Variety of Rulings Due From High Court

WASHINGTON — It’s decision time at the Supreme Court again.

Between Memorial Day and July 4, the justices traditionally hand down the major rulings of their term. And this season’s lineup promises more far-reaching decisions than any since June 1989, when a newly formed conservative majority issued key rulings on affirmative action, civil rights, abortion and the death penalty.

This term is unusual for its variety of new legal issues. Here are the key cases to be decided in the next five weeks:

Doctor-Assisted Suicide: Do dying patients have a right to seek medical help in ending their lives, or can states continue to make such aid a crime? With the exception of Oregon, assisted suicide is illegal in every state. The justices, who sounded skeptical of the right to die during January’s oral argument, will rule on cases from Washington state and New York. (Washington vs. Glucksberg and Vacco vs. Quill)

Presidential Immunity: Can the president while in office be put on trial for a civil damage claim, or can he insist on a delay until he leaves office? The justices are reviewing a lower court decision that would force President Clinton to answer questions under oath and stand trial on the sexual-harassment claim filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones. (Clinton vs. Jones)

Internet Porn: Can Congress make it a crime to display or transmit sexually explicit messages and depictions via computer, or does the 1st Amendment protect these transmissions as free speech? This is the first Internet case to reach the high court and could have great impact on how this new medium develops. (Reno vs. ACLU)

Line-Item Veto: Last year, after many previous efforts had failed, Congress gave the president the power to “cancel” spending items from large funding bills passed by the House and Senate. While Clinton has yet to use this line-item veto power, several members of Congress challenged it as unconstitutional and won in a lower court. The justices will hear arguments today, but they may defer a final decision by ruling these lawmakers do not have standing to challenge the law. (Raines vs. Byrd)

Sexual Predators: Kansas, Washington state and California have enacted laws that allow state officials to keep “sexual predators” locked up after they have served their prison terms if they are deemed to still be dangerous. A Kansas court called this approach unfair and unconstitutional, but a Supreme Court ruling upholding these laws could make it the rule in all 50 states. (Kansas vs. Hendriks)

Asbestos Class-Action: More than 150,000 lawsuits against asbestos makers are pending. Not surprisingly, the industry has tried to arrange a class-action settlement, offering a $1.3-billion payment. The court will decide whether a settlement can be imposed even if some of the individual plaintiffs oppose it. The answer could affect mass litigation generally, possibly including tobacco cases. (Amchen Products vs. Windsor)

Brady Act: To prevent felons from buying handguns, Congress has mandated a five-day waiting period so records can be checked. But a few local sheriffs are challenging the law, saying they cannot be forced to conduct the checks. While the court may rule for the sheriffs, the decision would not strike down the Brady Act. It would simply force federal and state officials to find other means of conducting the checks in some communities. (Printz vs. U.S.)

Religious Freedom: When religion and government clash, which should prevail? Congress has said state and local laws should bend to accommodate the wishes of churches and religious adherents, but a Texas city, at loggerheads with the Catholic parish over the fate of historic cathedral, says churches are due no exemption from the laws. (City of Boerne vs. Flores)

Insider Trading: Neither Congress nor the court has defined who is covered by the prohibition on insider trading. The justices may do so in a case involving a Minnesota lawyer. (U.S. vs. O’Hagan)

Parochial Schools: The court is reconsidering a 1985 ruling that bars public school tutors from teaching in parochial schools. Federal law provides money for tutoring needy students and requires school districts to serve both public and private school children who qualify. Does it violate the separation-of-church-and-state doctrine to send the public teachers into church schools? (Agostini vs. Felton)

California Fruit: Under federal and state laws, growers are often forced to pay for generic ads promoting their products, whether it is milk, beef or raisins. But some Central Valley growers of peaches and nectarines say these laws force them to fund a generic message they oppose, and they may win a ruling striking down the mandatory ad campaigns. (Glickman vs. Wileman Bros.)