The two were found guilty of a "grave crime" against North Korea and of illegally crossing into the reclusive nation's territory, according to North Korea's state-run news agency.

Former U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson on Monday called the sentencing part of "a high-stakes poker game" and said the time might be right for the United States to work out the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee with the country's leaders in Pyongyang.

"It is harsher than expected," Richardson said on NBC's "Today" show.

At the White House, deputy spokesman William Burton said in a statement: "The president is deeply concerned by the reported sentencing of the two American citizen journalists by North Korean authorities, and we are engaged through all possible channels to secure their release."

Richardson, who was instrumental in negotiating the release of U.S. citizens from North Korea in an incident in the 1990s, said "the good thing is that there is no charge of espionage." He also said now that the legal process has been completed, he thinks negotiations for their "humanitarian release" can begin.

Richardson said officials of the Obama administration had been in contact with him for his thoughts on how to proceed.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is to hear arguments Friday afternoon from attorneys representing Chrysler LLC, Fiat Group SpA and a trio of Indiana state pension and construction funds, the latter of which say the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.

Late Tuesday, the appeals court halted the sale pending the Indiana state funds' appeal. Chrysler had hoped to close the sale by the end of this week.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based Chrysler has maintained that the sale is its only hope of avoiding selling itself off piece by piece. If the sale doesn't close by June 15, Fiat has the option of pulling out of the deal. In addition, production at Chrysler's manufacturing plants remains halted pending the closing of the sale.

The funds, which include the Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund, and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund, also are challenging the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.

The nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor had refused to take the money designated for the state over the next two years, facing down protesters and legislators who passed a budget requiring him to. While other Republican governors had taken issue with requesting money from the $787 billion federal stimulus package, Sanford was the first to defend in court his desire to reject the money.

But he said Thursday he will not appeal the Supreme Court ruling and plans to sign paperwork to request the money Monday.

Educators quickly hailed the court decision. They had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.

"Finally. It took way too long. It was so unnecessary and took so long to do what 49 other states figured out how to do a long time ago, but finally is better than not at all. It will allow districts to immediately begin to reconstitute programs and fill positions they didn't think they could fill," state Education Superintendent Jim Rex said.

While Sanford raised the issue, it was Casey Edwards, a Chapin High School student graduating Friday, who brought it to the state's highest court. She beamed as she told reporters she "was very excited that our schools and our teachers and our education system will be getting the funds that are so desperately needed here in South Carolina."

The rule was issued in the waning days of the Bush administration, angering immigrants rights groups that immediately sought to persuade the incoming Democratic administration to discard it.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder did just that, saying he is vacating the order issued by predecessor Michael Mukasey which said that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.

Holder said he is also instructing the Justice Department to begin working on a new rule.

Charles Kuck, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the move "the beginning of the restoration of due process in the immigration system."

Kuck said that Holder's decision "recognizes we can't treat immigrants any differently than ourselves if we expect to receive the same benefits the Constitution provides."

Mukasey had issued a 33-page decision in January saying the Constitution does not entitle someone facing deportation to have a case reopened based upon shoddy work by a lawyer. Mukasey also said, however, that Justice Department officials have the discretion to reopen such cases if they choose.

Immigrant rights groups had criticized the Mukasey decision, saying such immigrants subject to deportation are particularly susceptible to sham lawyers claiming to do legal work on their behalf.

Holder said in a statement that Mukasey's decision had not allowed for enough public comment on the issue.

In addition, he ordered officials in Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Missouri to halt their investigations of the telecommunication companies for their alleged participation in the once-secret surveillance programs.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker also deferred a decision on whether to sanction the government for refusing to turn over a top secret document in one of the few wiretapping cases still pending.

The judge's dismissals of most of the lawsuits were widely expected after Congress in July agreed on new surveillance rules that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.

Walker upheld the constitutionality of the new surveillance rules in a written ruling Wednesday. Lawyers representing the telecom customers said they would appeal the judge's ruling.

The judge said congressional actions didn't prohibit telephone and e-mail customers who believe they were targets of warrantless wiretaps from suing federal government officials, whom he called "the primary actors in the alleged wiretapping activities."

He noted that several lawsuits that directly accuse the government, rather than the companies, of wrongdoing are still pending.

It wasn't the brightest decision she'd ever made. She admits that. But if she'd had enough money to hire a lawyer she might not have lost six months of her life.

Kimberly Hurrell-Harring, a certified nursing assistant and mother of two, had driven 7 1/2 hours to visit her husband and then secreted a small amount of marijuana in her private parts. He'd pleaded with her on the phone to bring it, saying he needed to get high in this awful place.

He was calling from a maximum-security prison, and someone must have been listening because when she walked into the Great Meadows Correctional Facility in upstate New York, guards immediately yanked her to the side.

They told her things would go easier if she handed over the dope without a fuss. She did, and things immediately got worse.

With a swiftness that made her head spin, she was handcuffed and hauled to jail. At her arraignment, there was no public defender available. Standing alone, she was charged with one felony count of bringing dangerous contraband into a prison.

And so she tumbled headlong into the Alice-in-Wonderland chaos of court-appointed lawyers, where even those lawyers say there is little time for clients. There are simply too many and not enough hours in the day.

"If you can't afford an attorney, and you fall into the criminal justice system, you are really, really screwed," said Demetrius Thomas of the New York American Civil Liberties Union.

Especially now. The spiraling recession and overwhelmed public defenders, some of whom have rebelled by filing lawsuits to reduce caseloads, pose one of the greatest challenges to the system since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 overturned the petty larceny and breaking-and-entering convictions of Clarence Gideon, a poor Florida man tried without a lawyer. In a landmark, unanimous ruling, justices said state courts must provide attorneys to every criminal defendant unable to afford counsel.

After her arraignment, Hurrell-Harring went back to jail because she couldn't afford bail, either. Three weeks passed before a public defender appeared, and she says she spent a total of 15 to 20 minutes with him before her sentencing hearing.

He told her not to fight the district attorney's recommended punishment — six months behind bars and five years of probation. It was the best she could hope for, he said. But she had no criminal record. Surely, she begged, couldn't possession of less than an ounce of pot, a misdemeanor under other circumstances, be bargained down to probation?

"It was like he had no time for me," she says now, still unemployed 17 months after her release because she lost her nursing license when she became a convicted felon. "He told me to plead guilty."

The accused, their lawyers, and even prosecutors agree that courts increasingly neglect their constitutional duties. In a series of Capitol Hill hearings, the latest scheduled for this week, Congress members are struggling to grasp the enormity of the crisis. But the options are far from clear, particularly when virtually every state and local government is crying poor.