Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s battle with thyroid cancer has opened a national discussion about impending retirements by U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Should the court reshuffle in the next four years, President Bush will have the chance to appoint one or more justices, which could lead to the court’s stance shifting to the right on many controversial issues. Yet legal analysts say it is unclear whether the new court would have a substantial impact on the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

In the summer of 2003, the court ruled on two cases involving the University’s admissions policies and the use of affirmative action. In Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter sued the Law School saying that her rights were violated under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gratz v. Bollinger targeted the College of Literature, Science and the Arts admissions policies. While the court ruled against the LSA’s awarding of specific points for race, it upheld the Law School’s policy.

Legal experts say there are far too many factors involved to predict what might happen to the University’s policies or other race-conscious programs in the future. To have any change in the affirmative action ruling, a relevant case must first be introduced into the legal system which would seek a reversal of the original decision, or at least be posed in such a way that a reversal would be plausible.

Law Prof. Richard Friedman said he didn’t know of any cases in the court system at the time, but if one does reach the court in the near future, several things could happen.

“If the justice who left was one who voted against the Law School (admissions policies), then one wouldn’t expect any change. For example, Rehnquist is conservative — if another conservative took his place it doesn’t change anything,” said Friedman. “However, if someone who voted in favor of the Law School retires, then there is a different situation.”

“If (the newly appointed justice) is someone who is hostile to affirmative action, then it could be that the court would reverse Grutter, or it could be that a new conservative justice would simply vote in favor of the precedent,” Friedman said.

Law Prof. Richard Friedman said, “It’s only the second time in history that we have seen such a long time without a change on the court. It has been the same nine justices for a long, long time. Sooner or later someone will have to leave.”

All of the justices except Clarence Thomas are older than 65. The three oldest of these judges are Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor.

“People tend to think that the justices plan (their retirements) politically,” Friedman said. During Bush’s first administration, Rehnquist, Stevens and O’Connor were all rumored to be thinking about retirement, yet all three defied speculation and remained in office. Four years later, there are again strong factors encouraging them to retire.

Rehnquist’s failing health and recent treatment for thyroid cancer have kept him from the court for over six weeks. Despite Rehnquist’s hopes of a fast recovery and a speedy return to court, he continues to review cases from home.

“In addition to Rehnquist who is really sick, the justice who will have to be replaced sooner or later is John Paul Stevens. He is the most liberal member of the court, but he is 84-years old. How long can he go?” asked Larry Greene, a political science professor.

Friedman echoed Greene’s observation, saying, “It is not unprecedented to have an 88-year-old justice. Justice Stevens is 84, but will he go another four years? It’s hard to say.”

“We’ve had justices that have survived to their 90s and have remained competent. Others have not: William O. Douglas pretty much lost it in the 1980s when he was in his 90s,” Greene said.

While Bush would appoint a new chief justice if Rehnquist retires, a more important presidential nomination would be of a new associate justice.

“The chief justice doesn’t have much power. He or she is really one among nine equals. The real power is in the hands of the swing voter,” communications studies Prof. Anthony Collings said. “That swing voter is the most powerful justice on the Supreme Court.”

Collings served as a CNN Supreme Court correspondent for nine years and worked with the University during its affirmative action admissions lawsuits in 2003. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Law School case, the swing vote was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Collings said.