A federal court order to release 40,000 inmates to relieve prison crowding in California was delayed for up to a year on Tuesday, pending a final review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justices turned down a challenge by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration to the court order that forces the state to reduce its prison population. The action opens the door for another appeal by the state.

A three-judge federal panel last summer ordered the state Department of Corrections to reduce the prison population by about 40,000 inmates over two years in order to provide inmates with a constitutional level of health care. At issue for the Schwarzenegger administration is whether the judicial panel exceeded its authority in ordering the release of inmates.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today is a win for the state because it guarantees there will be no early release of prisoners while the three-judge panel's latest order is appealed," said Andrea Hoch, the governor's legal affairs secretary.

The high court's decision to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction occurred as part of a long-running legal battle over California's 33 adult prisons and their often-criticized medical care for inmates.

A panel of three federal judges in August ordered the state's prison population be reduced in stages over two years to relieve the overcrowding that has caused inadequate medical and mental health care.

California's prisons have been filled to nearly twice their designed capacity of 80,000, according to the ruling.

The Supreme Court noted the state has come up with a plan to comply with the lower court's order but the three-judge panel earlier this month put it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals to the high court. With the appeals dismissed, the plan can go forward.

Improving conditions in the nation's largest state prison system has become a major legal, political and budget issue in view of California's budget crisis and high unemployment.

A Massachusetts law that sharply restricts out-of-state winemakers from shipping their products directly to consumers in the state is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

Thursday's decision by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling could open the door for connoisseurs in Massachusetts to purchase more of their favorite wines online or by mail order from domestic producers.

The law, approved by the Legislature in 2006 over the veto of then-Gov. Mitt Romney, created a multi-tiered system in which wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons a year must decide whether to sell retail in Massachusetts through an in-state wholesaler or apply for a license to ship wines directly to consumers. They cannot, however, do both.

The cap does not affect any of the nearly three dozen wineries based in Massachusetts, all of which are small and produce under the 30,000-gallon limit.

"We hold that (the law) violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts's wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors," the appellate court wrote in its decision.

A federal court turned to historians Tuesday as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California.

Harvard professor Nancy Cott told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose," the Los Angeles Times reports.

She noted that that divorce rates rose steeply in the 1960s and marriage continued to be viewed negatively in the 1970s as heterosexuals advocated "open marriages" and "swinging." But divorce rates hit a plateau in the 1980s, and marriage is now held in high esteem in the U.S., she said.

She attributed the higher status of marriage to advocacy by the Christian right and the growing clamoring of gays and lesbians to participate in it.

During cross-examination, lawyers for the Proposition 8 campaign noted that racial restrictions on marriage in the U.S. were never as "uniform" or widespread as the ban on same-sex marriage. He also asked Cott if it was possible to predict the consequences same-sex marriage would have on society.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case later this week that some are touting as pivotal in the business of sports.

American Needle Inc. v. the NFL, a supposed David vs. Goliath-type case that could help define the NFL's antitrust status, is on the docket for Jan. 13.

It dates back to 2004, when American Needle, an Illinois-based hat maker, brought an antitrust case against NFL, claiming the league was using its monopoly power to muscle it out of its fair share of revenue for caps it made bearing NFL logos. The NFL won the case at the trial and appellate levels, but American Needle appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

An appellate court tossed a $20 million award against a former jet company that secretly videotaped Michael Jackson and his attorneys during a 2003 flight.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled Monday that the award was excessive and that Jeffrey Borer, former owner of the now-defunct XtraJet\, shouldn't have to pay it to attorneys Mark Geragos and Pat Harris, The Associated Press reported.

The three-judge panel sent the case back to the trial judge who ruled in favor of the attorneys in March.
Geragos, Harris and Jackson sued for invasion of privacy after being secretly videotaped when Jackson surrendered on charges of molestation.