Since businesses often land in court, a case involving a company in which a justice has financial ties could be trouble. If chosen for the high court, some potential nominees might have to step aside from certain cases or unload stocks to avoid ethical conflicts between their official duties and personal financial interests.

Among stocks held by people mentioned as President Barack Obama's possible picks to succeed retiring Justice David Souter:

_ Appellate Judges Diane Wood and Kim Wardlaw have reported they have stakes in Whole Foods Market Inc. The upscale grocer won permission from a federal appeals court in Washington in 2007 to buy rival organic grocer Wild Oats Markets despite the Federal Trade Commission's argument that the deal would stifle competition. To settle the commission's claims, Whole Foods agreed this year to sell several stores.

_ At least five Supreme Court prospects have disclosed stock in Zimmer Holdings Inc., a maker of artificial hips and knees that was investigated by federal prosecutors over allegations it paid doctors who used the products. Charges were dropped after Zimmer agreed to pay a fine and undergo monitoring.

Laura Althouse's attorney filed a motion Monday to withdraw the plea after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that undocumented workers who use phony IDs can't be considered identity thieves unless they knew they were using ID numbers from real people.

A judge granted Althouse's motion Tuesday, and her attorney says that effectively dismisses the charge. Althouse still faces sentencing May 13 on a charge of conspiracy to harbor undocumented immigrants for financial gain at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville.

U.S. attorney's spokesman Bob Teig declined to comment.

It is the second major race case heard by the justices after Barack Obama became the nation's first black president.

The justices seemed split along conservative and liberal lines in considering a provision applying to all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South. It requires them to get federal government approval before changing their voting procedures.

Congress adopted the Voting Rights Act, an historic piece of U.S. civil rights legislation, to make it easier for millions of blacks and other minorities to exercise their right to vote.

Congress extended it in 2006 for 25 years, with then-President George W. Bush signing it into law.

Last week the justices considered whether race still can be used as a factor for job promotions and hirings, an issue that could affect millions of employers nationwide.

Opponents of the voting rights law argue that the protections for minority voters are no longer needed after more than 40 years of progress, and they cite Obama's election as evidence of how America has changed since 1965.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, a U.S. district judge in Baltimore, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., pointedly read from a 2005 private opinion sent to the judge by the federal judiciary's Codes of Conduct Committee. Obama has nominated Davis to serve on the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The conduct committee told Davis that his service as a board member of the Montana-based Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, or FREE, violated judicial conduct codes, and Davis quickly quit the board.

But Feingold, long a stickler for judicial ethics, asked Davis about his initial contention, in a 2005 letter to the conduct committee, that there was no difference between his participation in the group's seminars and his decision to join the board.

"It seems pretty clear to me that joining the board of an organization like FREE is actually a much more significant indication of your involvement with the organization and poses, in my mind, very different ethical questions," Feingold said. He asked Davis if he still didn't see the distinction.

"I absolutely see the difference now, Senator," Davis replied. "I did not see it back in spring of 2004, when I was invited and agreed to join the board."

America's Cup champion Alinghi of Switzerland is being ordered to tell a New York court why it should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with an order that its one-on-one showdown against American crew BMW Oracle Racing be held in February.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, acting on a request by San Francisco's Golden Gate Yacht Club, scheduled a hearing for May 14.

This is the latest twist in a bitter fight between billionaires that has delayed a conventional, multichallenger America's Cup and led to a rare showdown between Alinghi and BMW Oracle Racing.

Alinghi has said it is preparing to hold the best-of-three series for the oldest trophy in international sports beginning in May 2010.

But the court, in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, is refusing to pass judgment on whether the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" policy is in line with First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The justices say a federal appeals court should weigh the constitutionality of the policy.

The decision throws out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court had found in favor of a Fox Television-led challenge to the policy and had returned the case to the FCC to let the agency provide a "reasoned analysis" for its tougher line on indecency.

The commission appealed to the Supreme Court instead.

President Barack Obama won more than 48 percent of the vote in November in this overwhelmingly white community northwest of the state capital.

Yet Canyon Creek, the heart of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One, is the site of a major Supreme Court battle over the federal government's often used and most effective tool in preventing voting discrimination against minorities.

The utility district's elected five-person board manages a local park and pays down bond debt. Because it is in Texas, the board is covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval from the Justice Department before any changes can be made in how elections are conducted.

That requirement applies to all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting.

The utility district is challenging that section of the law, which Congress extended in 2006 for 25 years. The Obama administration is defending it.

The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. The law "has been the most important and transformative civil rights act in our country's history," said John Payton, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.