Republicans and business advocates warned that making that change could make business executives liable for actions taken by managers who had left a company long ago.

"At the end of the day, such a loophole conceivably could allow a retiring employee to seek damages against a company now led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of discrimination," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, top Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts.

Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves race, sex, religion or national origin.

Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and she claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The court's five most conservative members said the woman waited too long to complain. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent for the court's four liberal members, urged Congress to amend the law.

Advocates said six months is not enough time to build a case and decide whether a lawsuit is warranted, given how secretive people are about their salaries and companies are about their decisions on raises.

Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers $251 million in pay and damages after deciding the retailer didn't properly compensate them for overtime and breaks. Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. employer with 1.9 million workers, faces more than 70 other U.S. wage-and-hour suits, including class actions.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is "exploring options for appeal," in the New Mexico and Missouri cases, spokesman John Simley said. "These decisions were not on the merits of the case, but only on whether they should proceed as class actions."

"Even more courts across the country have found that cases like these are not suited for class treatment," Simley said. "An example of that came in New York today, where the court found in favor of Wal-Mart on every aspect of class certification analysis."

Individual circumstances are too varied and the group of people too broad to weigh the New York case as a group, Platkin wrote, noting that "not each and every individual who was ever an hourly employee of defendant during the relevant time period worked without pay, nor was every hourly employee deprived of premium pay for overtime hours."
Including a larger group would "result in miniscule individual awards of damages to class members," Platkin wrote.

In Missouri, Wal-Mart lost a bid to reverse class certification of a similar lawsuit when an a state appeals court upheld a lower court decision granting hourly workers in that state the right to sue as a group.

The Missouri decision expanded the lawsuit by changing the case from an opt-in action, which requires workers to ask to join the suit, to an opt-out suit, which makes hourly workers part of the litigation automatically unless they ask to be let out.

The decision means that Wal-Mart will be facing a group suit by more than 200,000 current and former hourly workers in Missouri, rather than a lawsuit by several hundred or several thousand. Typically, a small number of potential plaintiffs would opt into a suit.

"This gives these people their day in court," said attorney Steve Long, who represents the Missouri workers. He said he would be seeking a trial in 2008.
The Court of Appeals of New Mexico on Tuesday upheld a 2005 lower court's decision granting class action status to Wal-Mart hourly workers in that state who claim they worked off the clock without compensation and missed rest breaks. The New Mexico class would include about 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart hourly employees, said attorney Jerry Bader, who represents the workers.

In New York, while the workers could bring individual claims against Wal-Mart, the cost of pursuing these suits would be too high, said Jonathan Selbin, an attorney for the workers there.
"These are not claims these people could realistically bring without a class action," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed. We plan to appeal. We think the judge got it wrong."
The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart required its hourly employees to work off the clock and through breaks and would have covered unpaid workers as far back as August 1995, he said.

With another challenge to the law pending in federal court, it was unclear if the state could begin requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

For months, lawyers have been battling over the law, one of several passed recently across the country.

Opponents claim the photo ID law will disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly who don't have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.

The law's mostly Republican supporters say it is needed to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. No examples of in-person voter fraud have been presented, though the proposal's backers often mention the threat of noncitizens casting illegal ballots.

Monday's ruling, written by Justice Harold Melton, said that plaintiff Rosalind Lake was not harmed by the voter ID law and lacked standing to challenge it since she was exempt as a first-time voter.

The Secretary of State's office, which enforces voting law, did not immediately comment. But the law's sponsor, state Sen. Cecil Staton, said the court's opinion reinforced the Legislature's intent when it passed the law last year.

"It gives credence to our position all along that the argument that there are many, many people who are harmed by this law is just not correct," said Staton, a Macon Republican. "They didn't even have a plaintiff who's been harmed."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, vowed to "continue to fight this battle in federal court."

At the federal level, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law in 2005, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Legislature addressed his complaints in a subsequent version, but he blocked the law again in September, saying the bill isn't in the public's interest. An appeal is pending.

Other states have faced similar legal battles over requiring voters to have photo IDs.

In Arizona, the law survived court challenges, and voters have had to show a photo ID to vote since 2006. In Missouri, the state Supreme Court in October struck down a law that required voters there to show a photo identification.

A federal appeals court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in January, saying it has the potential to do more good than harm. A month later, a New Mexico federal judge struck down the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance.

The president's message was that it's important to reduce "unnecessary lawsuits" and that federal securities regulators are in the best position to sue, said Al Hubbard, Bush's chief economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard said deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley conveyed Bush's perspective to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the government's views before the Supreme Court.

Hubbard said the president communicated his policy views, not specifically what he thought the solicitor general should do.

Bush's role in the case underscores its significance. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could determine whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies.

The deadline for siding with investors in the case ended at midnight Monday, and the solicitor general did not file a brief.

The administration will decide in the next 30 days whether to side with the defendant companies or not to participate in the case at all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders.

Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's associate general counsel, criticized Bush's action.

"The president decided that he thinks it's more important to protect his friends than it is to enforce the law," Silvers said.

The issue is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and accountants who are thought to have aided in fraud committed by their corporate clients.

The high court's ruling in the case could determine whether the Enron plaintiffs' separate $40 billion lawsuit against the investment banks — stalled by a federal appeals court ruling in March — can proceed.

Thirty state attorneys general sided with investors and referred to the Enron scandal 55 times in a 43-page court filing.

Ms. Taylor was ordered to appear before the Senate committee on July 11. Ms. Miers, who was briefly a nominee for Supreme Court justice, was told to appear before the House panel the following day.

The committees had already voted to authorize such subpoenas, so it was not surprising that they decided today to go ahead and issue them. Still, the action stepped up the political confrontation over the dismissals, and over the general performance of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the state of the Justice Department.

