COURT TO HEAR DEATH-PENALTY LAW CHALLENGE.

Byline: Laurie Asseo Associated Press 

Moving with rare speed, the Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a Georgia Death Row inmate's constitutional challenge to new limits on federal appeals by state prisoners.

Ellis Wayne Felker, who had been scheduled Thursday night to die was temporarily spared as the justices granted review just nine days after the law aimed at speeding executions was signed by President Clinton. Felker was convicted of killing a female college student in 1981.

The high court's conservative members, who favor quicker handling of death-penalty cases, took the unusual step of granting an early review. The justices scheduled arguments for June 3 so a decision can be announced before the court's current term ends by early July.

The last time the court granted such quick review was in a 1990 flag-burning case.

Four justices opposed the accelerated-up argument schedule. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that it was ``unnecessary and profoundly unwise'' to put the case on a fast track.

Joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, Stevens said consideration of the issues ``should be undertaken with the utmost deliberation, rather than unseemly haste.''

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas voted to speed up review of the case. They made no comment, but each previously has voiced frustration with the pace of appellate review, especially in death-penalty cases.

Congress enacted the limits on federal appeals in response to complaints about inmates spending a decade or more on death row while pursuing various legal strategies.

Felker is challenging the part of the new law that requires permission from a three-judge appeals panel before state inmates can file a second federal appeal challenging the constitutionality of their convictions.

A three-judge panel refused Thursday to let Felker file a second appeal, and the new law bars inmates from appealing such rulings to the Supreme Court.

That ban on appeals is unconstitutional, Felker's lawyer, Stephen C. Bayliss, told the justices in court papers.

``This act raises myriad constitutional concerns and is seriously constitutionally flawed,'' Bayliss wrote. ``The death penalty will strike like lightning - there is no provision for, much less guarantee of, uniformity in the handling of similarly situated applicants.''

Boston University law professor Larry Yackle said he believed the ban on such appeals is unconstitutional. He noted Felker's case addresses only one section of the new law, but predicted many legal challenges to the other provisions.

``Virtually every line in this statute is going to bear litigation,'' Yackle said. ``It's an exquisitely poorly written statute. It is going to have to be litigated to come up with a sensible, workable reading.''