Supreme Court preview: As the Supreme Court's new term gets under way, states will want to keep an eye on several cases.

• Author: Kessler, Victor
• Position: FEDERALISM

As the U.S. Supreme Court begins another term, several cases could have a significant effect on state governments. From legislative prayer to affirmative action to age discrimination, here are a few of the questions the high court will face this term.

Does banning affirmative action altogether violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the justices will consider the constitutionality of a 2006 Michigan amendment that prevents the state and its universities from giving "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race" in university admission decisions.

Last term, the affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin was sent back to the circuit court of appeals because the court had failed to require the university to prove that its affirmative action policy is the only way to achieve racial diversity in its student body. As in that case, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, making a ruling in broad support of affirmative action unlikely.

Does allowing prayer before government meetings violate the Constitution if it is offered predominantly by only one religion?

The court's ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway could have an impact on any state legislature or other governmental body that begins sessions with prayer. The official policy in the town of Greece in upstate New York allows anyone from any religion without prior approval to deliver an invocation at town board meetings. But in practice, over 10 years, all but four invocations (two Jewish, one Baha'i and one Wiccan) have been led by Christians.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the town's practice violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." (The 14th Amendment extends it to state governments.)

The court hasn't addressed this issue since 1983 when it ruled

in Marsh v. Chambers that a state legislature could hire a chaplain to deliver a prayer at the beginning of its sessions as long it was not "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

Do "buffer zones" that keep protesters a certain distance from the target of their demonstration violate their First Amendment rights?

In McCullen v. Coakley, the court will examine the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that creates a 35-foot "buffer zone" around reproductive health care...