Supreme Court goes back to work Monday

WASHINGTON — Against the backdrop of a tight presidential election that likely will shape its future, the Supreme Court goes back to work Monday, facing cases on whether the government can forbid foul language on television, whether drugmakers can be sued by injured patients and whether environmentalists can protect whales off the California coast from the Navy's sonar.

The court also will decide whether officials can be held liable for violations of rights that took place on their watch.

In a Los Angeles case, the justices will decide whether the former county district attorney can be sued by a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder based on the testimony of a jailhouse informer with a record of lying.

And in a New York case, the justices will decide whether former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held liable for the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Muslim immigrants after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

On Monday, the justices will meet behind closed doors to sift through more than 2,000 appeal petitions that have piled up over the summer. They are expected on Tuesday to announce they will hear a handful of those cases.

On Oct. 6, the court will begin hearing oral arguments. First up is a case that tests whether the makers of "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes can be sued for allegedly seeking to fool smokers into thinking these cigarettes are safer.

The court has much at stake in who is elected president in November. On the major issues, such as abortion, race, religion, the death penalty, gun rights, gay rights and presidential power, the justices have been sharply divided. The court regularly splits 5-4 on those issues, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote.

The retirement of a single justice could tip the balance to the right or the left. At 88, Justice John Paul Stevens is seen as likely to step down during the next president's term. A second of the liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 75.

So far, the court does not have before it a hot-button case on abortion, race or religion, although that could change after new cases are added.

For consumers and corporations, the most far-reaching case this fall will test a patient's right to sue if he or she is hurt or killed by a federally approved drug.

Bush administration lawyers have quietly pressed the theory that if a product is regulated by a federal agency, its regulations "pre-empt," or block, lawsuits that set stricter standards. This approach has won the backing of manufacturers.

It has been 30 years since the court last dealt with offensive language on TV and radio. Then, the court upheld a fine against a radio station for broadcasting George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" monologue.

Since then, TV has changed fundamentally. Most Americans receive TV signals through cable or satellite signals, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) retains the authority over broadcasters that use the airways and can forbid "any obscene, indecent or profane language."

Two years ago, the FCC announced a crackdown on unscripted expletives and said it was prepared to levy big fines for violations. It cited several examples from entertainment award shows. When Cher won a Billboard Music career-achievement award, she said it proved her critics wrong and uttered an obscenity.

Fox TV, which had broadcast the award show and was fined, sued, contending the crackdown was arbitrary and a free-speech violation. A U.S. appeals court agreed and barred the FCC from enforcing its new policy.

In the wrongful-conviction case from Los Angeles, Thomas Goldstein was released from prison after serving 24 years for a murder, and he wants to hold the county's top prosecutors liable.

He sued former District Attorney John Van de Kamp and his top deputy, alleging they allowed prosecutors to put on the witness stand unreliable jailhouse informers in multiple cases. Van de Kamp is urging the court to rule that district attorneys, like trial prosecutors, are shielded from being sued.

Similarly, Bush administration lawyers say Ashcroft, the FBI director and other officials are shielded from being sued by Muslim men who say they were picked up and roughed up after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani native who lived on Long Island, N.Y., was arrested on a charge of credit-card fraud but was sent to a maximum-security wing of a jail in Brooklyn. He said he was subjected to daily "strip and bodily cavity searches." Nine months later, he pleaded guilty to a fraud charge and was deported. He sued and alleged he was harassed and beaten because of religion and race.

The case of the Navy and the whales is a test of a judge's power to enforce protections for the environment. Alarmed by reports that marine mammals were hurt, disoriented and even killed by the piercing sounds of sonar, environmentalists went to court in Los Angeles.

A judge ordered the Navy to turn off sonar when whales or other marine mammals were seen within 1.2 miles of a ship.

Government lawyers said this order jeopardized the Navy's training exercises off the California coast.