A Rightward Turn and Dissension Define Court This Term

"They [conservatives] took cases that attract attention, cases involving what I would call 'targets of opportunity' . . . that were [previously] 5 to 4 in a nonconservative direction," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard University law professor and author of "A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law."

"These were really important issues to them. I'm not sure it means they're on a search-and-destroy mission for all the precedents they disagree with."

The court's final week served as a good example. The conservative majority prevailed in a flurry of 5 to 4 decisions, ruling on the campaign finance law, restricting student speech in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, throwing out a lawsuit filed against President Bush's faith-based social services initiative and ending with Roberts's opinion striking down school diversity plans in Seattle and Louisville that consider an individual student's race when making some school assignments.

Breyer's dissent in the schools case, written for the liberal minority, ran 77 pages -- including charts -- and concluded that the nation would regret the decision. Roberts devoted nearly a quarter of his own opinion to rebutting Breyer, saying that "Justice Breyer's appeal to stare decisis" -- the principle that the court's precedents should bind -- "rings particularly hollow."

Again, though, Kennedy played perhaps the most important role. He refused to go along with Roberts and the other conservatives who said the Constitution insists that government actions must be colorblind. Kennedy said governments have an interest in promoting integration and racial diversity, and racial classifications may be part of a solution, when and if other means have been exhausted.

And, after the final opinion had been delivered, there was a reminder that the court can always be surprising.

The court said it had reversed a decision announced in April and will now hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees who say they should be allowed access to federal courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment. It is a case that three liberal members of the court had wanted to take -- they have been in the majority in rulings that limit the president's power in holding the detainees -- but conservatives would not agree.

It has been decades since the court has agreed to such a rehearing. The court did not announce what had changed or which members voted to accept the case. But it took at least two more justices -- the court's magic number of five -- to approve such a reversal.

Staff writer Rachel Dry contributed to this report.