Justices to Hear Abortion, Integration Cases

But, the administration brief continues, to "the extent that the Court concludes that Stenberg compels the conclusion that the Act is facially invalid . . . Stenberg should be overruled."

In a brief on behalf of several doctors challenging the ban, the Center for Reproductive Rights told the court that it owes Congress no deference on issues of medical practice, and that the administration's suggestion that Stenberg may be overruled "demonstrates an inadequate regard for the societal values held safe by the principles of stare decisis ."

The decision to rule on "partial birth" abortion despite the absence of disagreement among lower courts was expected: The court usually reviews lower-court decisions holding federal laws unconstitutional.

Taking up race-conscious public school assignments was a surprise, however. The justices had turned down a similar case a few months earlier, when Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the court.

O'Connor wrote the court's opinion in a 5 to 4 case upholding race-conscious admissions in higher education.

But after Alito replaced her, the court spent almost two months discussing the public school issue before deciding in June to hear it.

At issue are voluntary school integration plans in Seattle and in Louisville, Ky.

In Seattle, where authorities seek to overcome what they say are segregated housing patterns, students can choose to attend any high school in the city, but some are oversubscribed.

To determine who gets in, officials deny admission to new students whose race would tip an oversubscribed school's population more than 15 percentage points outside a 60-40 nonwhite-white balance.

In Louisville, which was under court order to desegregate until 2000, the policy applies from first grade through high school and aims to prevent any school from falling below 15 percent black or exceeding 50 percent black.

In both cities, white parents whose children were not allowed into the schools of their choice sued, alleging that the policies were unconstitutional.

Lower courts ruled in favor of the schools, citing O'Connor's 2003 opinion, which said that diversity could be a strong enough government interest to warrant the use of race as a factor in allocating places in the University of Michigan's law school.

Several conservative legal organizations are urging the court in friend-of-the-court briefs to use the Seattle and Louisville cases to overrule the three-year-old Michigan decision.

But in their briefs, the white parents and the Bush administration, which supports them, do not urge overruling the Michigan case -- which caused deep internal divisions over affirmative action within the administration.

Instead, they tell the court that the public school plans are different because they are not true efforts at diversity but, as the administration brief puts it, "outright racial balancing," which the court has disapproved in other cases.