Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.

A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state.

Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words did not violate Newdow's atheism. Newdow appealed.

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott says he's disappointed the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider his appeal.

He says he believes he had a First Amendment free speech case.

Today's decision leaves a federal appeals court ruling in place. The court said that McDermott should not have leaked a tape-recorded phone call to newspapers. It recorded Republican leaders in 1996 discussing the ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, (BAY'-ner) of Ohio, who was one of the people on the call. The amount is still being determined but it could be more than $700,000.

Boehner's lawyer says he's gratified by the decision.

SugarHouse Casino is planning to break ground on its Philadelphia project in a matter of weeks, aided by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on Monday.

The court ordered the city of Philadelphia to process permits needed to begin construction on the $550 million slots casino on the site of the former Jack Frost sugar refinery. The lack of permits has held up the project. SugarHouse's parent company, HSP Gaming LP, sued the city last month in an effort to move the project along.

The casino, to be located on Delaware Avenue, north of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, is one of two casinos awarded slots gaming licenses in the city by state regulators last December. Foxwoods Casino, which has also not been able to get its project under way, plans to construct a $560 million casino on a 16-acre parcel on South Columbus Boulevard near Reed Street.

"We are gratified by this decision and excited about the opportunities ahead," SugarHouse President Bob Sheldon said. "We remain committed to working with our neighbors to reach agreement on a community benefits agreement and look forward to creating thousands of new jobs and generating millions of dollars in new tax revenues for the city and commonwealth."

The Hamburg District Court said Tuesday that T-Mobile, part of Deutsche Telekom AG, could indeed sell the phone, coupled with a two-year contract, that could not be used on networks provided by rival wireless companies.

The arrangement is similar to those Apple Inc. has with other carriers around the world. In the United States, AT&T Inc. is Apple's exclusive partner.

"We are pleased with the outcome," T-Mobile spokesman Rene Bresken said. Shares of Deutsche Telekom gained 1.2 percent after the decision to 15.28 euros ($22.41) in Frankfurt.

The company will stop selling an unlocked version but said that after customers' contracts expire, it will unlock their iPhone at no charge.

The iPhone made its German debut on Nov. 9 — available only with the two-year contract from T-Mobile. The German unit of rival Vodafone Group PLC protested that at the Hamburg court.

That court agreed, issuing an injunction barring T-Mobile from offering the iPhone tied to the minimum 24-month contract and from selling it only with a so-called SIM lock that prevents users from switching the device to any other operator's network.

T-Mobile had appealed, but in the meantime offered an unlocked version of the phone priced at 999 euros, or nearly $1,500, more than twice the 399 euro ($585) price of a phone sold in combination with the contract.

Companies routinely offer phone discounts to customers who sign up for lengthy contracts.

Apple's strategy thus far had been to offer the iPhone through an exclusive mobile operator for each region: AT&T Inc. in the United States, O2 in Britain, T-Mobile in Germany and France Telecom's Orange wireless arm in France.

It also has issued software updates that have disabled the workarounds hackers developed to get the iPhone to work on other networks. Apple faces two consumer lawsuits in the United States that accuse the company of unlawfully restricting consumer choice by preventing users from unlocking their iPhones.

Named invention of the year by Time magazine for its design, feel and pioneering software, the iPhone has won over users since it debuted June 29 in the United States.

Cupertino, California-based Apple has sold over 1.4 million iPhones so far and hopes to sell 10 million in 2008, helped by its launch in Europe, then in Asia next year. In Germany, 10,000 sold on Nov. 9 alone.

In the United States, AT&T sells the 8-gigabyte iPhone for $399, having slashed the price by a third about 10 weeks after its debut. Consumers in Britain pay about $556, while in France, Orange is selling unlocked handsets to comply with French consumer law for $950. European price tags include value-added tax.

The auto product liability lawsuit, Levesque vs. Ford Motor Company, started today, December 3, 2007, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, before the Honorable Ricardo Torres.

"Ford Motor Company's decision to place corporate profits over the safety of their SUV's occupants, demonstrates a callous disregard for the safety of the people who ride in Ford SUVs," says John Bisnar, partner and founder of the Bisnar Chase personal injury law firm. "It is shameful that an American auto maker would willingly ignore known catastrophic injury concerns just to improve their profits."

On the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the Ford Expedition's driver, swerved to avoid a collision while traveling southbound on Interstate 5 in Fresno County. The driver subsequently lost control of her vehicle which then rolled over several times. The defective roof collapsed causing severe head and spinal injuries to passenger Gloria Levesque.

The suit alleges Ford Motor Company intentionally engaged in conduct that exposed the plaintiff and other users of the Ford Expedition to potentially serious, life threatening danger for its financial interest and demonstrated a conscious disregard for consumers' safety. The plaintiff is seeking a judgment for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

"The defendants clearly put profit before people," says Brian Chase, partner and the firm's chief litigator. "This is another example of an automobile manufacturer profiting from the production of a vehicle known to have serious and life threatening defects. For only $30, Ford could have easily strengthened their SUV's roof structure to withstand these types of rollover roof failures. If Ford had chosen to do so, Gloria Levesque would be teaching at her Montessori school as she had for the past 25 years. Instead she is unemployed, permanently disabled, and catastrophically injured.

The lawsuit, originally filed on November 8, 2005, centers on the allegation that Ford manipulates the general public into believing that large SUVs like their Expedition model, are safer compared to other vehicles while knowing that their SUVs have one of the highest rates of rollover injuries and deaths of any vehicle on the road today.

Chase states, "Ford's SUVs are not built strong enough to protect the front seat occupants from being catastrophically injured during a rollover. They know this and have for years.

Unfortunately, Ford chose to ignore the inherent safety problems of the Expedition including the rollover propensity and insignificant roof strength."

About Bisnar Chase:

Bisnar Chase, LLP, is a California personal injury law firm that represents people who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the loss of a family member. They specialize in automobile defect cases against the world's largest automobile makers. Bisnar Chase is known for its multi-million settlements and judgments for its clients. For more information visit: www.auto-defect-attorneys.com and www.bisnar-chase.com

The lawsuit stems from an account set up with a $2 million deposit by Marcos in 1972 at Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. in New York. Merrill Lynch went to court in 2000 to determine who the money belonged to.

The Philippines government asserted sovereign immunity and said the case could not proceed in U.S. courts.

The willingness of lower U.S. courts to nonetheless get involved "raises significant concerns," the U.S. solicitor general said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco prejudices cases in the Philippines on the same issue, the solicitor general said in court papers.