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito will limit a woman's right to abortion.

Roger Evans, senior director for public policy law at Planned Parenthood said one of the most important principles at stake is protecting the relationship between physicians and their patients from intrusion by politicians.

The Bush administration calls the procedure medically unnecessary.

"It is a gruesome procedure," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "Many people consider it to be infanticide and I think Congress was well within its authority to say we're not allowing this procedure to go forward."

In 2000, a Sandra Day O'Connor 5-4 majority struck down a similar Nebraska law. John Roberts, who will likely vote to support the ban, replaced conservative mentor William Rehnquist, making Justice Samuel Alito (who replaced the centrist O'Connor) the key vote in the case.

The court will also examine affirmative action: whether public schools can consider race in assigning students to particular campuses. The court has not considered an affirmative action case since 2003, when it ruled on whether skin color could be considered in admissions in public universities. In that case, Justice O'Connor was the pivotal vote in allowing affirmative action in a limited fashion. Affirmative action proponents are concerned, as the court had rejected a similar case when O'Connor was still on the bench.

Also of interest this term is a case involving tobacco giant Philip Morris, which is challenging a nearly $80 million punitive damages award in a case involving a former janitor who smoked three packs a day. The matter is of keen interest to the business community, which has asked the court to strike the enormous award, despite a judge finding that Philip Morris's conduct in marketing cigarettes was "extraordinarily reprehensible."