The states won some and lost some in the Supreme Court's recent term, but when it comes to federalism the justices continue to lean in the states' favor.

The Supreme court in its recently completed term reined in state laws that give visitation rights to grandparents, cast doubt on open primaries,

But the states also had their share of wins. The justices shielded state agencies from "whistleblower" lawsuits, upheld state limits on campaign contributions and said limited public aid can flow to parochial schools.

From the states' perspective, the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term was decidedly mixed. In federalism cases, those that test the balance of power between Washington and the states, the justices continue to lean toward the states. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has insisted states have a "sovereign immunity" and cannot be subjected to private lawsuits. In January, for example, the Court ruled state employees and public college professors cannot sue their agencies for age bias, despite the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (Kimel vs. Florida Board of Regents). The Court also has frowned upon the federal government's encroaching on states' turf in areas such as law enforcement and education.

But the states' rights philosophy did not prevail when the justices considered cases on abortion, grandparents, school prayer and primary elections. In those instances, the Court's majority struck down state laws as unconstitutional. For those inclined to confidently brand the Court as "conservative" or "liberal," they were confronted with at least a half dozen rulings the seemed to confound the easy labels.

The bellwether continues to be 70-year-old Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the one-time majority leader of the Arizona state Senate. She cast the deciding vote in all of the Court's most closely contested cases, including those on abortion and aid to religious schools. She dissented in only four of this term's 74 official decisions, by far the lowest number.

Apparently, only she can provide the answer to one of the most significant pending questions: Can the states offer public vouchers to send children to parochial schools? And this year, she did not tip her hand.

For three decades, the Court has struggled to decide how or whether the government can provide tax support for parochial schools. At issue is the First Amendment's ban on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Three distinct views have emerged among the justices.

Those on the liberal side say no public money may go to support parochial schools. These justices, insisting on a strict separation of church and state, say the Framers of the Constitution believed the government must not support religious indoctrination. At the other extreme, the conservatives say religious schools deserve equal treatment. If the government funds education, it can give money to public schools and parochial schools on an equal basis, they say. This approach neither favors or disfavors religion, they say, but rather is "neutral." Hovering in the middle are the moderates, such as Justice O'Connor, who are willing to allow "incidental" aid to parochial schools, such as loaned textbooks or special tutors, but not direct subsidies for religious teaching.

This year's test case came from Louisiana, where some parents sued because the local public school district was providing computers for the parochial schools. Federal funds were provided for just that purpose, but the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans struck down the public school subsidy as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision on a 6 to 3 vote in the case of Mitchell vs. Helms, but the justices in the majority disagreed on the rationale for the ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking for four members of the Court, said the government had broad leeway to aid parochial schools as part of a general education program.

"If the government offers aid on the same terms, without regard to religion, to all," he said, it does not matter whether some of the schools are religious or whether they use the money to teach religion. Thomas also accused the liberals of anti-Catholic "bigotry" for seeking to block aid to parochial schools. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy joined Thomas's opinion.

Had a clear majority adopted this view, doubts about the constitutionality of vouchers would have vanished. Justice O'Connor balked, however. In a separate concurring opinion, she called Thomas's view "troubling" and said it would justify "direct aid to religious schools." Looking at the issue narrowly, she voted to uphold the lending of computers to parochial schools, in part because "no [federal] funds ever reach the coffers" of the church or its schools. Justice Stephen Breyer joined her opinion. The three dissenters -- Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- said no taxpayer funds should subsidize religious schools.

Not surprisingly, fans and foes of vouchers read the outcome differently. Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice, which defends vouchers, called the ruling "a positive harbinger for school choice." He noted that Justice O'Connor wrote approvingly of a "true private choice program," and Bolick argued vouchers will be upheld too because they leave the educational choices to parents, not public officials.

But Barry Lynn, the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the June 28 ruling "gives no aid or comfort to voucher supporters" because it dealt only with loaned instructional equipment, not direct cash aid to religious schools.

