WASHINGTON - A handful of cases before the conservative Rehnquist Supreme Court could reshape the national landscape on issues of race and free speech, civil liberties and gay rights.
When the court opened its term in October, it seemed that the biggest case would arise from the government's new war against terrorism.
Instead, the cases on the high court's docket read like a greatest-hits list from a generation ago: affirmative action, sodomy, Miranda warnings, abortion protests, the death penalty and cross burning.
The issues continue to arouse strong passions today, a sign that previous court decisions did not resolve them.
"This has the potential to be a historic term," said American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Steven Shapiro.
This month, the Supreme Court justices plucked high-profile affirmative action and sodomy cases from the thousands of appeals jockeying for a chance to be heard.
In the middle of the month, Clarence Thomas thrust a quirky cross-burning case into the spotlight when the normally reticent justice, the only black member on the court, forcefully condemned the practice for its long association with racial violence.
University of Virginia Law School Professor A.E. Dick Howard said if a theme has emerged from the court so far, it is race, which has surfaced on the court's calendar in a way not seen since the busing integration cases in the 1970s.
Coincidentally, the court's attention to the issue comes amid public furor over Sen. Trent Lott's seemingly pro-segregation comments that have also resurrected images of the nation's troubled racial history.
"The court seems to be mirroring the politics of the moment," Howard said.
In two affirmative action cases from the University of Michigan and its law school, the justices could recast the student body at some of the nation's best universities by outlining what role race can play in admissions. In 1978, the Supreme Court held in the Bakke case that racial quotas were impermissible but that race could be considered when weighing applicants.
The justices will deal with another touchy topic when they decide whether Texas' law banning sex between homosexuals is constitutional. In its last reading, in the 1986 case Bowers vs. Harwick, the court ruled that a Georgia law outlawing gay sex practices was permissible.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, who cast the deciding vote in that case, said after he retired from the court that he regretted his decision. Gay rights groups say anti-sodomy laws, still on the books in 13 states, are relics of intolerance.
"The times have changed dramatically," Shapiro said. "The court's jurisprudence has changed dramatically. The Bowers ruling is an embarrassment to the court."
Yale Law School Professor Akhil Amar said on the affirmative action issue especially, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist may feel compelled to clear up confusion from the Bakke ruling, which some have criticized as vague.
A vocal bloc of justices also wants the court to tinker with the death penalty, which was ruled constitutional in 1976. Four of the court's more liberal justices lost a bid to reconsider the death penalty for juvenile killers. Last term the court, in a 5-4 vote, struck down the death penalty for the mentally retarded, ruling it was cruel and unusual punishment.
The court could also weaken the 1966 Miranda ruling, which defined rights for those being taken into police custody. The justices heard a case this month that questions whether Miranda guarantees a right to remain silent, an idea deeply embedded in popular culture. The government argues that there is no absolute right to remain silent but a more narrow right not to keep coerced statements from being used in court.