ASHINGTON - In a rare Saturday at work, the Supreme Court justices labored behind closed doors and pondered a Florida ruling that gave Al Gore more votes in his bid to overtake George W. Bush.
All nine justices were at the court a day after hearing arguments in a historic case that could play a role in deciding whether Gore or Bush wins the White House.
The court gave no indication of when it might rule, although it has taken as little as one day for urgent matters such as the Rosenberg atomic spy case in 1953.
As always on Saturdays, the Supreme Court building was closed to the public, but the snack bar staff was called in to serve those who were working.
One major issue was whether the seemingly divided court could find the unanimity it often seeks in such momentous cases.
''In cases like this, the chief justice would like to have a unanimous court, but I don't think the court is unanimous,'' Daniel Polsby, a George Mason University law professor, said yesterday.
The court ruled unanimously in cases such as the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that outlawed racial segregation in public schools; the 1974 case that forced President Nixon to give up the White House tapes; and the 1997 decision that let Paula Jones sue President Clinton for sexual harassment while he was in office.
Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor, said that in the Brown case, Chief Justice Earl Warren lobbied hard and wrote a narrow decision to get a unanimous court, while the unanimity in the Paula Jones decision seemed to come more easily.
''Here it's a little tougher,'' he said, adding that if the court issues a brief, narrowly worded opinion it would be ''another aspect of the closeness of this election.''
Kmiec said the court should announce its decision from the bench in its normal manner instead of releasing a short unsigned opinion, as it occasionally does.
''Part of the legitimacy they're trying to inspire is going to require their presence on the bench,'' Kmiec said. And the court should immediately release the audiotape of the decision announcement.
''If the court is divided and they need to speak with more than one voice, I think we need to hear the human voice,'' he said.
