WASHINGTON – The nation’s highest court is expected be ringed tomorrow by hundreds of people praying for divine intervention in a case that will decide whether the public display of the Ten Commandments by the government violates the Constitution.

The Florida-based Intercessory Prayer Network plans to bring in more than 300 people who will attempt to make their prayers passionate enough to “penetrate the building’s bricks and mortar” and sway the justices as they contemplate what could be a landmark First Amendment case.

“We are praying that God will be recognized for who he is, and that the judges will not rule against something that is so clearly part of our American history,” said the groups’ coordinator, Maureen Bravo. The outcome of two cases involving the public display of the Ten Commandments could set the landscape for other disputed issues, such as the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto “In God We Trust.”

In one case, a homeless Vietnam veteran, Thomas Van Orden, is objecting to a six-foot granite monument of the Commandments that stands on the grounds of the State Capitol in Austin. In the other, the American Civil Liberties Union has challenged a display of the Commandments hanging in a county courthouse in Kentucky.

The cases have drawn the participation of various state attorneys general, religious and community groups, and groups of atheists and civil libertarians.

The court is being asked to adopt competing views of the place of the Ten Commandments in American public life.

To some advocates, the Commandments symbolize the Founding Fathers’ faith in God. To others, they are a part of history, embodying principles that helped shape the nation’s legal foundations.

To still others, they have been drained of religious meaning and are part of ceremonial and traditional references to the god that permeates the culture.

In contemplating the case, the justices face a bewildering variety of heavily footnoted historical arguments.

For example, a group of legal historians has filed a written brief to the court arguing that the tablets played only a “minimal” role in the development of American law.

They attempt to persuade the court that the Ten Commandments had less influence on American law than such writings as those of Sir Edward Coke, the English Bill of Rights, William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government” and “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” Baron Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws,” and the Mayflower Compact.

Meanwhile, attorneys general of 15 states argue that there are thousands of such monuments around the country, including more than a dozen depictions at the U.S. Supreme Court building itself.

Such displays are not attempts to proselytize, the say, but rather serve the secular purpose of symbolizing “the Law” that have been part of American tradition since the 1870s.

The ACLU, in contrast, argues that the courthouse displays serve the “primary purpose of endorsing religion.” And in the Texas case, Mr. Van Orden argues that the Decalogue is “a crucial symbol to many religions and express an unequivocal religious message: There is a God and God has proclaimed rules for behavior.”

The Kentucky case, known as Mc-Creary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, is being litigated by an evangelical legal group, Liberty Counsel.

“Either America will be able to acknowledge God, or it won’t. Our heritage and our future are riding on this case,” said the group’s president and general counsel, Mathew Staver.

He has also sought extra help in bringing the case. Mr. Staver has asked supporters to pray for inspiration and wisdom in editing his reply brief to the court.