U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of South Carolina found Wilson's behavior so outrageous that he held her in contempt of court, ordering her to return $2,500 of her juror's pay and perform 120 hours of community service. Anderson said he would have put Wilson in jail for six months if she did not have four children at home.

But when the defendant in the case, Brandon Basham, asked for his death sentence to be thrown out as a result of Wilson's conduct, Anderson refused and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., backed him up.

And when Basham took his plea to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan agreed that the judge had made the correct call. The high court, to which Kagan has since been nominated, could say as early as Tuesday whether it will hear Basham's case.

It is no surprise that the government is seeking to preserve what it already has won, especially after the time and expense of a capital punishment trial.

The company that owns the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig argued in federal court Tuesday that plaintiffs should not begin collecting evidence and testimony on the Gulf oil spill until the November deadline for claimants to file suit.

Transocean Ltd. made its arguments in Houston after the federal court there accepted the company's petition to limit its liability in the oil spill to less than $27 million, the amount the company says the sunken rig is worth.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison made no rulings Tuesday. He scheduled two more court dates for early June, noting he wants to focus on whether the suit should remain in Texas or move elsewhere and whether depositions should begin immediately.

Ellison indicated he didn't want to wait.

"Is that a luxury we have in this case? Isn't that an awful long delay?" he asked the Transocean attorneys who argued to wait until all the lawsuits have been filed.

Transocean owned the rig that blew up April 20, killing 11 workers and causing one of the worst U.S. oil spills in decades.

The liability limit set by Ellison's court is based on a 19th century federal maritime law. Lawsuits have been filed in numerous states, and Transocean has said it filed its petition under the 1851 Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act to get all the lawsuits aggregated in one court.

Australia said Friday it will challenge Japan's whale hunting in the Antarctic at the International Court of Justice, a major legal escalation in its campaign to ban the practice despite Tokyo's insistence on the right to so-called scientific whaling.

Japan's Foreign Ministry called the action regrettable at a time when 88 member-nations of the International Whaling Commission were discussing a proposal that could allow some limited whaling for the first time in 25 years.

"We will continue to explain that the scientific whaling that we are conducting is lawful in accordance with Article 8 of the international convention for the regulation of whaling," said Japan's Foreign Ministry Deputy Press Secretary Hidenobu Sobashima. "If it goes to the court, we are prepared to explain that."

Japan, Norway and Iceland, which harpoon around 2,000 whales annually, argue that many species are abundant enough to continue hunting them. They are backed by around half of the whaling commission's members.

Australia has declared the southern seas a whale sanctuary and has long lobbied for an end to whaling there. The government says Japan's hunt is in breach of international obligations, but has declined to release any details of how it will argue its case before the court in The Hague.

The whaling commission has proposed a plan that would allow hunting without specifying whether it is for commercial or other purposes — but under strict quotas that are lower than the current number of hunted whales.

Commission Chairman Cristian Maquieira expressed optimism Thursday in Washington that the issue could be resolved at a meeting next month in Morocco. But senior U.S. official Monica Medina said the current proposal would allow the hunting of too many whales, signaling difficult negotiations ahead.

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan got a boost from potential GOP supporters Thursday, when two Republican senators who will vote on her confirmation both said her lack of experience as a judge is no obstacle to elevating her.

Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and George S. LeMieux of Florida made their comments a day after one of the court's conservative icons, Justice Antonin Scalia, undercut Republican criticism of Kagan's lack of a judicial background.

Scalia's remark, made during a lecture Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Washington, "helps her. Definitely, it helps her," said Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold confirmation hearings on Kagan set to begin June 28. "I think that argument is not going to go very far."

LeMieux, who had a lengthy meeting with Kagan in the Capitol Thursday, also said judicial inexperience was not a concern.

"I don't find that in any way a prohibition to her service," LeMieux said. The first-term Floridian called Kagan intelligent, articulate and "refreshingly forthcoming" on a variety of questions he posed, on subjects including free speech, guns, gay and lesbian rights and abortion.

A 10-page order signed on Wednesday by Los Angeles County Superior Judge Carl West also recommends that the state-based litigation, consisting of consumer-fraud class actions and personal injury claims, be assigned to a single judge in neighboring Orange County.

The order lists 40 separate cases filed so far in California courts against the Japanese automaker seeking damages for sudden, unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles, said Aldwin Lim, a court clerk.

A final decision on assigning the cases rests with the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Ronald George, and he is expected to render his decision in two to three weeks.

Complaints of runaway vehicles and other safety issues have led to the recall of more than 8.5 million Toyota vehicles worldwide, most for repairs of ill-fitting floor mats and sticking gas pedals the automaker blames for surging engines.

At a hearing before West on Tuesday, a lawyer for Toyota Motor Corp urged the judge to order all the California court cases to be sent to Orange County, the same jurisdiction where over 100 separate Toyota cases brought in U.S. district courts around the country have been assigned to a single federal judge.

The Massachusetts attorney general asked a judge Wednesday to strike down a federal gay marriage ban, arguing it interferes with the right of states to define marriage and have those marriages acknowledged by the federal government.

The challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act by Attorney General Martha Coakley's office was heard in federal court in Boston.

Assistant Attorney General Maura Healey argued states have historically had the right to define marriage.

She said the 1996 law could result in the denial of Medicaid and other benefits to married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

A lawyer from the U.S. Justice Department, Christopher Hall, argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

Hall also pointed to instances where the federal government has regulated the definition of marriage in certain immigration cases.