The U.N.'s highest court said the U.S. remains obliged to review the cases of about 50 other Mexicans on death row because they were denied access to their consulate after they were arrested.

But it rejected Mexico's request that Washington guarantee that each case will be reviewed and reconsidered.

Both Mexico and the United States said they were satisfied with elements of the decision.

"It was a mixed result," said John Bellinger III, the legal adviser to the U.S. State Department.

He said the court refused Mexico's main request to spell out the U.S. obligations toward the arrested Mexican nationals, which likely would have led to heightened demands on the U.S. courts. But he was "disappointed" the tribunal declined to acknowledge efforts by the Bush administration to comply with international law and with the court's order.

The Mexican government applauded the ruling in a statement and urged U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to "take concrete actions" to comply with the ruling and "respect the rights of all Mexican nationals." Obama takes office Tuesday.

The judgment ended a five-year cascade of proceedings in the wake of a 2004 decision by the same court that the U.S. had violated an international treaty by failing to advise 51 Mexicans of their consular rights. The court required that each case be reviewed to determine whether the lack of diplomatic access could have affected the outcome of their cases.

In a four-page opinion issued Thursday, Magistrate Judge John Facciola (Fatch-ee-OH-la) says the White House has been ignoring his instructions to search for all electronic messages that may be missing.

The Executive Office of the President, the magistrate said, appears to be avoiding its legal obligation to ensure that electronic messages subject to the Presidential Records Act are preserved.

The court says there is a profound societal interest as well as a legal obligation to protect such records.

The teacher, Matthew Hirschfelder, was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly having sex with a Hoquiam High School senior in 2006. He challenged a judge's refusal to dismiss his case, arguing the student wasn't a minor because she was 18.

Hirschfelder, who was 33 at the time, also denies any sexual relationship occurred.

A three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that the case should be dismissed. While the law was written vaguely, a review of legislative history shows that lawmakers only intended to criminalize contact between teachers and 16- or 17-year-old students — not those over 18, the court said.

"The name of the statute is 'sexual misconduct with a minor,'" said Hirschfelder's attorney, Rob Hill, stressing that the state recognizes that an 18-year-old is no longer a minor.

The state's code of professional conduct for teachers still prohibits any sexual advance toward or contact with pupils, whatever their age, and teachers can be fired for it. Sexual contact with students younger than 16 is considered child rape or molestation; the age of consent in Washington is 16.

Hirschfelder has not been able to work as a teacher since late 2006, when he was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by the school board. He was arrested and charged in spring 2007, after a former choir student told police she had a monthslong affair with him that began shortly before she graduated.

His case did not go to trial because it was stayed pending the appeals court ruling, Hill said. He has been tuning pianos to make ends meet.

A report issued Monday by the Justice Department's inspector general was highly critical of the lawyer, Joseph Band, who worked in the agency's Washington office.

Band also worked as a part-time statistician for Fox Sports, and he came under scrutiny after he received rides to two World Series games in 2007 in Boston, as well as the 2008 Super Bowl in Phoenix.

The report issued Monday by Inspector General Glenn Fine found Band sometimes got escorts not just for himself, but for broadcasters as well.

Fox Sports spokesman Dan Bell said company officials were unaware "that those arrangements were in any way inappropriate, and regret to learn now that they apparently were."

Fine said use of armed government agents as a VIP car service violates ethical standards, and U.S. Marshals in the cities Band visited should not have agreed to his requests.

Band "regularly and inappropriately solicited and received assistance of (marshal service) resources for his personal activities, in violation of government ethical rules," the report concluded.

Taking a page from a similar program launched a year ago in New York, court administrators in this suburban St. Louis county plan to launch within weeks a new court designed to deal only with military veterans charged with nonviolent crimes.

The mission: Divert many of the veterans from the criminal courts to a program that, much like popular drug courts, will offer them treatment for underlying issues, perhaps sparing them a criminal conviction if they successfully complete the treatment.

"There are a lot of services out there; one thing the court will be able to do is get them connected" with veterans, ideally keeping them from becoming repeat offenders, Ann Callis, the county's chief judge, said Monday.

Veterans' participation in the new court will be voluntary and Callis said it will be staffed by veterans from virtually every branch of the military. The prosecutor will be former Marine Corps Cpl. Michael Stewart, the public defender former Navy Lt. Tyler Bateman — officials Callis hopes will have a better understanding of veterans' issues.

Callis said she hoped the veterans' court would be under way by the end of next month or early March, with no immediate expectations about how many veterans might take part.

No additional funding would be required for the court, and Madison County Bar Association lawyers will donate their services, Callis said. "Since we're not asking for any money and it's based on the spirit of volunteerism, we figured why don't we just give it a shot?" she said.

A New Jersey appeals court reversed a lower court ruling requiring the e-mails be made public and authorizing a judge to inspect the communications.

The Democratic governor has been fighting to keep the correspondence between himself, his staff and Carla Katz private since the e-mails were requested by a Republican leader and several news organizations, including The Associated Press.

A three-judge appeals panel said the e-mails are covered by executive privilege, which allows officials to withhold certain information in the interest of governing.

An appeal to the state Supreme Court is anticipated.

Attorney General Anne Milgram argued that Corzine would not be able to govern effectively if his private communications were open to the public. A lawyer for the GOP, Mark Sheridan, argued that the public has a right to view e-mails the governor's office and Katz exchanged during state worker contract talks.

Tom Wilson, the Republican state committee chairman, sought disclosure of all e-mails that were not strictly personal or concerning general state business. He questioned whether the state worker contract negotiations were tainted by the relationship between Corzine and Katz.

The two dated before Corzine became governor. She is president of the largest state worker local, Communications Workers of America Local 1034.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.

It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."

Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.