Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who turned 70 Saturday, says he feels "very ancient indeed."
With the retirement of Harry Blackmun this summer, Rehnquist is now the senior justice on a court that has gotten downright youthful, relatively speaking.
Just nine years ago, the average age of the nine justices was 72. With the addition of Stephen Breyer, 54, average age today is 60, the youngest court in decades.
The court's new vigor - four new justices in four years - matches its lively docket as it convenes for its fall term today.
Hot issues ranging from term limits to the death penalty, affirmative action to gun control are on the agenda. And on the horizon: a new wave of battles over gay rights and redistricting to benefit minorities.
All this before a court that some have been ready to pronounce dead - or at least irrelevant.
"There is a trend of the reduction of the importance of the Supreme Court," Georgetown University law professor L. Michael Seidman told reporters last week. "It makes your job less interesting and my job less important."
Most agree that this is a court that prefers tiny steps in the law and avoids the sweeping decision-making of the Warren Court, which ended 25 years ago this fall.
And the court's agenda is shrinking. It issued 84 opinions last term, the fewest in 30 years, and early signs suggest the new term will produce a similarly low number.
But the inexorable pace of litigation over big issues nationwide won't let the high court retreat completely from the national debate.
"There is no way the Supreme Court can avoid the major political issues of the day," says Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Sooner or later they all wind up at the court."
A term limits case from Arkansas could promote - or kill off - the national political movement aimed at keeping entrenched officeholders from resting on their incumbency.
"Will the court side with the American people or the politicians in the people's battle to be represented by new leaders with new ideas?" says Paul Jacob of U.S. Term Limits.
There is a civil rights case on the court's docket that fairly leaps off the pages of Michael Crichton's bestseller Disclosure, even though the legal issue - "after-acquired evidence" - sounds dry as dust. Translation: when a worker files a sexual harassment or age discrimination complaint, is it fair for the employer to dig up unrelated "dirt" on the worker and fire the complainer?
Even gun control goes before the court in a test of the federal law barring possession of guns within 1,000 feet of a school.
Just last week, the court added an affirmative action case to its agenda - its first look at that volatile issue in four years. A white-owned construction firm claims its rights were violated when a minority-owned firm - which made a higher bid - won a Colorado road project.
The last time the high court considered the issue was in 1990, when a 5-4 majority upheld a federal program aimed at promoting minority ownership of broadcast licenses.
But four of the five justices who formed that majority are gone from the court - William Brennan Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron White and Harry Blackmun.
Predicting how their replacements will vote is risky.
"The relative newness of the court makes it difficult to make sweeping predictions," says Georgetown law professor Vicki Jackson.
President Clinton's two appointees - Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer - are likely supporters of affirmative action, but are cautious moderates. Clarence Thomas, who replaced Marshall as the court's only African-American, is dead set against race-conscious government actions - a view he made clear in an impassioned opinion on voting rights last spring.
The fourth new justice David Souter, who replaced liberal William Brennan Jr., may hold the key - as he appears to on an increasing number of issues. The Bush appointee is emerging as a major force on the court for a common sense, moderate view of the law.
"The civil rights community is holding its breath in the hope that the centrist majority on the court will stand firm on civil rights," says Arthur Kropp of People for the American Way.
There is increasing uncertainty over the outcome of the court's biggest case of the term, as well.
The term limits case from Arkansas is a major constitutional test of whether states may impose restrictions on who can become a member of Congress. In the past, the court has been reluctant to allow states to add any more qualifications to those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - age, citizenship and residency.
But the issue as it comes to the court is not that simple. The Arkansas law restricts the number of times a candidate can appear on the ballot - but theoretically allows veterans to run as write-in candidates. Some justices may latch onto that and say states are entitled to decide who appears on their ballots.
"The case is not as easy as I thought it was," says Georgetown law professor Susan Bloch.
Key cases the court will hear Cases before the Supreme Court as it begins the 1994-95 term include:
TERM LIMITS: In a case from Arkansas, the court will decide whether state-imposed term limits on members of Congress - enacted in 16 states - violate the Constitution. The Clinton administration will join term limit opponents in arguing that the Constitution's framers rejected limits. Supporters say states have the right to determine who appears on the ballot. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: For the first time in four years, the court will consider whether governments can give minority-owned firms preference in awarding contracts. Issue arises in Colorado, where minority-owned firm won a road contract over a white-owned company that was low bidder. SCHOOL DESEGREGATION: In a Kansas City, Mo., case, the court will look again at how much improvement in student achievement a school district must show in order to end court-ordered school desegregation plans. WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION: When an employee files an age bias or sex harassment complaint, employers often respond by digging up damaging information from the employee's past as a way of combating the complaint. Court will decide whether using that evidence against workers is legal. DEATH PENALTY: The court takes up the death row appeal of Missouri inmate Lloyd Schlup to decide when last-minute evidence of innocence can be presented if all other appeals have been tried. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon notes 30 judges had reviewed Schlup's case before "repackaged" evidence of innocence was presented. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: The court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession and distribution of child pornography. At issue in a California case is whether the government must prove that the defendant knew the material depicted a minor. GUN CONTROL: At issue is a 1990 federal law making it a crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Local governments are challenging the law as an intrusion on state police power - paralleling recent challenges to the Brady law. FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMS: The court will decide which is the proper forum for considering a challenge by millions of American Airlines customers against restrictions in the company's frequent flier programs. The customers filed a fraud claim in Illinois courts, but the airline argues that federal law governs. BEER LABELING: Adolph Coors Co. is challenging a post-Prohibition era law that prevents brewers from listing the alcohol content in beer - except in states that require it. The law, aimed at preventing "strength wars" between brewers, violates free speech rights, Coors says. SEED PATENTS: An Iowa farmland dispute could determine the power of patent-like protection of new seed varieties. Asgrow Seed Co. is challenging so-called "brown-bag" sales by farmers who use Asgrow seeds and then sell part of their crops to other farmers for use as seeds.
