Location: The Heritage Foundation's Lehrman Auditorium

The Supreme Court's 2005 Term is over - but the serious analysis has just begun. The serious debate concerning the Court's term takes place at The Heritage Foundation. How did the new Chief Justice and Associate Justice perform? What did the Court really say in Hamdan, and how can the Administration and Congress respond? Are there more campaign finance laws like Vermont's on the chopping block?

In other cases, criminal defendants received decidedly mixed results this term. What accounts for that? Did the Administration suffer serious defeats, including the Guantanamo detainees case (Hamdan), its regulation of drugs to facilitate suicide (Gonzales v. Oregon), its overreaching in wetlands regulations (Rapanos), its sweeping reading of the campaign finance laws (Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC) or are these understandable bumps in the road? What about its victories in the military recruiting case (Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic Rights), and the many cases in which its amicus position prevailed (Scheidler v. Now, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon). What do this year's cases signal for the pending partial birth abortion, racial preference, and campaign finance cases?

Most important of all, how will the new justices vote on these and other important constitutional questions that involve presidential powers, the war on terrorism, the First Amendment, and "privacy" rights - or does that matter? Is Justice Kennedy becoming "a Court of one" or is the Court changing around him? This year's Scholars & Scribes will have all the answers.