When the Supreme Court hears arguments today about the rights of suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison, the role of the courts in the fight against terrorism will be as much an issue as the fate of the prisoners.

The president and Congress have already made their opinions clear: The courts may not "hear or consider" challenges from foreigners held as enemy combatants at the U.S. facility in Cuba.

But in what some scholars say is a critical separation-of-powers case, the nine justices will have the final word on whether such a court-stripping prohibition is constitutional, and on how deferential the judicial branch should be in the prosecution of a war unlike any the country has ever faced.

The court has been critical of Bush administration policies over the past three years, but "this case is probably more important than the other ones because it's a direct conflict between the political branches that have traditionally run wars and the courts," said John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who helped design the Bush administration's legal strategies for the terrorism fight.

Yoo denounced the court's involvement and said that it has never received such an unequivocal message that the "joint wishes of the president and Congress" are to "push the courts out" of the process.

Attorneys for the detainees and a host of international and domestic interest groups supporting them say that is precisely when the courts are most needed.

The libertarian Cato Institute, in a brief filed by lawyer Timothy Lynch, said it is "imperative that this Court eschew a deferential posture and stand, in words of James Madison, as an 'impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive.' "

Two cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, have been consolidated into one and brought on behalf of 37 foreigners who remain among the approximately 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. All were captured on foreign soil and have been designated enemy combatants. They proclaim their innocence and for years have asked federal courts for a writ of habeas corpus, the ancient right allowing prisoners to challenge their detentions.

Some have been imprisoned since soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and while they have won at the Supreme Court before, none has had a full hearing before a federal judge.

The court has confronted the issue before, ruling in 2004 in Rasul v. Bush that federal habeas corpus statutes extended to Guantanamo Bay detainees because of the unique control that the U.S. government has over the land.

The Republican-led Congress responded by changing the law, and after another adverse court ruling and at the urging of the Bush administration, it passed the Military Commissions Act in October 2006. The legislation endorsed a military system for designating detainees as enemy combatants and for trying those charged with crimes, and it strictly limited judicial oversight.

"The detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war," Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in his brief to the court. "Yet they claim an entitlement to more."

Specifically, attorneys contend that Guantanamo Bay detainees have a constitutional guarantee of habeas, a right that Congress may suspend only in times of "rebellion or invasion."

The government disputes that, but says that even if it were so, previous court rulings allow an adequate substitute for habeas proceedings.

But detainees who appear before the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which determine whether they can be held indefinitely as enemy combatants, have fewer rights than they would in habeas proceedings. They are not represented by counsel, do not have access to all evidence used against them and cannot prevail on a judge to release them if the case against them is not made.

"Habeas is a judicial remedy," former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman, who will argue for the detainees, said in a brief. "It cannot be replaced by a process that (like the CSRT) is ultimately controlled by the jailer."

The position is supported by a long list of organizations that have filed briefs with the court on behalf of the detainees: Israeli leaders, who say that terrorism suspects in their country receive a detention hearing within 14 days; a group of 383 European parliamentarians; former U.S. diplomats; law professors; retired military leaders; and even Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who voted for the Military Commissions Act and said at the time that the court could "clean up" the parts of the law he thought were unconstitutional.

"To avoid an incongruous legal 'black hole' at Guantanamo, this Court should strike down the MCA's illegal suspension of the Great Writ and allow Congress to establish procedures consistent with what national security and the Constitution require," Specter wrote.

Four conservative legal organizations support the Bush administration, urging the court not to use what the Washington Legal Foundation calls its "raw power" to overturn the work of Congress and the president.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was the deciding vote last year in the court's most controversial cases, appears to be in the spotlight again; Kathleen M. Sullivan, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University, jokingly referred to the carefully tailored briefs in the case as "love letters to Justice Kennedy."

Kennedy is believed to have provided the key fifth vote required for the court to consider the latest detainee case. In his concurring opinion in the 2004 Rasul, he acknowledged the difficulty the court faces in times of war.

"There is a realm of political authority over military affairs where the judicial power may not enter. The existence of this realm acknowledges the power of the President as Commander in Chief, and the joint role of the President and the Congress, in the conduct of military affairs," Kennedy wrote.

But he added that the "necessary corollary" is when courts "maintain the power and the responsibility to protect persons from unlawful detention even where military affairs are implicated."

Snyder was convicted of first-degree murder in August 1996 by an all-white jury in Jefferson Parish. The jury also recommended the death sentence. He was found guilty of slashing his estranged wife and a man when he found them in a car outside her mother's home in August 1995.

Lawyers for Snyder said the state illegally struck all five qualified black members from the jury pool using preemptory challenges, or challenges for which a reason does not have to be given.

Under a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, attorneys are not allowed to exclude people from a jury solely because of their race.

A split Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Snyder's challenge, with the majority saying that race had no part in the state's decisions involving potential jurors.

The auto product liability lawsuit, Levesque vs. Ford Motor Company, started today, December 3, 2007, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, before the Honorable Ricardo Torres.

"Ford Motor Company's decision to place corporate profits over the safety of their SUV's occupants, demonstrates a callous disregard for the safety of the people who ride in Ford SUVs," says John Bisnar, partner and founder of the Bisnar Chase personal injury law firm. "It is shameful that an American auto maker would willingly ignore known catastrophic injury concerns just to improve their profits."

On the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the Ford Expedition's driver, swerved to avoid a collision while traveling southbound on Interstate 5 in Fresno County. The driver subsequently lost control of her vehicle which then rolled over several times. The defective roof collapsed causing severe head and spinal injuries to passenger Gloria Levesque.

