The Bush administration, in arguments Wednesday, is asking the court to undo lower court rulings that limited the use of sonar in naval training exercises off the coast of Southern California.

Sonar, which the Navy relies on to locate enemy submarines, can interfere with whales' ability to navigate and communicate. There is also evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand themselves on shore.

The exercises have continued since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in February that the Navy must limit sonar use when ships get close to marine mammals.

The administration says the president has the power to override federal court rulings on environmental laws during emergencies that include harm to national security. The Navy says it has already taken steps to protect beaked whales, dolphins and other creatures and is balancing war training and environmental protections.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of five advocacy groups that sued to force the Navy to take steps to protect the whales, argues that the Navy has to comply with environmental laws.

Five GOP state lawmakers, in a brief filed Monday, say the inquiry has exceeded its authority and is too political.

Palin is the focus of a legislative investigation into allegations she abused her power by firing her public safety commissioner. The commissioner says he was pressured to dismiss a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister.

Investigators are scheduled to submit a report on the investigation Friday. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

Ms. Youn received a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2007, where she received a Dean’s Elite Scholarship.  During law school, she was the managing editor of the Minnesota Law Review (2006-2007).  In 2002, Ms. Youn received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University, where she was a George F. Baker Scholar.  She also authored an honors thesis, “Out of That Land: American Missionary Influence on Early Korean Immigration to Hawaii.”

Scandaglia & Ryan is a litigation firm founded on the principle of providing sophisticated legal services in a cost-effective manner.  To achieve this, we have adopted a client-centered process that we call Total Quality Litigation®.  In pursuing strategic business and legal solutions for our clients, TQL® minimizes uncertainty and increases accountability.  We believe our clients deserve nothing less. 

For further information, visit our website at www.scandagliaryan.com.

U.S. District Judge William Steele didn't want to order Patrick Lett, a 17-year Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq, to prison after the former soldier pleaded guilty to cocaine possession. But the judge thought the law required prison time.

When Steele learned differently, he reduced the punishment to 11 days of time served and three years of supervised release. That didn't satisfy prosecutors, who appealed the lighter sentence on the grounds that Steele didn't have the authority to change the initial five-year sentence.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the judge could not undo his sentence, and the Supreme Court rejected Lett's appeal of that decision without comment.

A new sentencing hearing is set for Oct. 24, though one of Lett's attorneys said a delay may be needed to prepare arguments.

Attorney Douglas Berman of Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law in Columbus said Monday that defense attorneys are expected to argue Lett initially had ineffective legal representation.

A Justice Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the high court's ruling.

At the initial sentencing, Steele noted that Lett had led "an exemplary life up until the time of the offenses and even after," when Lett re-enlisted and served another 17 months before his indictment.

Lett, now 39, pleaded guilty to cocaine possession for his involvement in a cousin's drug operation.

Lett works full time doing fiber optics work at a shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. His two children, who live with Lett's mother, visit him on weekends. He supports his family as a single parent, his attorney said.

The first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes.

The companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country.

The federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case.

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.

The role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes.

Five GOP state lawmakers, in a brief filed Monday, say the inquiry has exceeded its authority and is too political.

Palin is the focus of a legislative investigation into allegations she abused her power by firing her public safety commissioner. The commissioner says he was pressured to dismiss a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister.

Investigators are scheduled to submit a report on the investigation Friday. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

The justices did not comment Monday in turning down a dozen individuals and two groups that oppose abortion rights. The court turned down similar appeals in 2003 and 2006.

Four physicians and abortion clinics sued in 1995 after the activists released a Wild West-style poster that named a dozen abortion doctors underneath the headline, "Wanted." A related Web site, titled the "Nuremberg Files," declared the doctors guilty of crimes against humanity, and listed their addresses and telephone numbers.

In 1999, a jury awarded the doctors and clinics more than $100 million under racketeering laws and a 1994 federal law that makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion doctors. Courts reduced the judgment to more than $16 million.

The activists say the verdict violated their free speech rights under the Constitution.