Lawyers for the newspaper, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, told Judge Robert Drain on Wednesday that it needs $3.5 million in concessions from its pressmen union as part of $20 million in total cuts from 10 unions.

"We're at a critical stage," Chief Financial Officer David Montgomery said. "We need to save every dollar we can possibly save to get us through this period and get us to the other side of the recession."

Montgomery said the nation's 15th-largest newspaper had failed to reach an agreement with the pressmen, forcing it to ask the court for the power to cancel the contract.

Drain did not indicate when he would rule. The second of three days of hearings was scheduled for Thursday afternoon in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.

The Star Tribune has sought protection from creditors while it tries to reorganize its businesses and finances. Amid an industrywide decline in advertising revenue, the newspaper is burdened by heavy debt it took on when Avista Capital Partners LP bought it from McClatchy Co. in March 2007.

The cancellation of the contract would affect 116 union employees. The company has not said whether it would take similar action against unions representing another 600 workers. Besides the pressmen, the newspaper's four largest unions represent newsroom employees, drivers and mailroom workers.

As of December, the newspaper had $667 million in debt, $492 million in assets and $27 million in cash. So far, it has skipped $20 million in interest payments to lenders. From early 2007 to the end of last year, the newspaper has cut $50 million in costs.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Jain of a decision against him from the Washington state Court of Appeals.

Jain and his wife Anuradha had accused J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; its lawyer, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., and Perkins Coie — which jointly represented Jain and Bellevue, Wash.,-based InfoSpace from 1998 to mid-2003 — of being responsible for language in InfoSpace's initial public offering prospectus that contained errors, which ultimately played a part in the $247 million judgment against Jain.

The Jains settled the lawsuit for $105 million.

The Jains accused the securities professionals of negligence. But lower courts have thrown out the Jains' complaints, saying federal law prohibits lawsuits blaming security companies for risky trades.

InfoSpace was founded by Jain in 1996 as an online e-mail directory, went public two years later and grew into an Internet and wireless services juggernaut. Jain claimed InfoSpace would become the world's first company worth a trillion dollars, but it lost more than $30 billion in shareholder value during the dot-com bust and Jain was fired in late 2002.

The case is Naveen Jain and Anuradha Jain v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.; and Perkins Coie, 08-838.

The decision could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election and for southern Democrats, in particular, to draw friendly electoral boundaries after the 2010 Census.

The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, came in the case of a North Carolina plan that sought to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.

While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district. The case dealt with the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to "elect representatives of their choice."

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court would not extend the law to those so-called crossover districts. The 50 percent "rule draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike," Kennedy said in striking down a North Carolina legislative district.

In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.

He also suggested longer school days — and years — to help American children compete in the world.

In his first major speech on education, Obama said the United States must drastically improve student achievement to regain lost international standing.

"The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens," he said. "We have everything we need to be that nation ... and yet, despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world, we have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short and other nations outpace us."

His solutions include teacher pay and charter school proposals that have met resistance among members of teachers unions, which constitute an important segment of the Democratic Party.

Obama acknowledged that conflict, saying, "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."

Despite their history on the issues, union leaders publicly welcomed Obama's words, saying it seems clear he wants to include them in his decisions in a way President George W. Bush did not.

After stating his name and age, the 70-year-old disgraced financier was asked by the judge Tuesday whether he is satisfied with the legal counsel of his lawyer, Ira Sorkin.

"I am," Madoff said.

Sorkin is expected to represent Madoff when the former Wall Street financier pleads guilty on Thursday to swindling investors out of billions of dollars.

Prosecutors have asked the judge to rule on three potential conflicts of interest to clear the way for the plea. One of them involves $900,000 that Sorkin's parents invested with Madoff's firm.

The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.

The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.