Justices to Rule by Summer on Flag Burning : Law: Republicans hope the timing will enable them to put the issue in a constitutional amendment before the states this fall.

The Supreme Court, in a victory for Republican political strategists, agreed Friday to rule by summer on a constitutional challenge to last year’s anti-flag burning law.

The law, engineered by congressional Democrats, was designed to remove the flag issue from the political arena and to head off steam for a constitutional amendment against burning the flag. Republican strategists, supported by President Bush, hoped to have a constitutional amendment before the voters this fall.

Acting on a motion by Bush Administration lawyers, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it will schedule a special session May 14 to hear arguments in the two pending flag-burning cases. This will allow the justices to decide the cases before their summer recess begins about July 1.

If the high court--as expected--strikes down the Flag Protection Act of 1989 by summer, Republicans in Congress say they will push through a constitutional amendment against flag burning and send the matter to the states by the fall.

If the issue appears on the ballot, it could have an effect on other election contests, including state legislative races. Control of state legislatures will be crucial in redrawing political boundaries after this year’s census.

Two weeks ago, lawyers for the Democratic-controlled House and Senate filed a competing motion with the court asking the justices to follow their normal schedule on the flag case. Normally, the court allows 90 days for both sides to file briefs. This schedule would have put off arguments until the fall, with a decision coming after the November elections.

Two federal judges have already struck down as unconstitutional the 1989 law, relying on principles established by last year’s 5-4 ruling by the high court.

But congressional defenders of the new federal law say it is significantly different from the Texas law struck down last year. That measure made it a crime for anyone to burn a flag in a way that gave “serious offense” to an onlooker. Since the act involved the receiving of a political message by a bystander, this amounted to an unconstitutional attack on a political expression, they say.

By contrast, the new federal law is a ban on flag burning “in all circumstances.” Therefore, they say it is a “neutral” measure intended to protect the “physical integrity of the flag,” rather than to stifle political dissent.

But the two judges who have considered the issue refused to buy this rationale. In Seattle and here in Washington, political dissidents publicly burned a flag as a challenge to the new law. They were quickly arrested, but were freed when the new law was struck down as a violation of their free-speech rights.

The Justice Department appealed both cases to the Supreme Court. (U.S. vs. Eichman, 89-1433, and U.S. vs. Haggerty, 89-1434.)