WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-Weighing In on the Start of the U.S. Supreme Court Session

Weighing In on the Start of the U.S. Supreme Court Session

Burlington, Vermont - October 5, 2009

Today marks a new chapter in American legal history with the first Hispanic justice, Sonia Sotomayor, beginning her career on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Analyst Cheryl Hanna, from Vermont Law School, says though Sotomayor is unlike any other justice the court has had before, she doesn't expect that will drastically change dynamics at the bench.

"It'll certainly effect the conversations on the court, but I don't expect we're going to see the court become any more cohesive than it's been in recent years," Hanna says. "This term is starting off with one of the most divided courts in history, and I think we're going to continue to see that 5-4 split in a lot of important cases."

Hanna believes one of the few ways to change the dynamics would require some consistency from the White House.

"What would change that would be many decades of presidential appointments from a single party. The court's gotten increasingly partisan and until there's really a major shift, we're not likely to see the court, I think, become any more cohesive than it's already been," Hanna says.

One case coming up this term is likely to catch Vermonters' attention, especially because it could influence the Brooke Bennett case.

"There's really an important case involving the Adam Walsh Act. The case is asking the question whether or not certain provisions of that Act are constitutional or whether the federal government has exceeded its authority in trying to regulate sex offenders. And while this case won't directly effect the Michael Jacques case, if the court rules in favor of the defendant, that could have long-term implications for the Jacques case because a lot of people say what happened to Brooke Bennett should be a state issue not a federal issue," Hanna says. "If the Supreme Court agrees with the general theory that sex crimes are really a state matter and not a federal matter, we might see a lot more interesting legal play in the Michael Jacques case going forward."

The sticking point is that if Jacques is not charged federally, then he's not eligible for the death penalty.

"If he's not charged with a federal crime or if the federal law is declared unconstitutional, he could still be charged under state law, but we don't have the death penalty here," Hanna says.

This term, the Supreme Court will be tackling some crucial First Amendment cases.

"There are three big First Amendment cases. We heard the first one in 'Hillary Clinton: The Movie' earlier in September. One case involving a cross in the Mojave Desert and whether that's a violation of the establishment clause and that's going to be the first major religion case since Justice Roberts has been the chief justice. The other big case involves a federal law that prohibits depictions of animal cruelty. The case involved dog fighting videos, although there's all sorts of these kinds of depictions including crush videos, which have young women often smashing small animals, so these horrible videos, as to whether or not those restrictions are a violation of First Amendment rights."

Those three issues could end up changing how Americans look at their laws.

"We are likely to see significant new precedents," Hanna says. "If the court upholds, for example, the depiction of animal cruelty law. That'll be the first time the court has said a category of speech is unconstitutional since it declared child pornography unconstitutional."

Cheryl Hanna has written legal briefs on that dog fighting case and will be at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., tomorrow to hear the arguments.

Roger Garrity - WCAX News