The Supreme Court returns Monday with an ailing leader, pressure to rule quickly on the constitutionality of federal prison sentences and a slew of contentious issues to decide, from medical marijuana to Ten Commandment displays.
The most immediate concern is the health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October. He has been working part-time at the court for more than two weeks but still is too ill to return to the bench.
At 80, Rehnquist already was considered a top retirement prospect on a court that has had no turnover in a decade, a record. But justices try to time their departure's for the court's summer recess, to avoid 4-4 ties in cases.
Rehnquist's absence has yet to produce any tie votes. Even though he missed all the arguments in November and December, he has reviewed the cases and could vote if needed.
Besides Rehnquist, Justices John Paul Stevens, 84, and Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, are considered possibilities to leave this year.
Justices could rule as early as this week on whether the longtime system for sentencing federal defendants should be thrown out because it lets judges, rather than juries, decide factors that add years to prison time. Many judges have delayed sentencings while awaiting the high court's decision.
Other major cases involve whether states can execute juvenile killers, whether the federal government can prosecute people who use marijuana medicinally, and whether states can bar interstate wine sales over the Internet.
Some other big issues are still to be argued _ or are awaiting an announcement on whether the justices will hear them.
Two February cases will be closely watched by local governments and land rights groups. They involve the government's power to take people's land or put limits on its use.
In early March, large crowds are expected when justices take up two cases that question the constitutionality of government displays of the Ten Commandments. The last major religion case was last year's challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Justices settled the case without ruling on the merits.
March also brings a case that asks how U.S. authorities should deal with foreign nationals facing charges that could result in execution. In addition, there is an Internet dispute that questions whether file-sharing services may be held responsible when customers illegally swap songs and movies online.
Justices have a chance to add some controversial issues to their April calendar: Oregon's assisted suicide law; a Florida law that kept a severely brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, alive over her husband's objections; a Florida law that bars gays from adopting; and an appeal questioning the Bush administration's strategy to hold military trials for terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I don't think there's going to be any shortage of headlines," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor.
PENDING SUPREME COURT CASES
DEATH PENALTY: May states prosecute foreign nationals in death penalty cases without notifying their government, in violation of international law? (Medellin vs. Dretke, 04-5928.) Argument expected in March. Can people facing the death penalty be shackled in front of jurors during their sentencing hearing? (Deck vs. Missouri, 04-5293) Argument March 1.
LAND RIGHTS: When can local governments seize people's homes and businesses to be used for tax-producing projects like shopping malls? (Kelo vs. City of New London, 04-108.) Was it an unconstitutional taking when Hawaii imposed rent caps on dealer-run stations, intended to promote competition and keep down gas prices? (Lingle vs. Chevron USA, 04-163.) Arguments Feb. 22.
TEN COMMANDMENTS: Do government displays of the Ten Commandments at public buildings violate the First Amendment's ban on an "establishment" of religion? (Van Orden vs. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County vs. ACLU, 03-1693.) Arguments March 2.
FILE-SHARING: Should Internet file-sharing services be held responsible for their customers' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies? (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios vs. Grokster, 04-480.) Argument expected in March.
CABLE INTERNET ACCESS: Is cable-based broadband a "telecommunications service" under FCC rules that would require cable companies to open their lines to Internet competition? (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services, 04-277; FCC vs. Brand X Internet Services, 04-281.) Argument expected in March.