The suit alleges Ford Motor Company intentionally engaged in conduct that exposed the plaintiff and other users of the Ford Expedition to potentially serious, life threatening danger for its financial interest and demonstrated a conscious disregard for consumers' safety. The plaintiff is seeking a judgment for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

"The defendants clearly put profit before people," says Brian Chase, partner and the firm's chief litigator. "This is another example of an automobile manufacturer profiting from the production of a vehicle known to have serious and life threatening defects. For only $30, Ford could have easily strengthened their SUV's roof structure to withstand these types of rollover roof failures. If Ford had chosen to do so, Gloria Levesque would be teaching at her Montessori school as she had for the past 25 years. Instead she is unemployed, permanently disabled, and catastrophically injured.

The lawsuit, originally filed on November 8, 2005, centers on the allegation that Ford manipulates the general public into believing that large SUVs like their Expedition model, are safer compared to other vehicles while knowing that their SUVs have one of the highest rates of rollover injuries and deaths of any vehicle on the road today.

Chase states, "Ford's SUVs are not built strong enough to protect the front seat occupants from being catastrophically injured during a rollover. They know this and have for years.

Unfortunately, Ford chose to ignore the inherent safety problems of the Expedition including the rollover propensity and insignificant roof strength."

About Bisnar Chase:

Bisnar Chase, LLP, is a California personal injury law firm that represents people who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the loss of a family member. They specialize in automobile defect cases against the world's largest automobile makers. Bisnar Chase is known for its multi-million settlements and judgments for its clients. For more information visit: www.auto-defect-attorneys.com and www.bisnar-chase.com

The court left in place a federal appeals court ruling that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., should not have given reporters access to the tape-recorded telephone call of Republican leaders discussing the House ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga, in December 1996.

McDermott asked the justices to hear his appeal of the May ruling, which he said infringed on his free speech rights. The court did not comment on its action.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 5-4 decision, said McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee at the time.

The ruling upheld a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

Boehner was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against Gingrich. Then the House speaker, Gingrich was heard on the call telling Boehner and others how to react to allegations. He was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.

McDermott, who was then serving on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to two newspapers, which published stories on the case in January 1997.

A 40 percent contingency fee negotiated by a Manhattan law firm retained by the widow of a real estate developer involved in a multimillion-dollar estate dispute was not "unconscionable on its face," an appeals court ruled yesterday.

The court said that "at first blush," the 40 percent fee — worth about $42 million — that was claimed by the law firm, Graubard Miller, from Alice Lawrence, the 83-year-old widow of the real estate developer Sylvan Lawrence, "might arguably seem excessive and invite skepticism."

But a majority of the five-member panel of the court, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, ruled that whether the fee was reasonable should be determined at a trial, based on a further exploration of the discussions that led to the fee agreement and the difficulty of the case.

In a dissent, one justice, James M. Catterson, called the fee "exorbitant." He said that the retainer agreement was signed when a $60 million settlement offer was already on the table.

The estate was settled just five months later for more than $100 million, the judge said, meaning that the law firm's fee was almost equal to the additional amount it won.

Mark Zauderer, a lawyer for the firm, said in a telephone interview that Graubard Miller was delighted with the decision, which was issued in response to Mrs. Lawrence's appeal of two decisions in Surrogate's Court.

Mr. Zauderer said that the fee had been justified by the law firm's success in winning about $115 million for Mrs. Lawrence against Seymour Cohn, her husband's brother, business partner and executor — against an adversary who, he said, was "extremely wealthy and well defended."

"What the courts recognize is that a fee agreement is not unconscionable simply because it can produce a big fee," Mr. Zauderer said. "You have to look at the value rendered to the client."

Leslie Corwin, Mrs. Lawrence's current lawyer, said there was a "strong possibility" that she would seek to have the Court of Appeals hear the case.

Mr. Lawrence died in 1981. At the time, he and his brother owned "more than 90 commercial buildings and parcels of real estate," the dissent said. Mrs. Lawrence wanted to sell them. Mr. Cohn, who died in 2003, opposed her.

"This is now the third time a court or a judge has affirmed the right of the Graubard firm to be paid a well-earned fee in which it got a tremendous result in a highly complex case," Mr. Zauderer said.

With hordes of attorneys poised to assume senior status, achieving a consensus among partners to ditch mandatory retirement policies is just the first step -- and perhaps the easiest -- in switching to what many say is a fairer system.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis recently did it, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman made the change, and others are expected to follow. And while these firms report that reaching the decision to abandon age-based retirement was relatively painless, implementing a merit-based system for evaluating older attorneys will not be a simple feat for most.

"It takes time for people to internalize what this means," said Deborah Johnson, a member of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's executive committee and the firm's chief human resources officer.

Pillsbury Winthrop in April decided to get rid of the provision in its partnership agreement that, in general, created a rebuttable presumption that when lawyers turned 65 it was time for them to give up full equity status.

In light of the firm's decision, Johnson has worked with other firm leaders to devise a system that provides flexibility but holds attorneys accountable for their contributions. She estimates that the change affects about 10 percent of the firm's partners.

The full results of the decision at the 755-attorney firm will take at least a year to realize, Johnson said. In the meantime, the firm is operating under its newly implemented program that includes refined partner evaluations, stated goals from senior partners, revised financial planning services and an increased role for career consultants in working with "seniors." The firm defines seniors not by their age but by year of service. It considers as seniors those who have practiced for 25 years or more.