Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling is asking the Supreme Court to throw out his convictions in connection with the collapse of the energy giant that cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

Lawyers for Skilling and the government are appearing before the high court Monday as he appeals his 2006 convictions on 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors.

Skilling argues he did not have a fair trial in Houston, Enron's hometown, amid anger over Enron's implosion in 2001. He also is contesting his conviction under the federal fraud law making it a crime to deprive shareholders or the public of "the intangible right to honest services."

Critics say the law is vague and unfair.

Arthur Nadel, a former Florida fund manager dubbed a "mini-Madoff" for running a decade-long investment fraud of nearly $400 million, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to criminal charges.

Nadel, 77, disappeared for two weeks before his arrest in January 2009. He had left a letter for his wife imploring her to use a trust fund for her benefit and "sell the Subaru if you need money," a reference to their motor vehicle.

The FBI arrested Sarasota, Florida-based Nadel in his home state, but the case was moved to New York because he traded through a brokerage in the city, Shoreline Trading, an affiliate of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Nadel, who looked frail in court and remained seated throughout the proceeding, pleaded guilty to an indictment of 15 charges, including securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud before Manhattan federal court Judge John Koeltl.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday explored the tension between Americans' right to free speech and a federal law that prohibits aid to terrorist groups, and hardly anyone seemed clear about the lines of demarcation.

The case stems from a challenge to an antiterrorism act by American advocates who say they want to support only the peaceful efforts of groups that the State Department has deemed to be terrorist organizations.

"This is a difficult case for me," allowed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote often is the one that decides closely divided cases.

Georgetown law professor David D. Cole, who represents the Humanitarian Law Project, said his clients do not want to provide material support to the groups, but only to help them pursue peaceful ways to end conflict. "The government has spent a decade arguing that our clients cannot advocate for peace, cannot inform about international human rights," Cole told the court.

The project wants to support the lawful activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a militant group in Turkey known as the PKK, and a Sri Lankan group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Both are among dozens of organizations on the State Department list, along with better-known groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan countered that, as individuals, Cole's clients can advocate whatever they want. But Congress was within its rights, she said, to determine that it was impossible to separate support of any terrorist group's peaceful activities from its violent goals.

The justices unanimously ruled for the state of Maryland in overturning a lower-court decision that had thrown out the confession to the police by a suspect in a child sexual abuse case.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the high court that an initial request for an attorney does not mean the police cannot question a suspect later if the person has been released from custody and decides to confess.

The Supreme Court generally has favored the police and limited the rights of suspects in recent years. On Tuesday, it ruled officers adequately warned a suspect of his legal rights when they told him he could speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.

The latest ruling involved Michael Shatzer, who had been imprisoned in Maryland for child sexual abuse in 2003 when police started investigating allegations he had sexually abused his 3-year-old son. Shatzer requested an attorney and the case went dormant.

Some 2 1/2 years later, the boy was old enough to offer new details. When a different police detective then questioned Shatzer about the case, he was advised of his rights and signed a form waiving them before confessing.

The Obama Administration requested that the U.S. Supreme Court let the government seek damages of around $300 billion from the tobacco industry through an appeal of the landmark 2006 federal racketeering case that was earlier rejected by the courts.

Last Friday, the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to overturn parts of the racketeering case and is now seeking $280 billion in forfeited profits and $10 billion to fund campaigns to cut the level of smoking in the United States.

R.J. Reynolds, Inc. Lorillard Inc. and other major players in the industry simultaneously filed paperwork asking the court to overturn the racketeering conviction or return it to an appellate court for review.

While it could be at least nine months before the court decides where to take the case, investors don’t have to look too far back to see the consequences of the uncertainty. The 2006 case sent shares in the sector sharply lower, as investors feared steep fines.

The tobacco company may have lost the lawsuit in 2006, but it avoided crippling monetary damages. Judge Kessler’s move to consider requiring tobacco companies to give up some $280 billion in profits was overruled after the industry filed a pretrial motion with an appeals court.

Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris USA unit and two co-defendants filed to overturn the verdict, while the government argues the appeals court wrongly denied the disgorgement of billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains by the tobacco industry.

In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a trial judge's verdict against the cigarette makers, finding they violated federal anti-racketeering laws by conspiring to lie about the dangers of smoking.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, it could redefine the reach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Besides Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro cigarettes, the appeals court ruling was challenged Friday by Lorillard Inc, home of the Kent and Newport brands, and the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit of Reynolds American Inc, maker of Camel and other cigarettes.

The Illinois Supreme Court today rejected a bid by imprisoned former Gov. George Ryan to keep a portion of his lucrative government pension that was built up before his corrupt reign as governor and secretary of state.

The high court’s 6-1 decision cost the disgraced former Republican governor $70,824 a year, sending an unmistakable message from the court to Illinois’ governing elite that cronyism and corruption do not pay.

“As the victims of Ryan’s crimes, the taxpayers of the state of Illinois are under no obligation to now fund his retirement,” Justice Robert R. Thomas wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

The state General Assembly Retirement System had moved to strip Ryan, who turns 76 next Wednesday, of the entire $197,037 pension he was drawing annually up until his 2006 conviction on racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud and other corruption charges linked to his tenure as governor and secretary of state.

But last year, a state appeals court reversed that decision, saying he should get to keep pension earnings from his 24 years as a Kankakee County official, state legislator and lieutenant governor – posts in which he was not accused of criminal wrongdoing.

“Although Ryan held multiple public offices over the course of his time in the system, all of those offices were in service to a single public employer — the state of Illinois. And it was the state of Illinois whose trust Ryan betrayed when he committed 16 job-related felonies,” Thomas wrote.

The lone dissenting justice was Anne Burke, who contended a 2005 ruling by the court in another case should dictate that Ryan keep his pension earnings from before his time as secretary of state and governor.

“I do not intend to diminish in any way the seriousness of the criminal acts committed by the former governor. Also I understand the very human impulse to want to punish Ryan for his wrongdoings by depriving him of all of his pension benefits,” Burke wrote. “However, while I sympathize with such impulses, our constitutional obligation is to follow the law, not our personal preferences.”