The next test of vouchers that is likely to reach the Supreme Court is Ohio's program of aid for parents in Cleveland. The U.S. court of appeals in Cincinnati is expected to rule soon on that case, and the losing side is sure to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The outcome was much clearer in the term's other major religion case. On a 6-3 vote, the Court rejected student-led prayers at school events. The June 19 decision struck down a Texas school board's policy of having seniors vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation and at football games. Students may pray alone or with their friends at school, Justice Stevens said. However, if school officials give a student the microphone to lead a prayer at a school event, that is not a private act of worship, but rather public sponsorship of religion, he said.

The Court's opinion in Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe does not foreclose all religious expression by students, even at events such as graduation. For example, if a student valedictorian chooses to discuss her faith, that alone would not pose problems. But public officials cross the line when they encourage or promote religious expression at school, the Court said.

The outcome in the "partial birth" abortion case also appears to leave little room for further state legislation, at least when it comes to regulating second-term abortions. Since 1992, the Court has made clear that states may ban third trimester abortions, "except where it is necessary ... for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." However, before the fetus is viable -- usually about the 24th week of a pregnancy -- "the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy," the Court said again.

Since 1995, 31 states, including Nebraska, enacted bans on a controversial second term procedure that is dubbed "partial birth abortion." Under the standard method for abortions between 16 and 22 weeks, a doctor uses instruments to pull apart the 6-inch long fetus in the womb and then remove the parts. Under the alternative procedure, the doctor cuts the umbilical cord and seeks to remove the fetus intact. Opponents said this procedure is "close to infanticide" because the fetus's heart is beating when it is removed.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the only physician who performs second term abortions in Nebraska, challenged the state's ban as unconstitutional. During the trial, he presented medical experts who said the intact removals were safer because there was less bleeding and a lesser risk of injury to the uterus. The district judge agreed and voided the state's law. Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg appealed, first to the U.S. court of appeals in St. Louis and then to the high court.

Though bitterly divided, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge. "A state may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the method of abortion," said Justice Breyer for the 5-4 majority. A criminal ban on the alternative procedure "creates a significant health risk" for some women, he said, and is therefore unconstitutional. Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter and Ginsburg formed the majority in Stenberg vs. Carhart.

A second abortion-related decision, also handed down on June 28, gave states the authority to shield patients and medical staff from persistent anti-abortion protesters. On a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld a Colorado law that keeps sidewalk "counselors" eight feet away from people entering or leaving medical facilities. In Hill vs. Colorado, Justice Stevens said this law does not prevent protesters from conveying their anti-abortion message. It does, however, shield vulnerable patients from harassment and intimidation, he said.

The ruling on grandparent visitations could call into question the laws in some states. Over the past 30 years, all the states have passed a version of the grandparents' visitation law proposed by the American Association of Retired Persons. These statutes allow grandparents to sue and obtain court-ordered visitations with their grandchildren over the objection of the parents. Judges are authorized to decide whether the forced visitation is "in the best interests of the child."

But Justice O'Connor said the Constitution "does not permit a state to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made." The 6-3 ruling struck down a Washington state judge's order that required a mother to turn over her daughters for one weekend per month and one week during the summer to the parents of her deceased boyfriend.

The decision in Troxel vs. Granville did not strike down the laws entirely, but it warned states and judges they must give greater weight to the wishes of fit parents. Only Georgia and Washington have adopted a higher standard that requires grandparents to prove their grandchildren will suffer "harm" if the visitations are denied.

The ruling on primary elections also raises doubt about a series of state laws. The justices struck down California's "blanket primary" law on the grounds that it denied the political parties their First Amendment right to pick their own nominees. During an election year, the primary marks "the crucial juncture at which party members find their collective voice and select their spokesman," said Justice Scalia. The state cannot interfere "by forcing political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs."

