JUSTICE : Comparatively Young High Court Expected to Show Caution : In term opening today, the justices face tough calls on affirmative action and racial gerrymandering. Term-limits ruling also due.

As Supreme Courts go, the one that takes the bench this morning is young and inexperienced, still conservative in its outlook but likely to be more cautious than bold in making decisions.

This fall, the life-tenured justices will consider whether the voters by law can limit the terms of their representatives in Congress. They are also set to rule on whether the government can give an edge to minorities in competing for contracts and whether the states can aid minority candidates in drawing electoral boundaries.

But the outcomes are especially hard to predict because the court itself has been reshaped in recent years.

Of the nine justices that open the fall term, six have joined the court since 1986, a turnover rate more rapid than at any time since President Franklin D. Roosevelt replaced the “nine old men” from 1937 to 1943.

But where F.D.R. transformed the staunchly pro-business court into a dependably liberal and pro-labor forum, the recent appointees have come from three different presidents who share no common ideology.

Unlike the New Deal court, the recently revamped court has yet to establish a clear identity. The conservatives, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, still have the votes to drive the agenda. But they have been unable to form a strong enough alliance that would enable them to rewrite the law in areas such as abortion, religion or civil rights.

And this court is unquestionably younger than ever before.

A decade ago, the high court was dominated by aging justices, five of whom were 78 or older. Most had gone to law school in the 1920s and had begun their legal practice during the Great Depression.

Now, none of the nine justices has reached age 75, and a majority of them emerged from law school after 1960.

“It’s an amazing transformation. The court has gotten 30 years younger in a decade,” Washington attorney Theodore Olson says.

Monday marks the debut of 56-year-old Justice Stephen G. Breyer. He will sit at the far end of the bench opposite President Clinton’s other appointee, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 61.

But President George Bush’s two appointees are actually younger: David H. Souter, 55, and Clarence Thomas, 46.

And Ronald Reagan’s three nominees are moving into their judicial prime years: Sandra Day O’Connor, 64; Antonin Scalia, 58, and Anthony M. Kennedy, also 58. The court’s oldest justice is 74-year-old John Paul Stevens, a Gerald R. Ford appointee.

Despite their youth, the new justices have not proved especially energetic when it comes to deciding cases. So far, the court has put only 36 cases on its fall argument schedule, about half the norm of a decade ago.

Under Rehnquist, a Richard Nixon appointee who turned 70 on Saturday, the court has been stingy in hearing appeals filed by criminal defendants or others who claim that they have suffered an injustice.

When the old liberals, such as William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, held sway, the justices kept an open ear for hard-luck stories. The prisoner who said he was unjustly convicted, the worker who said his rights were unfairly denied, the mother who said her benefits were wrongly terminated, all had a chance of being heard.

But these days, most such claims are quickly dismissed. Last week, the court met in a brief session and rejected more than 1,700 appeals that had piled up over the summer. In all but a handful of those cases, the appeals are read by young law clerks and the cases are rejected without a moment’s discussion among the justices.

Liberal legal activists actually have been cheered somewhat by the court’s relative inactivity. Two years ago, the conservative-led drive to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion and to restore some prayer in the public schools came up one vote short.

“The constitutional counterrevolution has fizzled,” Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said last week.

But he may have spoken too soon. Race may emerge as the key theme of the 1994-95 term, and in that area, the five conservatives tend to agree. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O’Connor have said that affirmative action in favor of minorities amounts to reverse discrimination against whites, and they may be ready now to put that view into law.

Last week, the court announced that it will hear a Colorado case that challenges the practice of preferring companies owned by minorities and women for awarding federal highway contracts.

Later this fall, the court is also expected to plunge back into the voting-rights controversy over “majority-minority” electoral districts. In a 1993 case, the five conservatives joined to rule that “racial gerrymandering” is unconstitutional. This term, they need to clarify whether all racially drawn districts are illegal, or only those that are “truly bizarre” in appearance.

The outcome in both cases, which will be heard early next year, probably depends on Justice O’Connor. Unlike the other four conservatives, she has in the past voted for some affirmative action plans if they are quite limited in scope and designed solely to remedy past discrimination.

With the anti-incumbent mood sweeping national politics, the court will hear arguments in December on whether states can set term limits for their representatives in Congress.

Several states, including California, have limited the terms of their state representatives, and those restrictions have been upheld.

But it is unclear whether the U.S. Constitution permits the states to restrict the terms of its representatives in Washington. Since 1992, 15 states--including California--have voted to limit House members to three, two-year terms, and senators to two, six-year terms.

Legal experts are split on the likely outcome of the issue before the Supreme Court.

In 1969, the high court ruled that Congress had to seat embattled Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, who had been accused of financial misconduct, because he met the qualifications set forth in the Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court cited this decision in Powell vs. McCormack as precedent for saying that the only legal qualifications for national office are those set out in the Constitution, such as that U.S. representatives must be 25 years old.

But advocates point out that the term-limits laws simply restrict who can appear on the state ballot, and the Constitution clearly says that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state.” If a veteran member of Congress wants to seek reelection beyond the term limit, he or she can run as a write-in candidate.

Georgetown University law professor Susan Bloch said last week that she changed her mind about the likely outcome after reading the briefs and the court’s past rulings.

“It’s a close call, but I think they will uphold them (term limits),” she said, noting that the court’s conservatives are inclined to uphold popular state laws.

Key Cases Before the Court

The fall’s agenda includes a range of issues, from term limits to frequent-flyer rules.

Term limits: Can a state by law limit the terms of its Congressional representatives? The Arkansas supreme court said no. The case of US Term Limits vs. Thornton, 93-1456, will be heard in December.

Guns at school: Can Congress make it a crime to have a gun near a school? No, said a U.S. appeals court in Texas, because states, not the federal government, have the power to control routine crime. U.S. vs. Lopez, 93-1260, will be heard Nov. 8.

Free speech: Can Congress bar a government accountant from earning money writing weekend articles on dance performances? No, said a U.S. appeals court, saying that a broad 1989 government ethics law violated the free speech rights of three million federal employees. U.S. vs. National Treasury Employees Union, 93-1170, will be heard Nov. 8.

Frequent flyer: Can the airlines unilaterally change the terms of their frequent-flyer programs? No, said an Illinois court, because it violates an implied contract. The appeal in American Airlines vs. Wolens, 93-1286, will be heard Nov. 1.

Job discrimination: Can a company defend itself against a discrimination claim by relying newly discovered evidence that hurts the worker, such as that he inflated his resume? Yes, said a federal court in Nashville. The appeal in McKennon vs. Nashville Banner, 93-1543, will be heard Nov. 2.

Political pamphlet: Can a “concerned” citizen by fined for passing out an anonymous political tract that opposed a tax increase? Yes, said the Ohio supreme court, because state law requires the disclosure of authors of political materials. The free-speech appeal in McIntyre vs. Ohio, 93-886, will be heard Oct. 12.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is presiding over a high court far younger than 10 years ago. Age Stevens: 74 Rehnquist: 70 O’Connor: 64 Ginsburg: 61 Kennedy: 58 Scalla: 58 Breyer: 56 Souter: 55 Thomas: 46 Source: Times Washington Bureau