The Supreme Court will decide whether drug makers can be sued by parents who claim their children suffered serious health problems from vaccines.

The justices on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Pittsburgh who want to sue Wyeth over the serious side effects their daughter, six months old at the time, allegedly suffered as a result of the company's diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled against Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz, saying a 1986 federal law bars their claims.

That law set up a special vaccine court to handle disputes as part of its aim of insuring a stable vaccine supply by shielding companies from most lawsuits.

Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer, Inc., prevailed at the appeals court but also joined in asking the court to hear the case, saying it presents an important and recurring legal issue that should be resolved.

The Obama administration joined the parties in calling for high court review, although the government takes the side of the manufacturers.

A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Friday denied a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. Judge Wayne Andersen dismissed two other counts but allowed the count alleging the plaintiffs were subject to cruel and degrading treatment methods during their detention.

The plaintiffs, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were working for a private Iraqi security firm called Shield Group Security. There they witnessed suspicious activity that they reported to US authorities, but they were later arrested by US forces and detained without representation.

The plaintiffs brought a cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics [opinion text] against Rumsfeld, claiming that he was personally responsible for the alleged unconstitutional treatment they faced while in detention. While allowing the suit seems in conflict with the recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which extended heightened pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)beyond antitrust cases, the judge wrote that Iqbal "requires vigilance on our part to ensure that claims which do not state a plausible claim for relief are not allowed to occupy the time of high-ranking government officials," but is not supposed to be a "categorical bar on claims against" them.

A Luxembourg court ruled on Thursday that investors who lost money to Bernard L. Madoff through a fund set up by UBS cannot seek compensation directly from the Swiss bank, Reuters reported.

In November, private and institutional investors who lost money through the LuxAlpha fund, set up as a vehicle for wealthy investors to invest in Madoff funds, sued UBS and Ernst & Young for “seriously neglecting” their supervisory duties of the fund.
But the court rejected the demands of the investors, who wanted to file individual claims against the bank, rather than having to go through the fund’s liquidators, Reuters said.

Franc Greff, who represents clients in four of the 10 cases being reviewed, told the news service he would appeal the decision.

A Michigan judge has ordered a stay-at-home mom to attend a murder trial and serve 24 hours in jail because she arrived late for jury selection.

Carmela Khury was released Monday after a day and a half as a spectator in Oakland County Circuit court.

The State Court Administrative Office told Judge Leo Bowman he had no authority to punish Khury and to drop the order or face sanctions.

Khury appeared in court an hour late with her 8-month-old and 3-year-old children last Thursday, saying she could not find a baby sitter.

Bowman dismissed her from the jury pool and ordered her to return Friday to watch the trial. He said she would have to spend 24 hours in jail after the case.

Bowman declined to comment through his staff in suburban Detroit.

The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.

The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."

The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.

At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.

James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years.

The court has held that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," he said.

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.