Even if you don't follow legal news much, this is a good week to check out the doings at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court wraps up its business for the season every year at the end of June. (In the old days, it knocked off the first week in July.) Then it takes the summer off from hearing and deciding cases, and reassembles the first Monday in October. (This year, it's going to make history by coming back early -- right after Labor Day -- just to hear some important campaign finance cases in time for Campaign 2004.)

The Court usually leaves its bombshell opinions for the end of the term, and this year is no exception. Monday we had the Court decide that Congress can force public libraries to install porn filters on their web browsers as a condition of receiving federal funding. The Court by a razor's edge also ruled Monday that affirmative action for racial minorities in university admissions is o.k., so long as you don't come right out and explain to the public the exact mechanics of how you're taking race into account.

It's amazing the influence that just two of the nine justices can have. For example, the crazy compromise line drawn in the affirmative action cases was the work of Justices Breyer (standing far right) and O'Connor (seated second from right). Justices Rehnquist (seated center), Kennedy (seated far right), Scalia (seated far left) and Thomas (standing second from right) would likely have banned virtually all affirmative action programs, and Justices Ginsburg (standing far left), Stevens (seated second from left) and Souter (standing second from left) would probably have o.k.'ed virtually all of them. Only Breyer and O'Connor said some were permissible, some weren't. But that's now the law of the land.

Tomorrow will be the last day of this term, and there are a few interesting cases due to come out. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm going to be watching. The Court will revisit its dogma on the right to privacy -- specifically, whether states can outlaw sodomy between consenting adults of the same gender. And Nike's before the Court with a "commercial speech" case, fighting the State of California for the right to defend itself publicly when accused of labor abuses. Who knows, maybe the Court will say something that will help the frustrated muralists on the east side of the Morrison Bridge here in Portland.

Even more significant for Thursday, however, is the anticipated announcement of a retirement or two from the Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist has had a rough year health-wise, and he's expected to say "so long." Most of the other justices aren't exactly spring chickens, either, and so be prepared for a colleague to join him in retirement. The White House is no doubt licking its chops for one or more Supreme Court appointments, but if all it gets is a replacement for Rehnquist, that shouldn't be too big a deal. In case you haven't noticed, he's a pretty right-wing influence on the Court already.

Probably the best place to be to follow the action tomorrow morning will be Howard Bashman's monster law blog How Appealing. The guy had more than 20,000 hits on Monday alone, and I'll bet he breaks that record tomorrow, particularly if there's a retirement announcement.