Enron's demise wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.

Tuesday's turndown for the Enron investors came without comment in a routine Supreme Court list of cases the justices had decided not to hear.

The chances that Enron shareholders can recover some money dimmed a week ago with the Supreme Court's decision against investors in a separate suit. It alleged that two suppliers doing business with a cable TV company engaged in securities fraud.

That suit was politically sensitive for the Bush administration because of its potential to affect the Enron case. The administration sided with the business community against investors, despite the recommendation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to side with the investors. It was left to attorneys general from 30 states to support shareholders in the case against the cable TV suppliers.

The justices ruled that the investors in Charter Communications Inc. did not have the right to sue because they did not rely on the deceptive acts of the suppliers.

The same principle could apply to the Enron case, where investors relied on Enron's glowing description of its business, but were arguably unaware of any deceptive conduct by the investment banks.

Lawyers for Enron investors say the circumstances in the two cases are not comparable.

In the Enron suit, stockholders are accusing Wall Street investment banks of colluding with the energy company to hide its losses.

To date, Enron plaintiffs have settled for $7.3 billion from several financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Enron stockholders are seeking more than $30 billion from Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC.

The investment banks, say Enron investors, schemed with the energy company, scheming with Enron by entering into partnerships and transactions that enabled the energy company to take liabilities off its books, recording revenue from the deals when it was actually incurring debt.

Now that the Supreme Court has rejected the case, "I think that the chances of succeeding on a scheme liability theory are nearly zero; the resolution of this Enron case was made clear by the decision" last week against investors in the cable TV suppliers suit, said attorney Greg Markel, who represents corporate clients in securities fraud lawsuits.

Last March, the appeals court in New Orleans reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston, who had said Enron shareholders could sue as a class.

The issue of certifying a class is a critical one. Once the courts allow huge numbers of investors to pursue a securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants almost always settle rather than exposing their corporations to potentially catastrophic liability.

The appeals court decision in the Enron case meant that shareholders and investors could not pool their resources to sue as a group. Lawyers for Enron investors estimate the class size at over 1 million shareholders.

Enron Corp., once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy in December 2001. The failure became a symbol of the corporate scandals that rocked Wall Street early this decade.

The justices agreed to review claims by Vicky Crawford, who was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years as an employee of the school system for Nashville, Tenn., and Davidson County.

Months earlier, investigators interviewed Crawford about the school district's director of employee relations, Gene Hughes, and Crawford told them Hughes had sexually harassed her and other employees.

The investigation found Hughes had acted inappropriately, but did not recommend that he been disciplined.

Instead, Crawford learned she faced charges of irregularities in her job as payroll coordinator, and she was fired. Crawford then filed a federal lawsuit claiming she had been dismissed in retaliation for alleging harassment by Hughes.

A U.S. district judge and a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit. The courts said the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not apply to Crawford because she didn't raise harassment claims on her own but merely responded to investigators' questions.

The Bush administration is supporting Crawford. "Internal investigations are an integral aspect of Title VII and there is no reason to leave cooperating witnesses unprotected," said Solicitor General Paul Clement.

The justices also will review a separate case involving age-discrimination claims filed by former workers at the Knolls Atomic Power Lab.

The tobacco industry is trying to head off a wave of state-based challenges regarding the light cigarettes, even as it is appealing a federal judge's order to stop marketing cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild" because they mislead consumers.

The issue before the justices is whether state laws against unfair marketing practices may be used in suits against the tobacco companies or whether federal law bars such lawsuits. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act says states can't impose any requirements on the advertising or promotion of cigarettes.

A federal judge initially threw out a suit filed by three Maine residents against Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary that alleged the advertising of light cigarettes was unfair and deceptive.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reinstated the suit.

The Maine plaintiffs said they smoked Marlboro Lights, made by Philip Morris, for at least 15 years. They claim the company marketed the cigarettes as "light" and having "lowered tar and nicotine" despite knowing that those statements were false, in violation of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company has research, the plaintiffs say, that shows it knew that smokers of the light cigarettes took deeper puffs and used other techniques to ensure they received as much nicotine as they would have gotten from regular cigarettes.

Philip Morris said the lawsuit was properly dismissed by the federal judge and called on the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between appeals courts over these sorts of lawsuits. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans last year dismissed a similar suit.

In the government's landmark case against tobacco companies, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said the companies "distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting."

