Constitutional Questions Raised in New Supreme Court Session

The first Monday in October is the traditional start of the Supreme Court term; but in a year of many changes the court began, this September, to hear new arguments in a case examining whether corporations can have free speech in a challenge over a film called "Hillary: The Movie." 

The Supreme Court is the nation’s top court in the judicial branch of government. The nine justices, who are nominated by the President and then voted in by the Senate, rule on cases that are appealed from the lower courts. Often they look at how the court ruled on previous cases as precedent to decide who should win the argument. 

Dog fighting as free speech

	Training dogs to fight each other, sometimes to death, is a felony in almost every U.S. state.

In 1999, animal cruelty was already illegal, but Congress wanted to make the law even stronger and passed a bill to make it a crime to possess or sell any depiction of animal cruelty — specifically the killing, wounding, torturing or mutilation of an animal - in an effort to go after those abusing the animal. 

In 2004, Robert Stevens, a self proclaimed "pit bull lover," became the only person ever convicted under this law for selling videos of pit bull fights in Japan where the practice is legal. 

Mr. Stevens was sentenced to three years in prison, but he appealed his conviction claiming it a violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech and the federal appeals court agreed. 

The government appealed, bringing the case to the high court. The prosecution is asking the Supreme Court to place depictions of animal cruelty in a small category of speech that gets no First Amendment protection including: child pornography, extreme obscenity and incitements to violence or terror. 

In 2007, pro football player Michael Vick served nearly two years for running an interstate dog fighting ring from his home in Virginia. He was released in May and now plays for the Philadelphia Eagles football team. 

Religious shrines on federal government grounds

	Lower federal courts ruled that the placement of a large cross along government property was unconstitutional.

The Court is also hearing arguments this week about controversy over a cross in the desert. 

Seventy five years ago, the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a large white cross in the desolate Mojave Desert to commemorate those who died in World War I.  

In 1999, a Buddhist shrine was denied on land near the white cross by the federal agency causing a controversy as to why some religious symbols are allowed and some denied.

A park employee and devout Catholic, Frank Buono, challenged the legality of the cross saying the land belonged to everyone. 

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, a legal defense fund whose defined mission is to defend individual rights, Bruno argued that the cross was illegal because of the Constitution's decree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” 

The park service agreed with Buono but before the cross could be taken down Congress passed a law trading the acre of land where the cross lies to the VFW for another acre of land, thus ceding  that land to the VFW -- part of the agreement was that the cross would have to continue to stand and was designated as a national monument.  

Lower courts ruled that such a move by Congress had purposefully tried to subvert the decision to remove the cross and was thus unconstitutional. The government appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. 

At issue in the case is who can deem a monument a religious shrine and who can take offense to it. If the Court rules against the VFW, some argue that crosses in Arlington National Cemetery could be bulldozed without warning. Opponents argue that if the cross is not removed then the government could possibly erect any religious monuments and no one would have legal ground to argue. 

Douglas Laycock, who filed a brief on behalf of Muslim veterans, said "If they want to put a cross on every street corner, they could do that." 

Changing the lineup of the court

	The 2009 Supreme Court includes new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Obama this year.

Listening to all of these arguments is a new justice, Sonia Sotomayor. Because of seniority on the Court, Sotomayor sits on the far right and always rules last.  

Sotomayor is the first Latina Justice in Court's history and only the third woman to serve on the court. She is also the first trial court judge on the Court in a long time. Most Supreme Court analysts expect Sotomayor to rule similarly to recently retired Justice David Souter, the justice she replaced. 

Supreme Court watchers speculate that another justice, John Paul Stevens, a liberal member of the court, may leave next year.   

The National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle told the NewsHour that Stephens leaving would have "a major impact on the court. Even though he is on the wing of the court that doesn't often prevail in cases, he has been sort of a master strategist at winning Justice Kennedy and preserving some liberal victories.”