So far, the White House has said it will not make any current or former officials available to testify before the panels on the matter except in private interviews, with no transcripts kept. The lawmakers have disdained that arrangement as unacceptable.

"By refusing to cooperate with Congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of Justice," Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate committee, said in a statement today.

Representative John D. Conyers of Michigan, the chairman of the House committee, said the subpoenas were "a demand on behalf of the American people."

"The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania," Mr. Conyers said, referring to the White House by its street address. "This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner, so that we may get to the bottom of this."

The White House reacted quickly today to the subpoenas, arguing that the committees could easily obtain all the facts they need through interviews and relevant documents, but that the Democratic chairmen "are more interested in drama than facts," as Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, put it in an exchange with reporters.

The latest development follows the Senate Democrats’ attempt to pass a symbolic "no confidence" resolution against Mr. Gonzales. That attempt was thwarted on Monday when Mr. Gonzales’s critics fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle. That effort, too, was dismissed by the White House as a publicity stunt.

Wild Oats Markets Inc. and Whole Foods Market Inc. will go to court late next month in an attempt to keep the planned merger between the two companies alive.

The Federal Trade Commission has raised concerns about whether the two natural foods grocers should be allowed to merge. The two have agreed to a temporary restraining order, pending the July 31 hearing. The hearing is expected to conclude the next day.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will rule on whether to approve the FTC's request for an injunction to block the merger.

Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFMI) and Boulder, Colo.'s Wild Oats (NASDAQ: OATS) agreed in February to merge. Whole Foods offered $18.50 a share, plus taking over all of Wild Oats' debt.

Whole Foods has 195 stores, including two in New Mexico, and annual sales last year of $5.6 billion, while Wild Oats has 109 stores, including four in New Mexico, and $1.2 billion in sales.

A small Kane County newspaper and its former columnist have accused the biggest names in the state judiciary of violating Illinois citizens' basic constitutional rights.

In the process, the state court system returns to uncharted waters.

The Shaw Suburban Media Group, which runs the Kane County Chronicle, is suing seven Illinois Supreme Court justices, three Illinois appellate court justices and the Cook County circuit court judge who presided over a defamation trial against the newspaper.

It is the latest fallout from the lawsuit Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas won against the paper and its former columnist, St. Charles resident Bill Page.

"They filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court and they should be sanctioned for that," said Chicago attorney Joseph Power, who represents Thomas. "It is absurd."

Thomas, of Wheaton, filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper and Page for three columns Page wrote in 2003. The columns accused Thomas of abusing his power to gain support for a friend running for a Kane County judgeship. Page claimed Thomas would agree to reduced punishment for then-Kane County State's Attorney Meg Gorecki - who was facing ethics violations - in exchange for support of his candidate.

Last Nov. 15 a Kane County jury sided with Thomas after a nearly three-week trial.

The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday seeks to have the libel verdict and $4 million judgment, reduced by the trial judge from the $7 million the jury granted, against the paper thrown out. The lawsuit also asks for a ban to be instituted on filing a new lawsuit against the paper while Thomas and the justices remain employed in the state court system.

The lawsuit also asks for attorney fees, an unspecified amount of damages and a stay on the 9 percent daily interest accruing on the judgment while the newspaper appeals.

Essentially, the lawsuit contends the newspaper can not receive a fair appeal of the case because the appellate court judges are under the control of Thomas. Also, unlike other cases, the newspaper cannot appeal for a hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court because five of the current seven justices were witnesses in the case and must recuse themselves, leaving less than the quorum required by law to hear a case.

"In a broader sense, the complaint is precedent-setting because this suit is the first in the nation to challenge the fairness of a personal lawsuit brought by a judge controlling a state court system," wrote Washington, D.C.-based attorney Bruce Sanford. He frequently represents media interests and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the newspaper and Page.

Sanford said the judgment cannot be enforced because it violates the civil rights of the newspaper.

Power said the newspaper had an opportunity to file a request to have Cook County Judge Donald O'Brien, a former defense attorney, removed as the trial judge in the case and did not. It was originally at the newspaper's behest the Supreme Court justices recused themselves.

"You can't have it both ways," Power said.

Sanford contends neither the federal courts nor a state-appointed panel of judges can fix the constitutional problems by hearing the case. The state lacks a procedure for this type of situation, because a similar case has never arisen.

"We have filed this lawsuit with great reluctance as we hoped the state court system would be able to protect our rights. That plainly is not the case," said Thomas Shaw, president of Shaw Suburban Media Group.

The lawsuit questions Thomas' ethical right to file the lawsuit in the first place because justices are expected to put the avoidance of the appearance of judicial impropriety above their personal gain.

Power said Thomas has as much a right to protect his reputation and a trial by jury as anyone else.

Once the defamation case hit the court, the lawsuit contends the newspaper and Page's due process, equal protection and First Amendment rights were violated by allowing justices to refrain from commenting on their deliberations in the Gorecki case because of judicial privilege and having Illinois judges hear a case with their boss, Thomas, as the plaintiff.

The trial judge and subsequent appellate court judges were all selected by the Supreme Court, five of whom are involved in the case, Sanford contended in a news release.

"One cannot doubt the obvious unfairness inherent in asking the inferior judicial officers appointed to this appeal to sit in judgment over a $4 million award to their Chief Justice and to evaluate the testimony of both the Chief Justice and his fellow Justices - their judicial bosses ...," Sanford wrote.

"I have never seen anything like it before. A Chief Justice enlists his colleagues on the bench as his witnesses to help him win a huge trial verdict and then expects the newspaper to be satisfied with its right to appeal within the court system he controls."