That case is on appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A separate federal lawsuit filed by smokers is pending in New York. The class-action suit alleges tobacco companies violated federal racketeering laws by promoting light cigarettes as lower-risk alternatives to regular cigarettes even though their internal documents showed they knew the risks were about the same. The class may consist of as many as 60 million people, lawyers say.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is considering whether the lawsuit can proceed as a class action or whether smokers must file suit individually.

The basics of the claims against the companies are similar in all the lawsuits: The companies knew that smokers may compensate for the lower tar and nicotine yields by taking deeper puffs, holding the smoke in their lungs longer or smoking more cigarettes.

The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed a brief in support of its chief rival, saying the financial stakes in the case are enormous.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also backing Altria, said the appeals court ruling could extend well beyond cigarette labels to product liability lawsuits against many industries.

But in the three-paragraph statement, Maynard said "it has now become an issue of public perception and public confidence in the courts."

Maynard helped form a 3-2 majority in November that overturned a multimillion-dollar judgment against Richmond, Va.-based Massey that another company, Harman Mining, and its president, Hugh Caperton, had won in a contract dispute. Caperton had asked Maynard to step down from the case before the high court reconsiders that ruling. With interest, the damages are worth $76.3 million.

Bruce Stanley, a lawyer for Caperton, declined to comment Friday until after discussing the development with his client.

A Massey spokesman did not immediately respond to a message requesting comment.

The photos of Maynard and Massey Energy chief Don Blankenship together in Monaco in 2006 were included in a revised court motion filed Monday.

Both men have said they were on separate vacations, and that each paid his own way. Maynard has also said his friendship with Blankenship has not affected his impartiality on the court.

In one picture, the men are sitting side-by-side, smiling over empty glasses at a cafe along the Riviera as the Mediterranean sun sets behind them. In others, they are posing by the seaside. Ten other photos were filed under seal, and depict the men with two female companions, the motion said.

The court must now appoint a replacement, likely a circuit judge or retired jurist, to sit in Maynard's place.

Harman Mining is also challenging the impartiality of another justice, Brent Benjamin, arguing he should step down because Blankenship spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign attacking another justice on the court that helped to boost Benjamin into office in 2004.

That recusal petition was filed late Thursday. Benjamin has not yet responded, court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy said Friday.

State court rules require judicial officers to disqualify themselves from proceedings if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or if they have "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer."

Caperton contends that he and his company were driven into bankruptcy by unfair and deceptive dealings by Massey, the country's fourth-largest coal producer. A Boone County jury awarded Harman and Caperton $50 million in damages, which later swelled to $76.3 million with interest.

In the 3-2 ruling in November, though, three justices including Maynard and Benjamin agreed that whatever its merits, the case should not have been pursued in West Virginia courts.

On Thursday, a settlement was announced in Washington in which Massey agreed to pay a $20 million fine over allegations it routinely polluted hundreds of streams and waterways in West Virginia and Kentucky with sediment-filled waste water and coal slurry.

Under the agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Massey also will invest millions of dollars for pollution control improvements at its 44 mines and coal facilities in the two states and in Virginia, the EPA and Justice Department said.

In fact, some lawyers who represent investors argue the high court decision involving cable company Charter Communications and two of its suppliers, made a clear distinction that justifies hearing the Enron case.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that shareholders cannot sue third parties in securities fraud cases, unless investors relied on their statements or representations when making investment decisions.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, on behalf of Charter shareholders, had accused the two suppliers of scheming to inflate company revenues in 2000.

Lawyers for investors point to sections of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, which they say makes a distinction between third parties involved in the goods and services arena and those involved in the investment sector.

"He repeatedly made that distinction. That distinction distinguishes Enron from Stoneridge," said Pamela Gilbert, a consultant for the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial bar association.

"Stoneridge involves a customer relationship. In Enron, the major wrongdoers are the investment banks involved in the financial transactions," Gilbert said.

"Party chairmen like the system, for obvious reasons, and people who run for the legislature are usually in a position where it's difficult to vote for something like this because their party leaders are opposed to it," state Sen. John DeFrancisco said after Wednesday's ruling. DeFrancisco, a Republican, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, the candidates run on the general election ballot, frequently without opposition.

Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group won a lawsuit challenging the system, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have the support of party leaders.

The rulings said candidates who are not the choice of party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The high court said the state legislature is free to change the system if it wishes.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch — who was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings — called the decision a "dreadful mistake."

"The county leaders will now continue to basically assure the appointment to the (state) Supreme Court of their candidates," Koch said.

The state legislature adopted the current system 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because they didn't want them to be corrupted by raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.