What's next for the Supreme Court? When the Justices return from their summer recess, they will consider the constitutionality of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Also on the docket: the future of the Court itself.

Four years ago, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court halted a recount of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush and effectively made Bush the President.

In June of this year, in a pair of 6-3 decisions, the Justices handed President Bush a stinging defeat, ruling that he could not deny foreigners or U.S. citizens imprisoned in the war on terrorism access to the federal courts.

The Supreme Court shares power with Congress and the President, but as these two cases show, sometimes the Court takes charge and has the final say on the law of the land.

And when the nine Justices return from their summer break on the first Monday in October, as they traditionally do, they will begin another term in which they are likely to deliver decisions involving, among other topics, government power, civil liberties, defendants' rights, and social issues--affecting the lives of millions of Americans in the process.

'CRUEL AND UNUSUAL'?

In the most important currently scheduled case, the Justices will consider whether a Missouri man, convicted of murder when he was 17 and sentenced to death, can be executed (see "A Murderer at 17," p. 21). The question is whether executing people for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 violates the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."

In recent years, the Court's definition of cruel and unusual punishment has sometimes been guided by what it sees as a changing national consensus about the death penalty. In the Missouri case, the Court may try to determine whether a national consensus has developed on capital punishment for juvenile offenders.

The case also shows how the Supreme Court may change or clarify its positions. In 1988, the Court struck down the death penalty for offenders 15 and younger. But in 1989, it upheld capital punishment for offenders 16 and 17.

While the Court will take up many more cases after its summer recess, it has already agreed to hear several others that are noteworthy:

* In an Illinois case, the Justices will examine whether drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check cars that are pulled over in routine traffic stops, even when it was not evidence of drugs that led to the traffic stop.

* In a case from Alabama, the coach of a girls' high school basketball team says he was fired after complaining that the boys' team received more financial support and other benefits than the girls' team. The Court will decide whether Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits gender-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funds, protects him from being fired for alleging discrimination.

* In a case from California, the Court will decide whether Congress has the authority to prohibit the medical use of marijuana in states where voters or the legislatures have approved its use under a doctor's care. (Nine states currently allow it.)

Last term, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that profoundly affected the power relationships among the federal government's three branches--something the Court does infrequently--by setting clear limits on the authority a President has when he takes the nation to war.

DUE PROCESS

The Court ruled that Bush was wrong to have indefinitely imprisoned both American citizens and foreigners accused of being enemy combatants without giving them an opportunity to argue before a federal court that they had been unlawfully detained. Robert Gordon, a former Supreme Court law clerk, said that the Court had "reminded the President that its role is to protect the civil liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, even if that means limiting a President's power during wartime."

In her opinion in one of the cases, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested." O'Connor said that Yaser Hamdi (an American citizen imprisoned after he was caught fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001) has a right to be told why he is being held and should have a chance to argue his case before a judge--rights of due process that are guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

In a separate case, the administration argued that some 594 foreign nationals detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had no rights under the U.S. Constitution because the base is not in U.S. territory. But the Justices ruled that the prisoners, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, had the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts because the land on which the Naval Base is located is effectively under U.S. control.

AN AGING COURT

This fall, the Court's future could be in the headlines as often as its rulings. The current nine justices have been together for 10 years--the longest the court has gone without a personnel change since the early 19th century--and one or more are expected to retire in the next year or so. All the Justices are at least 65, except Clarence Thomas, who is 56. John Paul Stevens, the oldest Justice at 84, is not thought by court observers to be among the likely retirees, but both Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, and O'Connor, 74, have thought about retirement for years, friends say.

New Justices are nominated by the President, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Senate. When the next vacancy occurs, there is little doubt that a major battle will ensue. In recent years, Republicans and Democrats have fought increasingly bitter battles over presidential nominations to the federal appeals courts, the level just below the Supreme Court.

A CHANCE TO SHAPE THE LAW

Bush or John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, would likely nominate very different kinds of judges, and so the future of the Supreme Court could become a big issue in the final stretch of the campaign.

With the current Court so divided in its viewpoints--reaching many of its decisions by 5-to-4 votes--whoever occupies the Oval Office next January could have the chance to shift the Court's balance and shape American law for years to come.

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand how the Supreme Court works and the issues behind some of the key cases coming before the Court this term.