The blanket primary is the most open system. It allowed a California voter to select from the entire menu of candidates, regardless of their party. For example, a single voter could pick a Republican running for governor, a Democrat running for lieutenant governor and a Libertarian seeking a state Senate seat. The two top vote-getters were put on the fall ballot.

But Scalia said only Republicans should be entitled to pick the Republican nominee, and only true Democrats should choose the Democratic candidate. The 7-2 ruling in California Democratic Party vs. Jones clearly voids identical systems in Alaska and Washington. It is not clear what happens to the 21 states that allow primary day voters, including independents, to pick from a Republican or Democratic slate, even if they had not registered their allegiance before. Scalia's opinion left that issue unresolved. And interestingly, he said the states could avoid the problem entirely by moving to "nonpartisan" primaries.

On the electoral front, states fared much better on limiting campaign contributions. Despite a strong First Amendment attack, the high court upheld Missouri's $1,000 limit on donations to candidates. "Democracy works only if the people have faith in those who govern," said Justice Souter. "The cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize" the public's faith, he said for the 6-3 majority in Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri PAC.

In other notable decisions this term, the Court:

* Said states may not refuse to buy products from companies that do business with the repressive regime in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. The 9-0 decision in Crosby vs. National Foreign Trade Council says the nation must speak with one voice in foreign affairs.

* Ruled Congress exceeded its power when it gave victims of sexual assaults a right to sue their attackers in federal court. Though most state attorneys general had supported the Violence Against Women Act, the 5-4 majority in U.S. vs. Morrison said the law intruded on the states' turf.

* Freed state agencies from being sued by whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. On a 7-2 vote, the Court in Vermont vs. Stevens said Congress did not intend to allow such suits against the states.

* Revived the federal law that forbids state agencies from disclosing names, home addresses and other personal information from motor vehicle records. A U.S. appeals court had said the Driver's Privacy Protection Act intruded into the state's domain, but the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed in Reno vs. Condon.

David G. Savage covers the U.S. Supreme Court for the Los Angeles Times. He is a frequent contributor to State Legislatures magazine.

COMING UP IN THE FALL COURT SESSION

Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

In the fall, the Supreme Court will take up a North Carolina redistricting case to decide whether state legislators can consider the racial makeup of neighborhoods in drawing electoral boundaries.

A ruling on the issue, due early next year, may give legislators guidelines for redrawing districts based on the 2000 census.

If all this sounds familiar, it should. Three times before, the high court has reviewed the same North Carolina 12th congressional district represented by Representative Mel Watt, a Democrat. In 1993, the justices on a 5-4 vote ruled "racial gerrymandering" is unconstitutional in principle, and they cleared the way for white voters to sue over the 160-mile long, squiggly shaped district. After a trial, the Court took up the case and struck down the black-majority district. The legislature convened in a special session and redrew it so that 46 percent of its voters were black.

But when the white voters sued again, a panel of three judges struck it down again in 1997 without a trial. The Supreme Court intervened, revived the district and ordered a trial to be held. The same panel of judges held a trial, but ruled on a 2-1 vote in March that the district was still racially gerrymandered.

The state appealed, and in June the justices announced they will once again consider the case, now knows as Hunt vs. Cromartie, 99-1864.

At issue now is the overlap between Democratic strongholds and African American neighborhoods. During the second trial, lawmakers said they were seeking to draw a Democratic district and tried to include areas that voted Democratic. Lawyers for the white voters said these neighborhoods were mostly black, and therefore the line drawing amounted to racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court will try again to sort it out.

Also coming up in the fall, the justices will consider whether states can be sued for discriminating against disabled people (University of Alabama vs. Garrett, 99-1240), whether Missouri's voters can force candidates to disclose on the ballot their stand on term limits (Cook vs. Gralike, 99-929) and whether state police can set up narcotics roadblocks on the highways (Indianapolis vs. Edmond, 99-1030).