(2 of 2)
∙RIGHTS OF THE POOR. The most important welfare suit now on the agenda argues that California may not revoke a person's benefits without first granting him a hearing before an impartial referee. California regulations, like those of many other states, entitle a person to such a hearing only after he is notified that his payments will be terminated. Thus, a person's benefits often cease before he has a chance to challenge the decision by presenting evidence to someone in authority besides his caseworker.
∙CHURCH AND STATE. A New York City case attacks as unconstitutional the property-tax exemption enjoyed by religious organizations. The petitioner argues that this tax break violates the rule of separation of church and state.
With the composition of the court changing, who will become the dominant personality? Several law professors discount Burger in favor of Black, 83, who shaped much of the court's doctrine during the Warren era. "He is the only man whose philosophy will appeal to a majority of old and new members," says the University of Chicago's Philip Kurland. Others believe that Justice Brennan will lead the court in certain areas, such as free speech. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz predicts great influence in some cases for Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Warren court's most frequent dissenter against the use of judicial solutions for social problems. The Burger court, more often than not, may find itself espousing Harlan's judicial philosophy, which Dershowitz says is "You don't reverse decisions no matter how wrong you think they are."