BEFORE READING: Write Plessy v. Ferguson on the board. Tell students that this Court ruling in 1896 upheld the legality of racial segregation, so long as blacks and whites had access to equal public facilities. In 1954, the Court reversed this ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which prohibited segregation in public schools. What does this say about the Court's willingness to reverse both law and public practice? Tell students they are about to learn how the Court has changed policy on the execution of juvenile killers in the past and how it may do so in this term.

CRITICAL THINKING: After students finish reading, go back to a key point: The Supreme Court "has sometimes been guided by what it sees as a changing national consensus .... " Note that in 1988 the Court struck down the death penalty for offenders 15 or younger. Explain that "changing national consensus" refers to evolving opinions about morality, which can lead to changes in the law.

WRITE AN OPINION: The Christopher Simmons case is certain to grab students' attention. Have them write two opinions about the case, one supporting the legitimacy of the death penalty in such cases and one opposing it. Students who oppose the death penalty may focus on whether teens aged 16 and 17 deserve the same punishment as adults. Are 16- and 17-year-olds mature enough to understand the ramifications of their actions?

What evidence can students cite to bolster either opinion? (See a Science News report on the maturity of teenage brains and the issue of capital punishment at www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp).

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

* The Court traditionally takes a "hands off" approach to foreign policy. So why do you think it ruled against President Bush in the matter of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

* Should there be a mandatory-retirement age for Supreme Court Justices?

QUIZ 3

The Supreme Court

1. Which of the following vote totals is the closest possible result in the U.S. Supreme Court?

a 7-6

b 4-3

c 5-4

d 6-5

2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration was wrong to have jailed suspected terrorists

a without absolute proof of their guilt.

b in poorly staffed prisons.

c before they had been convicted.

d without giving them a chance to argue their case before a federal court.

3. Why do you think the Founding Fathers required Senate approval of a President's nominee to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?

--

4. Why do you think the Founding Fathers specified that Supreme Court Justices can serve for life?

--

5. Critics say the Supreme Court influenced the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush by

a denying the vote to legal immigrants.

b ruling that election procedures in several states had been unconstitutional.

c ordering ballot recounts in a Midwestern state.

d halting ballot recounts in Florida.

6. The Court could be an issue in the November presidential election because

a most of the Justices are registered Republicans.

b of a suit challenging the legality of voting at 18.

c the next President will probably have the opportunity to appoint one or more new Justices.

d of Senator Kerry's experience as a lawyer.

Upfront Quiz 3 * page TE 6

1. (a) 5-4.

2. (d) without giving them a chance to appear before a federal court.

3. Answers will vary, but could include the fact that the Founders wanted a government of shared powers.

4. Answers will vary, but could include the fact that a lifetime job removes the threat of political pressure if Justices render unpopular rulings.

5. (d) halting ballot recounts in Florida.

6. (c) the next President will probably have the opportunity to appoint one or more new Justices.

A Murderer at 17 Seeks a Reprieve

By Neil A. Lewis

At 2 a.m. on a September night in 1993, Christopher Simmons, then 17, broke into the home of Shirley Crook in Fenton, Mo., with Charles Benjamin, 15. The pair had planned only a burglary, but by chance Crook recognized Simmons from a car accident they had both been involved in earlier. Simmons and Benjamin bound Crook, drove her around in her minivan, and beat and retied her when she tried to break free. Simmons then pushed her off a railroad trestle, and she drowned in the river below.

At their trials in 1994, Benjamin was given life in prison without parole; Simmons was sentenced to death. Prosecutors argued Simmons deserved to die because the crime was especially horrible and Simmons had boasted of it to friends before and afterward. Defense psychologists, arguing for leniency, said Simmons's stepfather began pouring him drinks in bars when he was 4, and that his stepfather would tie him to a tree when he went fishing.

The Missouri Supreme Court overturned the death penalty for Simmons, now 27, last year. It said that execution for 16- and 17-year-olds has become so rare as to be "cruel and unusual punishment," noting that only three states--Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma--had executed juvenile offenders in the past 10 years.

Missouri appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Four Justices--John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer--have opposed the death penalty for juvenile offenders in the past. But if those Justices are unable to attract a fifth vote, Simmons could find himself back on death row.

Additional reporting by Linda Greenhouse, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times.

Neil A. Lewis is a correspondent in the Washington bureau of The Times.