With a Lighter Caseload, Supreme Court Moving Toward End of Term : Judiciary: Homogeneity among judges reduces disagreements. About July 1, the justices will have written 37 more opinions.

The June rush to judgment at the Supreme Court will not be quite as hectic as in past years. This term, the court is expected to issue written decisions in 116 cases, down from a norm of more than 150 per term in the mid-1980s.

While the justices have no explanation for the shrinking docket, many legal scholars attribute it to 12 years of Republican presidents. Typically, the high court agrees to hear a case when the justices disagree with rulings emerging from the lower courts. But there are fewer such disagreements now.

“There’s a homogeneity among the judges now. The courts of appeal and the Supreme Court are dominated by Reagan-Bush appointees, so you don’t have the splits you had before,” said University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein.

In addition, such liberal legal groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which once regularly filed appeals at the high court, rarely take a case there now.

“They are worried about the precedents that will come out, so they don’t turn to the court for help anymore,” said George Washington University law professor Mary Cheh.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also has moved to reduce the number of cases heard in April, near the end of the term. Historically, the justices have struggled--and critics say, produced their most muddled decisions--when they hear arguments in difficult cases in late April, leaving just 10 weeks to produce an opinion before the end of the term, about July 1.

At Rehnquist’s suggestion, the court heard only 11 cases in April this year, down from 24 in earlier years.

But this year, as usual, the justices have left most of the tough cases for last. Between now and July 1, the court is expected to hand down written decisions in 37 cases. The highlights:

HATE CRIMES: Can the government impose a harsher punishment on criminals who target victims because of their race, religion or sexual preference? Two state supreme courts have struck down such laws as punishing “thought crimes.” The fate of at least 20 state laws, including a California statute, depends on the outcome of Wisconsin vs. Mitchell.

RELIGION: The court will rule on three cases involving religious discrimination. The first case, Church of The Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. Hialeah, concerns a city law in Florida that bans ritual animal sacrifices. Does this violate the church’s right to the free exercise of religion? The second case, Zobrest vs. Catalina Foothills School District, concerns a state’s refusal to pay for a deaf child’s tutor in a parochial school. More broadly though, it gives the court an opportunity to revise its rulings on aid to parochial education. In the third case, Lamb’s Chapel vs. Center Moriches Union School District, the court will rule on whether free-speech principles are violated by a policy that permits civic groups, but not religious groups, to use a school auditorium in the evening.

HAITIANS: Can the Coast Guard turn back boatloads of fleeing Haitians without giving them asylum hearings? Last year, candidate Bill Clinton criticized the Bush Administration’s policy of returning the Haitians. This year, however, the Clinton Administration supported that policy before the court. The case is McNary vs. Haitian Centers Council.

FORFEITURES: In two cases, the court is considering whether to rein in the government’s power to seize convicted criminals’ property. In Alexander vs. the United States, the court will rule on whether the First Amendment permits prosecutors to seize an entire chain of bookstores or theaters because it sold several obscene books. In Austin vs. the United States, the court will rule on whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive” punishments bars the government from seizing a man’s home and business over the sale of two grams of cocaine.

SEARCH: In a case that could have daily impact on police and pedestrians, the court will decide whether an officer can stop and fully frisk a person spotted near a crime scene. In the past, the court has said that an officer is permitted to pat down a suspect to check for weapons. But Minneapolis police are asking for the right to search the pockets and clothing of anyone spotted near a crime scene. The case is Minnesota vs. Dickerson.

JUNK SCIENCE: In a potentially far-reaching clash between plaintiffs’ lawyers and a major corporation, the court will rule on whether experts can testify during a trial if their views are not in sync with generally accepted scientific conclusions. Lawyers for the Bush Administration referred to such testimony as “junk science”, but consumer advocates say that such experts can supply new evidence that products are dangerous. The case is Daubert vs. Merrell Dow.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: Once again, the justices are debating whether to limit huge punitive damage awards, this time a $10-million verdict that grew out of a $19,000 land title dispute. Corporate lawyers say that such judgments are excessive but the justices have been wary of imposing new limits on states and their juries. The case is TKO Production vs. Alliance Resources.