The justices agreed to hear Henry Skinner's appeal. On March 24, they granted him a stay about an hour before his scheduled execution to give them more time to decide whether to take up his case.

In an order issued Monday, the Supreme Court said it decided to rule on the issue presented by his case. Arguments are expected to be heard in the upcoming term that begins in October.

Skinner's lawyers maintain that his rights under the civil rights law were violated by authorities' refusal to grant DNA testing after his conviction.

In the United States, post-conviction DNA testing has exonerated more than 250 people, including 17 prisoners who served time on death row, according to a group called the Innocence Project.

Skinner was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his girlfriend and her two adult sons on New Year's Eve in 1993 in the small town of Pampa, Texas. He has always maintained his innocence.

Skinner's attorneys are seeking DNA testing of key evidence from the crime scene, including a bloody towel, two knives and a man's windbreaker, and swabs from a rape kit.

Judges at the court said in a report that Sudan has refused to hand over Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmed Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb.

"After taking all possible measures to ensure the cooperation of the Republic of the Sudan, the Chamber concludes that the Republic of the Sudan is failing to comply with its cooperation obligations," the report said.

The court ordered the men arrested in 2007 on a total of 51 charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Microsoft Corp's appeal in a case that could have reshaped the standards used in court fights to determine if patents have been infringed.

Lower courts had found that the date-picker tool in Microsoft's Outlook calendar infringed a patent held by French telecommunications equipment maker Alcatel-Lucent. The companies have an unresolved fight over damages.

In its appeal, Microsoft argued that a patent could be held invalid if evidence is presented in a court case that was not available at the time the patent was granted. It also said that the standard for invalidating a patent should be a "preponderance" of evidence, rather than "clear and convincing" evidence.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont says the GOP should set aside its "overheated rhetoric" questioning the qualifications and integrity of President Barack Obama's nominee. He's also urging Republicans to stop complaining about the timeline he set for Kagan's confirmation hearings, which are to begin June 28.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Judiciary Republican, has suggested the date is too soon, and warned Monday he might ask for a delay.

Leahy called the gripes "crocodile tears." The timetable mirrors the one used for Republican and Democratic nominees.

Kagan was back on Capitol Hill Tuesday for private meetings with senators.

In a motion filed hours before the court deadline on Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that Congress acted well within its authority. It also claims Virginia lacks jurisdiction to sue.

State Attorney General Ken sued hours after Congress passed the sweeping health reform bill in March.

He alleged that by requiring Virginians to buy health coverage or pay a fee, Congress exceeded its authority under the 10th Amendment.

Sebelius argues that the new law is well within the scope of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Founding Partner Mathew B. Tully has been awarded the impressive Air Force Space Badge due to his completion of space training. Tully is among one of the few Army Officers awarded this prestigious badge, and among an even smaller number of National Guardsmen authorized to wear it. 

In late 2008, Tully attended the clandestine National Security Space Institute (NSSI), the Department of Defense’s premier institute for providing service members with the space education and training required to support military operations. Upon graduation, he became one of only 200 space operations officers in the Army and the only space professional in New York. 

“I am honored to be one of the few National Guardsmen authorized to wear the Air Force Space Badge and grateful that the Army has given me the opportunity to experience our country’s space systems technology and capabilities firsthand,” said Tully. “I look forward to my continued space training and service to our country in the Army National Guard.”

Tully is a Major in the New York Army National Guard, holding the position of Space Operations Officer. His military service and experiences have led him to dedicate his legal career to protecting and upholding the rights of veterans and service members across the country. Founded in 2003, Tully Rinckey PLLC has pioneered many landmark Veterans Preference and USERRA cases.                                                                                        

To speak with Tully or to learn more about Tully Rinckey PLLC, please contact Jessica Brociek at 202-787-1900 or via email at jbrociek@tullylegal.com.

The Washington-based court on Monday said it will hear two appeals filed by the state and supporters of the 13-year-old program that provides dollar-for-dollar state income tax breaks for donations to school tuition organizations.

The action "is terrific news for the thousands of families who desperately need scholarship assistance to send their children to the school of their choice," said Tim Keller, executive director of the Institute for Justice's Arizona chapter.

The institute was one of several groups defending the program.

A lawyer for the challengers said he hopes the justices' action doesn't mean the Supreme Court intends to open the door for broad state funding of religious instruction.

"I hope they didn't take this case to say that," said attorney Paul Bender.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others challenged the program as unconstitutional because religious organizations award most of the scholarships and require children to enroll in religious schools. The suit says the program amounts to an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.

The Arizona Supreme Court previously upheld the constitutionality of the 1997 law as written, but the current case being considered by federal courts challenges how the program has been implemented.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the current case, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the lawsuit could proceed. In that ruling, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the program could be unconstitutional because parents seeking scholarships didn't have a realistic range of education choices for students to attend nonreligious schools.