Divided Supreme Court ending term with big issues

The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its term next week, and is expected to deliver major decisions on the future of school integration, the role of corporate money in political campaign ads and a taxpayer challenge to President Bush’s faith-based initiative.

There will probably be more 5-4 rulings and sharply worded dissents as the justices hand down rulings in the 26 remaining cases by the end of June and then leave town for the summer.

If new Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had something of a honeymoon last year, it came to an end earlier this year. The deep divide between the conservative and liberal wings was apparent in rulings on abortion and global warming. Both were decided by 5-4 votes, with conservatives winning the abortion case and liberals carrying the global warming decision. Only Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in the majority both times.

Roberts and new Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. have lined up with veteran conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They are opposed by a liberal contingent led by 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, who is joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

In the middle sits Kennedy. His vote often makes a 5-4 majority for one side or the other. In fact, in the court’s 13 rulings decided by one vote this term, Kennedy is the only justice to have been in the majority each time.

This month, the conservatives figure to prevail in three cases. Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1 will decide whether school officials can use racial guidelines to maintain integration. Parents from Seattle and Louisville are challenging the voluntary integration policies in those cities.

Federal Election Commission vs. Wisconsin Right to Life will decide whether groups can use corporate money to sponsor broadcast ads just before an election -- which is now prohibited by the McCain-Feingold Act.

A third case, Hein vs. Freedom From Religion Foundation, tests whether citizens can to go court to challenge Bush’s faith-based initiative. Roberts and the other conservatives have suggested that these claims should be thrown out without a hearing because the taxpayers do not have standing to sue. A ruling along those lines could make it harder for advocates of church-state separation to go to court.

On the business front, the court will decide whether to scrap a nearly 100-year-old rule that forbids manufacturers from fixing retail prices for their products. A Los Angeles maker of women’s handbags is fighting this rule in Leegin Creative Leather Products vs. PSKS, and a win could reshape parts of the retail industry.

It has already been a good term for business, and it’s likely to get even better this month.

Here are some additional major cases to be decided this month:

* High schools and free speech: Do students have a right to hold up signs at school-sponsored events that carry messages that offend the principal? A case from Alaska involves a student and his banner promoting “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” but a ruling could broadly rewrite the free-speech rules in schools across the country. (Morse vs. Frederick)

* Car searches: Is a passenger legally “seized” when police pull over the driver? No, said the California Supreme Court. The ruling in favor of the passenger from Northern California could be important for those charged with a crime who want to challenge the stop as illegal. (Brendlin vs. California)

* School recruiting: Do coaches have a free-speech right to contact student athletes from other schools, or do state athletic associations have the authority to penalize high school teams for recruiting? (Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. vs. Brentwood Academy)

* Union fees: Does a teachers union have a right to use dues money for political purposes unless a teacher objects? (Washington vs. Washington Education Assn.)

* Home-care workers: Are the tens of thousands of employees who provide companionship services in the homes of the elderly and infirm entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay? (Long Island Care at Home vs. Coke)

* Credit reports: When must insurers notify consumers they were charged higher rates because of a poor credit rating? (Safeco vs. Burr)

* Investor suits: How much evidence of fraud is needed before investors can sue a company for their stock losses? Wall Street and the Bush administration want to make it harder for these suits to go forward. (Tellabs vs. Makor)

* Initial public offerings: Can 10 of the largest investment banks be sued under antitrust laws on allegations of rigging the price of stock offerings during the boom of the late 1990s? (Credit Suisse vs. Billing)

david.savage@latimes.com