"Is it the government's position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?" Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer in a tone of incredulity and frustration.

Gregory G. Garre, a deputy solicitor general representing the administration, responded that the courts have a role, though a limited one, in assessing the government's assertion of the so-called state secrets privilege, which can require the dismissal of suits that could engender national security. Judges, he said, must give executive branch determinations "utmost deference."

"Litigating this action could result in exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the United States," Garre said, referring to the assessment of intelligence officials.

The three judges, on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, were hearing arguments in two combined lawsuits challenging the highly classified surveillance programs, which the administration said were essential in combatting international terrorism. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the federal trial court here, Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

The appeals concern two related questions that must be answered before the merits of the challenge can be considered: whether the plaintiffs can clearly establish that they have been injured by the programs, giving them standing to sue; and whether the so-called state-secrets privilege requires dismissal of the suits on national security grounds.

Though the questions are preliminary, the impact of the appeals court's ruling may be quite broad. Should it rule for the government on either ground, the legality of the NSA programs may never be adjudicated.

All three judges — appointed by Democratic presidents — indicated that they were inclined to allow one or both cases to go forward for at least limited additional proceedings before Walker.

The two cases deal with different secret programs, but are broadly similar. One, a class action against AT&T, focuses mainly on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers' phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. The lawyers in the AT&T case call that program, which the government has not acknowledged, a "content dragnet."

The second case, brought by an Islamic charity and two of its lawyers against the government, concerns a targeted program which the Bush administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The program, which has since been submitted to a secret court's supervision, bypassed court warrants to monitor international communications involving people in the United States.

Among other things, the suit stated, Radian of Philadelphia failed to disclose that its $518 million investment in Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, known as C-BASS, was materially impaired and quickly declining in value, and that it overstated financial results by failing to write-down that investment in a timely fashion.

Radian (NYSE:RDN) has said that the entirety of its investment in C-BASS may be lost. Since Radian issued a statement July 30 about the investment, its stock price has tumbled far below its pre-announcement price of about $40. It was trading down 3 percent Thursday at $16.14.

MGIC (NYSE:MTG) of Milwaukee has said it is not obligated to go through with the merger but Radian has disputed that. The stock deal was originally valued at nearly $4.9 billion, but shares of both companies have lost more than half their value since it was announced Feb. 6. The deal called for an exchange of shares with Radian's stock valued at $60.78 per share

Pryce, 56, was her party's fourth-ranking leader before the GOP lost control in the 2006 election. She narrowly survived a challenge last fall from Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy.

Kilroy, a Franklin County commissioner, is running again in 2008, an election in which Democratic hopes run high because of voter disenchantment with President Bush and the Iraq war.

Democrats says they also will compete strongly for the seats being vacated by former Speaker Dennis Hastert and seven-term Rep. Ray LaHood, both of Illinois.

Top Republican officials in Ohio and Washington said she plans to step down when her term ends next year.

One of the officials said the decision was largely a family matter for Pryce, the single parent of an adopted child.

With Pryce's and Hastert's departures, only one of the top four House Republican leaders from the GOP-controlled 109th Congress appears likely to seek election next year: Roy Blunt of Missouri, the GOP whip. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stepped down last year.

Even before Pryce's plans became known, Democrats saw her Columbus-based district as among the most competitive held by a Republican. An open seat will be even more difficult for Republicans to defend, but party activists say they will do so, arguing that Democrats already failed once -- in 2006 -- when many factors were in their favor.

Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said: "Mary Jo Kilroy came within 1,055 votes of winning last cycle, and we expect this race to provide us with a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our majority."

Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a Court has preliminarily approved a class action settlement in TDH Partners v. The Ryland Group, Inc., et. al. involving all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Ryland Group, Inc. (NYSE: RYL) ("RYLAND"), between October 3, 2003 and January 7, 2004, inclusive, ("the Settlement Class"). This case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Pursuant to a Court Order, a hearing will be held in this case (the "Action") on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. before United States District Judge Jane Boyle, at the United States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242, to determine: (1) whether the settlement of claims asserted in this Action in return for payment of One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00) in cash plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund"), from which all administrative expenses, taxes owed and Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses will be paid, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Settlement Class; (2) whether the proposed plan of allocation for the Settlement Fund after payment of all administrative expenses, taxes owed and Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Settlement Class; (3) whether and in what amount to approve an incentive award to the Lead Plaintiff and whether to approve the application of the Class' Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not in excess of 33% and expenses not in excess of $150,000.00 should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated as of March 15, 2007 and filed with the Court.

Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of RYLAND during the period from October 3, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), may be affected by the settlement of this Action, including the release and extinguishment of claims they may possess relating to the purchase or other acquisition of the common stock of RYLAND during the Settlement Class Period. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, eligible shareholders must establish their rights by mailing a Proof of Claim Form on or before November 15, 2007.

Shareholders who desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class must file a request for exclusion by November 15, 2007, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Last week, top administrators ordered them to stop wearing union symbols in public to avoid an appearance of bias.

"While we understand the right to participate in negotiations and union activities, we also require conduct that does not compromise the appearance of neutrality and impartiality to the public and other court users," Court Administrator Denise Gordon said.

On Tuesday, union representatives sent a complaint to the state Public Employment Relations Board, which will evaluate it, said SEIU field representative Kris Organ.