Charles Dean Hood initially won a reprieve just over an hour before he could have been put to death Tuesday when a state district judge withdrew his execution warrant. But an appeals court reinstated the warrant, saying the judge didn't have permission to spare Hood from lethal injection.

The warrant is scheduled to expire at midnight. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied three other appeals, likely clearing the way for Hood's execution.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma has executed its first death row inmate since last August.

The Liberty Council had asked a state appeals court to block same-sex weddings until voters could decide the issue on the November ballot.

The three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal refused the request in a brief ruling issued Tuesday as gay marriages began in full swing around the state.

Earlier the appeals court had ruled against allowing gay marriages but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision last month. In its latest ruling the appeals court says the high court has made it clear that same-sex marriage should be allowed.

The proceeding lasted only a few minutes. Drew and her lawyer declined to comment to reporters waiting outside the courtroom.

Drew, of suburban St. Louis, Mo., is accused of helping to create a MySpace account that appeared to belong to a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. The boy did not exist.

Drew's daughter had been a friend of 13-year-old neighbor Megan Meier and the fake account was used to send cruel messages to the girl, including one stating the world would be better off without her. Megan hanged herself in 2006.

Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Meier.

The charges were filed in California where MySpace is based. MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News Corp.

Drew's case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge George Wu and her trial scheduled for July 29. A status conference was scheduled for June 26. U.S. attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said Drew would be allowed to return home pending trial.

Each of the four counts against Drew carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The lawsuit was filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in 2002. Iqbal, since deported from the United States, says Ashcroft, Mueller and others implemented a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs and race.

A federal appeals said the lawsuit could proceed, but the Bush administration says the high-ranking officials should not have to answer for the allegedly discriminatory acts of subordinates.

The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.

The case involved two seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One allows people to avoid being deported by agreeing to leave the country voluntarily. The advantage to that course is that the wait to get back to the United States is shorter.

The other provision allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to make their case to immigration officials. To do that, however, they must remain in the country.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices said Thursday a lower court was wrong to conclude that a vintage airplane buff could not sue for the same documents that were sought by a fellow lover of antique aircraft.

Brent Taylor is executive director of the Antique Aircraft Association and a mechanic who restores vintage airplanes. He sued the Federal Aviation Administration for the plans for an antique F-45 plane.

Taylor filed his lawsuit less than a month after an appeals court issued its ruling against another member of the same organization who sought the same plans.

Government watchdogs and press freedom groups backed Taylor. They worried that government agencies would try to short-circuit efforts by people who request similar records for different reasons.

Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.

Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final. The ruling to legalize gay marriage overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal, which is therefore required to issue an order consistent with the high court's 4-3 opinion.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."

"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

Vik Amar, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Davis, said it was unlikely the lower court would go against the will of the state Supreme Court.

"It would be an abuse of discretion to ignore the clear statement made by the Supreme Court when they turned down the stay and grant one now," Amar said.