UPDATE : Supreme Court Waits to Settle Toughest Cases at Term’s End

The Supreme Court is expected to wrap up its term by month’s end but not before it hands down rulings in two dozen more cases. As usual, the justices have left some of the hardest cases for last.

The court’s conservatives, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, may be poised to make significant changes in areas from affirmative action and voting rights to religion and the environment. But the outcome probably depends on the support of moderate conservatives Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Key cases that remain include:

* AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Can the federal government continue to steer some of its contracts to minorities? The conservatives have been eager to rein in official affirmative action, and Adarand Constructors vs. Pena (93-1841) has the potential to yield a broad ruling. The Clinton Administration is defending the policy of reserving some contracts for minority-owned business.

* RACIAL GERRYMANDERING: The justices will also rule on whether states can create congressional districts with black majorities. Two years ago, the court said an oddly shaped majority-black district in North Carolina was unconstitutional. Now, in a Louisiana case, U.S. vs. Hays (94-558), the court will say whether any use of race is permissible for drawing districts.

* DRUGS IN SCHOOL: Can high school officials routinely force students to undergo drug tests? A federal appeals court in California said no, but the justices could use the case of Vernonia School District vs. Acton (94-590) as a vehicle to clear the way for widespread drug testing in public schools.

* ENDANGERED SPECIES: For 20 years, government regulators have assumed they had the power to protect the habitat of an endangered species, even when this meant blocking development on private property. But in Babbitt vs. Sweet Home Chapter (94-859), the justices may rule that the Endangered Species Act bars only the killing or capturing of threatened animals and says nothing about their habitat.

* GAYS IN THE PARADE: Can the organizers of a traditional annual parade exclude gay and lesbian marchers, or do the civil rights laws forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation? That disputed issue has arisen recently in Boston and New York, and the courts are split over whether the free-speech rights of the march’s organizers outweigh the civil rights of the gay participants. A ruling in Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (94-749) will settle the matter.

* RELIGION AND PUBLIC FUNDS: In the past, the court has said the government cannot use tax money to promote or subsidize religion. However, the justices have also said the free-speech clause of the First Amendment does not allow officials to discriminate against persons or groups because of their message. In the case of Rosenberger vs. the University of Virginia (94-329), the two propositions clash. The university subsidizes student publications on a variety of topics, but it refused funding to a magazine with a Christian perspective. The students say this amounts to discrimination against religion and violates their free-speech rights.

* CROSS IN THE SQUARE: The court has struggled to decide when a religious symbol can be placed on public property. Sometimes, this has been seen as the government’s promotion of religion. But other times, if a few reindeer and a Santa Claus are included, such a display is deemed merely a holiday celebration. A case from Columbus, Ohio, poses the issue directly. A local member of the Ku Klux Klan put up a 10-foot high cross in the public square to celebrate Christmas and says he has a free-speech right to do so. The state says this prominent display of a religious symbol violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The case of Capitol Square vs. Pinette (94-780) gives the justices another chance to clarify the issue.

* SCHOOL DESEGREGATION: When should a court-ordered desegregation plan come to an end? Missouri officials say they have spent more than $1.3 billion to upgrade the Kansas City public schools as part of a desegregation plan, but a federal judge says the effort cannot end because test scores are still low. A ruling in favor of the state in Missouri vs. Jenkins (93-1823) could lead to the dismantling of hundreds of court-ordered programs.