Reconfigured Supreme Court Takes Up Cases

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s two appointees, will have a chance to shift the law to the right on two charged issues -- abortion and race -- during the Supreme Court term that starts today.

The court will decide whether doctors can be prosecuted for using an abortion procedure that critics have labeled “partial-birth abortion.” And it will rule on whether school boards can maintain integrated schools by assigning some students based on their race.

In the past, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor provided the fifth vote for majority rulings that struck down abortion regulations and allowed schools and colleges to use affirmative action. Now that O’Connor has been succeeded by Alito, the balance may tip the other way.

The session will also see the court take up global warming for the first time. Environmentalists are asking the justices to force the Bush administration to limit vehicle emissions believed to contribute to climate change.

Business lawyers and consumer advocates are closely watching another case involving cigarette maker Philip Morris to see whether the high court will strictly limit “punitive” damage verdicts against corporations.

And California’s system for sentencing criminals is under attack. In recent years, the high court has said juries, not judges, should decide the key facts that call for longer prison terms.

In California, a judge may impose a longer prison term if certain “aggravating factors” are found.

If the court declares this sentencing system unconstitutional, thousands of state inmates could win the right to have their sentences reconsidered.

Abortion remains the most divisive issue before the court.

Until now, a 5-4 majority has held to the view that the government may not regulate abortion in a way that threatens the life or health of pregnant women.

Relying on that principle, the court six years ago struck down a Nebraska law that made it a crime for doctors to use a second-trimester surgical procedure that critics call “partial-birth abortion.”

Some physicians, including litigant Dr. Leroy Carhart of Bellevue, Neb., seek to remove the fetus intact before cutting its umbilical cord. This procedure, known as D&X;, for dilation and extraction, carries less risk of bleeding and infection than other procedures, the doctor maintains.

The high court, in a 5-4 decision upholding the practice, agreed with him in Stenberg vs. Carhart, saying that “significant medical authority supports the proposition that, in some circumstances, the D&X; procedure would be the safest procedure.”

The dissenters called the procedure “gruesome” and “horrific” and said it bore “a strong resemblance to infanticide.”

Afterward, Congress passed the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and President Bush signed it into law in 2003. Contradicting the court’s conclusion, lawmakers said the disputed procedure was “never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother.”

Judges in Omaha and San Francisco conducted trials and heard testimony from leading medical experts.

Both concluded that the disputed D&X; procedure was a variant on the standard dilation and evacuation method of abortion at this stage of pregnancy. And both agreed with medical experts who said it was often safer.

“This is a medical matter, and the court has never deferred to Congress on a medical issue like this,” said Priscilla Smith, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Carhart.

But U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said Congress’ conclusion that the D&X; procedure was not needed to protect women was “entitled to great deference.”

The oral argument in Gonzales vs. Carhart is set for Nov. 8, the day after the elections.

The high court has also been closely split on race and affirmative action.

Three years ago, with O’Connor speaking for a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that colleges and universities may consider race in the admissions process to bring more diversity to the student body.

But the court’s conservatives say schools and colleges should not treat students differently because of race, regardless of the reason.

The court agreed to hear a challenge to public school integration policies in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., that sometimes lead to children being barred from certain schools because of their race.

In Louisville, officials said at least 15%, and no more than 50%, of a school’s students had to be black. The parent of a white child sued when her son was turned away from the school nearest her home.

Bush administration lawyers joined the case on the side of the parents and argue that “racial balancing” is unconstitutional. However, school officials say that because housing is segregated in many cities, they need to use race-based guidelines to maintain integrated schools.

If the guidelines in Seattle and Louisville are struck down, the ruling could affect several California districts. Last year, the Los Angeles Unified School District was sued by the Pacific Legal Foundation for using race as an enrollment factor in its magnet schools.

College officials will also be watching the outcome. A ruling striking down school integration policies will be seen as a signal that college affirmative-action policies are in danger as well.

The schools case will be heard Dec. 4.

The global warming case tests whether a coalition of states can force the Bush administration to take action against greenhouse gases.

This dispute, to be heard Nov. 29, turns on the words of the Clean Air Act, which says the Environmental Protection Agency must take steps to limit “any air pollutant” coming from cars and trucks that could “endanger public health or welfare,” including changes in the climate or weather.

The EPA administrator refused to adopt new emissions standards for motor vehicles.

The agency’s experts said that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were not true air pollutants.

A dozen states -- California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- sued the EPA.

The court’s decision could also determine the fate of California’s newly adopted rules for cleaner vehicles to be sold in the state beginning in 2009. Those pending rules are also being challenged in lawsuits brought by the automakers.

“It will help California a lot if the court says carbon dioxide is an air pollutant,” said UCLA law professor Ann Carlson, an expert on environmental law.

“It’s also very significant if the states and environmentalists can force action on this issue when the administration is recalcitrant.”

The punitive-damages case, which will come up Oct. 31, tests whether juries, acting on a single claim, can punish companies for wrongful behavior that may have hurt tens of thousands of people.

After Jesse Williams, a lifelong smoker, died of lung cancer in Oregon, his wife sued Philip Morris for fraud. A jury awarded her $21,000 in compensation for his death and $800,000 for pain and suffering. Then, to punish Philip Morris for concealing the dangers of smoking, it added nearly $80 million in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court has been searching for a way to limit these punitive awards, and three years ago said they rarely should “exceed a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages.”

*

david.savage@latimes.com

*

Begin text of infobox

Q&A;

Issues Include Race, Abortion, Pollution

WASHINGTON -- In the session that begins today, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider a number of cases on hot-button issues, among them abortion and school integration.

Question: Can Congress outlaw a midterm abortion procedure referred to by opponents as “partial-birth” abortion?

Answer: Six years ago, the court on a 5-4 vote struck down a similar state ban on the grounds that it could threaten the health of some pregnant women. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, now retired, was in the majority, and she has been replaced by President Bush’s appointee Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. (Gonzales vs. Carhart and Gonzales vs. Planned Parenthood)

Q: Can school districts maintain a racial balance in schools by limiting the percentage of white and black students, or does this use of race violate the rights of students who are excluded?

A: Lawyers challenging the integration guidelines used in Seattle and in Louisville, Ky., say any such use of race is unconstitutional. (Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District and Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education)

Q: Can the Bush administration refuse to regulate the emissions of cars and power plants that are blamed for global warming, or does the Clean Air Act require the government to restrict such pollutants?

A: The court will hear an appeal from lawyers for Massachusetts, California and 10 other states that have demanded that the Environmental Protection Agency take action. (Massachusetts vs. EPA)

Q: Can juries award millions of dollars to a single plaintiff to punish a company for a pattern of wrongdoing?

A: An Oregon jury awarded $80 million in damages to the family of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer. The Supreme Court has been searching for a limit on such punitive damages. (Philip Morris vs. Williams)

Q: Are immigrants convicted of drug possession subject to deportation under a strict federal law?

A: The 1996 law says immigrants who commit an “aggravated felony” are to be deported, and the government says low-level drug crimes are felonies. (Lopez vs. Gonzales, Gonzales vs. Duenas-Alvarez)

Q: Is California’s system of sentencing criminals unconstitutional because it lets a judge increase a defendant’s term based on “aggravating factors”?

A: In several recent rulings, the court has said juries, not judges, should decide the factors that call for longer sentences. (Cunningham vs. California)