Before the High Court

The Supreme Court’s new term begins today. So far, 44 cases are set to be argued, enough to fill the schedule through January. Here are some key cases:

* FREE SPEECH: Can a state limit how much a person contributes to a candidate to $1,000 per election? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis, setting the stage for a major ruling on campaign finance law. (Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri PAC, 98-963, to be argued Tuesday)

* Can a state university force students to pay a fee that in turn supports campus groups that advocate, for example, gay rights or the environment? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. (Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin vs. Southworth, 98-1189, Nov. 9)

* Can California make it a crime to sell the names and addresses of arrestees and crime victims, even though these public records are available to scholars, detectives and journalists? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, ruling that the 1st Amendment protects “commercial speech.” (LAPD vs. United Reporting Publishing Co., 98-678, Oct. 13)

* Can anti-abortion protesters be kept 8 feet away from women entering clinics? Yes, said the Colorado Supreme Court, upholding a state law against a free-speech challenge. (Hill vs. Colorado, 98-1856, January)

*

* STATES’ RIGHTS: Can university professors sue a state university for illegal age discrimination under federal law? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. (Kimel vs. Florida Board of Regents, 98-791, Oct. 13.)

* Can Congress require states to shield the privacy of drivers’ records? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruling this mandate violates states’ rights. (Reno vs. Condon, 98-1464, Nov. 10)

*

* BUSINESS, ENVIRONMENT: Can the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco as a drug? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., rejecting new Clinton administration rules on youth smoking. (FDA vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 98-1152, late November or early December)

* Can an angry patient sue her HMO because its doctors had a financial incentive to save money? Yes, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, waiving the federal liability shield for employer-funded health plans. (Pegram vs. Herdich, 98-1949, January)

*

* CRIME: Can police pursue and stop a man simply because he fled when they approached? No, said the Illinois Supreme Court, because officers had no reason to suspect he was involved in a crime. (Illinois vs. Wardlow, 98-1036, Nov. 2)

*

* RELIGION: Can federal education money be used to give computers and other instructional equipment to religious schools? No, said a U.S. appeals court in New Orleans. (Mitchell vs. Helms, 98-1648, late November)

*

* RACE and CIVIL RIGHTS: Can Congress give sexual-assault victims a right to sue their attackers in federal court? No, said the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., striking down the Violence Against Women Act. (Brzonkala vs. Morrison, 99-29, January)

* Do grandparents have a right to visit their grandchildren when this is in the child’s best interest? No, said the Washington Supreme Court, because parents have sole right to control their children. (Troxel vs. Granville, 99-138)