At the water-cooler level, this dispute concerns whether walking a golf course is so fundamental to the game that Martinâ??s request to ride a cart during PGA Tour competitions gives him an unfair advantage over other players. The issue before the Supreme Court is cast in bigger words. The Court has granted review on whether Title II of the ADA can be applied to athletic competitions in places of public accommodation; and, if so, whether sports organizations are required to selectively waive their rules of play in order to accommodate disabled athletes.

As is often the case, the Supreme Court is hearing PGA Tour v. Martin on Jan. 17 to resolve a major conflict between two or more Courts of Appeals. While the Ninth Circuit sided with Martin, the Seventh Circuit favored the USGA in March when it decided that allowing Ford Olinger, who suffers from a degenerative hip, to use a cart in U.S. Open qualifying would â??fundamentally alter the nature of the competition.â?? A case brought against the USGA by Ja Ro Jones, concerning Senior Open qualifying, is before the Fifth Circuit.

Since birth, the 27-year-old Martin has had a rare circulatory disease called Klippel-Trenaunay-Webber syndrome. Because his blood does not circulate properly through a withered right leg, were he to fracture the bone the leg could require amputation. Martinâ??s every step risks permanent damage to his leg. There is no known cure.

As a college athlete Martin, a teammate of Notah Begay III and Tiger Woods at Stanford University, was given the opportunity to ride a cart by NCAA officials. While the PGA Tour allows players to ride carts in the early rounds of its qualifying tournament, the tourâ??s rules required Martin to give up the cart in order to compete in the final stage of the qualifying tournament. The conditions of competition for the PGA and Nike Tours provide that â??[p]layers shall walk at all times during a stipulated round unless permitted to ride by the PGA Tour Rules Committee.â?? This waiver has on occasion been applied so that all players could ride a shuttle from one green to the next tee when the distance was great.

The road from the Nike Tour to the High Court is not all that long, but it sure is exhausting. First, Martin filed suit in federal court in 1997. His legal claim was that the tour was violating the ADA and its anti-discrimination clause, which provides that â??no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities A? of any place of public accommodation.â??

The district court in Eugene, Ore., ruled in Martinâ??s favor, finding that courses are public accommodations - and thus subject to ADA requirements. The trial judge also rejected the tourâ??s claim that the â??fatigue factorâ?? levels the playing field in pro golf, and that allowing Martin to ride gave him an unfair advantage. The court entered a permanent injunction requiring the tour to allow Martin to use a cart in all PGA and Nike Tour events for which he is eligible.

The tour appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court whose jurisdiction meanders down the west coast. There a three-judge panel rejected the tourâ??s claims, issuing a decision in March 2000 in Martinâ??s favor. The panel upheld the two main prongs of the lower courtâ??s decision: that courses are places of â??public accommodationâ?? and that Martinâ??s request to ride a cart constitutes a â??reasonable modificationâ?? of tour policy, and does not â??fundamentally alterâ?? the game.

The tour appealed to the Supreme Court, then crossed its fingers. In September 2000, the Court granted certiorari, a term with roots in Latin meaning â??to be certified.â??

The Supreme Court is not obligated to grant review on the thousands of petitions for review that arrive at its marble steps. Had the Court refused to hear it, the Ninth Circuit decision would be binding on the tour and Martin might have ridden a cart for the rest of his career. The Court agrees to hear only about one percent of about 8,000 cases that come up on appeal each year from the lower courts. To be reviewed by the â??Supremes,â?? a case must garner at least four votes to hear the case from among the nine justices. Because the voting is done in secret, away from the justiceâ??s secretaries, law clerks and nosy reporters, we cannot know how any one justice voted on a petition for certiorari. But we can guess as to why they agreed to hear this case.

The case offers a vital issue â??of first impressionâ?? - a question that has not yet arisen before the High Court. â??[N]o court has ever before held that a sport must waive a legitimate competitive rule to enable a participant, disabled or not, to successfully compete,â?? writes the tour in one of its briefs. This case opens up the possibility that every sports organization in the U.S. could be required to change its rules to accommodate the disabled. Or as the tourâ??s lawyer put it at trial, allowing Martin to ride would be like moving the three-point line for some NBA players. For Martin, the stakes are equally high. He urges that itâ??s not enough for the tour to honor â??the spiritâ?? of the ADA; the disabled should be accommodated in every walk of life, and to except pro sports from that requirement would undermine the fundamental aim of the legislation. According to Martin, you cannot â??levelâ?? the playing field by excluding certain athletes.

The tour argues that walking five to seven miles during a round is an intrinsic part of the game. It has nothing against Martin; it simply feels he should not be accorded an advantage that will eviscerate the game itself. Martin, the Ninth Circuit and his ADA supporters argue that whatever â??fatigue factorâ?? exists to level the playing field, Martin accrues it, with interest, by walking 25 percent of the course, and through the pain he experiences during a tournament.

What will happen at oral arguments on Jan. 17?

Attorneys for each side will have 30 minutes to stand before the justices and present their cases. Because this is a court of appeals, there are no witnesses or juries; the only evidence will be the trial record and the partiesâ?? briefs.

The justices will prepare carefully. Together with their law clerks, they will review the record, appellate briefs and the opinion of the court below. They must look for some part of that opinion in which the Ninth Circuit panel made a â??reversible error.â?? In other words, they cannot overturn the panel simply because they believe the tour should prevail. At least five of the nine justices must agree that the lower court made a mistake in interpreting the law.

Usually within seconds of launching into their prepared remarks, counsel are interrupted by one or more justices with an urgent question, a meandering hypothetical or a request for clarification. The scene is more dodge ball than formal presentation. Attorneys for each side will be asked to reconcile their positions with the Seventh and Ninth Circuit opinions. They will be asked to answer for the â??parade of horriblesâ?? - the â??what ifsâ?? resulting from a decision in their favor.

At the end of 60 minutes, the case will be submitted for decision. The justices will meet in conference to see whether they can reach unanimity. If they do not, the side with at least five votes will write the majority opinion. The chief justice (or, if he is among the dissenters, the most senior justice) decides who will author the opinion. Minority justices are permitted to author dissents.

Martin will be allowed to ride his cart on the Buy.Com Tour until this spring, when the Court will hand down a decision either affirming or reversing the Ninth Circuitâ??s decision. Only then will we learn whether a â??Martinâ?? violation - like a â??Mirandaâ?? violation - will stand for the rights of the disabled in the world of sports, or the right of sports entities to dictate their own rules.