The decision from the Court of Appeals in Washington upholds a Federal Communications Commission ruling that banned the exclusive agreements as anticompetitive.

The deals involved a provider exchanging a valuable service like wiring a multiunit building for cable in exchange for the exclusive right to provide service to all the residents.

The commission said cable operators could no longer enter into such deals and existing ones could not be enforced.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and a pair of affiliated real estate groups sued, saying the FCC did not justify the change in policy, consider the retroactive effects or have the authority to regulate the deals. But the appeals court sided with the FCC and said it acted well within the bounds of the law.

A spokesman for the cable association had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Seconds after Obama named U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his choice to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans would treat the nominee fairly, but would closely examine her record.

"We will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences," McConnell said.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the number two ranking Senate Republican quickly followed saying the nominee should be "neither pre-confirmed nor prejudged."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said he looked forward to ensuring that Sotomayor "has the qualifications and temperament necessary" to be the next Supreme Court justice.

Shelby doesn't sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee which will hold the confirmation hearings, but the entire Senate must vote Sotomayor's confirmation.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate Republican congratulated Obama for "nominating a well qualified woman."

In his announcement, Obama said he hoped Sotomayor would be on the bench by the time the Court's fall term begins.

Senate Republicans are going to have a difficult time attempting to block Sotomayor's nomination to the High Court.

The Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate, and this could increase to a 60-seat supermajority by the time a confirmation vote occurs if Al Franken ultimately defeats Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., in that state's still-contested Senate race.

Sen. Arlen Specter changed parties this spring, leaving the Republicans for the Democratic majority, giving them their 59th seat. He had been the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and would have led the GOP scrutiny of Sotomayor.

Tuesday, he said he "applauded" Obama's choice.

"Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court," Specter said.

The fact that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court would make any challenge to her being confirmed politically difficult for Republicans.

Given the increasingly large proportion of the voting electorate that Hispanic Americans account for, it would be difficult for the GOP to oppose her selection.

In November's presidential election, Obama made double-digit gains among Hispanic voters compared to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in the 2004 election.

That didn't stop conservative groups from quickly noting their opposition to Sotomayor's nomination.

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a coalition of conservative groups.

Hispanic groups on the other hand greeted Sotomayor's nomination warmly.

"Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding nominee with three decades of judicial experience who will be a brilliant Supreme Court justice who serves the nation well," the League of United Latin American Citizens said in a statement.

The high court agreed Tuesday to review Merck's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-action securities lawsuit.

Investors had charged Merck with providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. District judge dismissed the November 2003 lawsuit, ruling that all the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of limitation.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the Supreme Court.

Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death. That day alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion.

The justices without comment Tuesday left in place a ruling by the Tennessee Court upholding the damages against Chrysler LLC.

The lawsuit claimed 8-month-old Joshua Flax was riding in the back seat of a 1998 Dodge Caravan in Nashville, Tenn., in 2001 when the vehicle was rear-ended, causing the front passenger seat to collapse and the passenger to strike him, fracturing his skull.

A jury initially awarded Flax's parents $98 million in punitive damages in 2004, but the damages were later reduced. The family was also awarded $5 million in compensatory damages, which were upheld by an appeals court.

The third-largest U.S. automaker filed for bankruptcy protection in April.

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter (GAYR'-hahrtz-ry-tur) is accused of kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter during a supervised visit in Boston last July. He and the girl were found six days later in Baltimore.

Gerhartsreiter also is charged with providing a false name to police. His lawyers had argued it would be unfair for jurors to hear him called Gerhartsreiter, because he has not been convicted of providing the false name.

Superior Court Judge Frank Gaziano said Tuesday he would call him Gerhartsreiter to introduce the case, then refer to him as "the defendant" during the trial.

Jury selection is to begin Tuesday.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable."

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

The court Tuesday unanimously overturned a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

The law makes it a felony to use a communication device in "committing or in causing or in facilitating" a drug purchase.

Prosecutors say that Salman Khade Abuelhawa's use of a cell phone for a misdemeanor purchase of around $120 of cocaine fell under the statute. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.

But the high court said Congress did not intend for phone buyers to get more jail time than people who walk up to dealers and buy drugs.