The state was the first to legalize medicinal marijuana use, with voters passing it in 1996. Since then, 14 states have followed California's lead, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end failed marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We really can't overstate the significance of Californians being the first to have the opportunity to end this public policy disaster."

California is not alone in the push to expand legal use of marijuana. Legislators in Rhode Island, another state hit hard by the economic downturn, are considering a plan to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less by anyone 18 or older.

A proposal to legalize the sale and use of marijuana in Washington was recently defeated in that state's legislature, though lawmakers there did expand the pool of medical professionals that could prescribe the drug for medicinal use.

And a group in Nevada is pushing an initiative that marks the state's fourth attempt in a decade to legalize the drug.

The California secretary of state's office certified the initiative for the general election ballot Wednesday after it was determined that supporters had gathered enough valid signatures.

Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, accused of insider trading along with several associates, won a suspension of a court order to hand over wiretap evidence to U.S. market regulators, pending appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ordered a stay in favor of Rajaratnam and co-defendant Danielle Chiesi on Wednesday after a lower court order in February compelled them to disclose wiretap evidence gathered in the criminal case.

Lawyers for Sri Lanka-born U.S. citizen Rajaratnam and former New Castle Funds LLC trader Chiesi are seeking to suppress 18,000 recordings in what U.S. prosecutors describe as the biggest hedge fund insider trading case in the United States.

A trial on civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was set to start in August before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff.

Rajaratnam's lawyers argued before a three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday that the use of the recordings in the SEC case ignored "the plain text" of the wiretap statute and privacy concerns.

A federal appeals court says Philadelphia's two major daily newspapers can deny creditors the right to use about $300 million owed them to bid at an upcoming bankruptcy auction.

Monday's split 2-1 decision upholds a lower court ruling in a bitter dispute for control of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.

The panel says the bankruptcy code "unambiguously permits" a debtor to craft any plan that gives lenders a clear equivalent of their secured interest. The opinion says lenders have no statutory right to bid with the company's IOUs.

An auction is set for next month.

A local ownership group — comprised of two current and one new investor — hopes to win the auction with a bid of $67 million in cash and real estate.

All the men argued that the state violated their Sixth Amendment due process rights because they were sentenced to death by a judge instead of a jury, as required under the 2002 federal decision.

But in a unanimous ruling handed down Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that their cases were all appealed and the judgments made final before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was issued — and that 2002 decision can't be retroactively applied to the Idaho inmates' cases.

All six inmates have appeals in various stages of state and federal court that will now move forward.

An appellate court has upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

In a separate 3-0 ruling, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Sacramento athiest Michael Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.

Ginsburg was speaking Thursday at a conference of female judges, many who are elected. She approves of the campaign by her former colleague, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to end judicial elections and the vast sums of money spent on those campaigns.

Ginsburg says that if there's one reform she would make, that would be it.

The case had been closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.

Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.

The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.

The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.