The court heard argument in a challenge from Australian investors who want to sue the Melbourne-based National Australia Bank for securities fraud in U.S. federal court. The investors say they should have access to American courts because the claim of fraud relies on the actions of a bank-owned mortgage servicing company in Florida.

But none of the justices appeared to accept the investors' argument.

"Australian plaintiffs, Australian defendants, shares purchased in Australia. It has Australia written all over it," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "Isn't the most appropriate choice the law of Australia rather than the law of United States?"

The court could use the case to clarify whether and when disputes over international dealings can be resolved in American courts, which often are more generous to plaintiffs than foreign courts.

Business interests and the governments of Australia, France and Great Britain are urging the court rule in favor of the bank.

As lawsuits over Toyota acceleration problems multiply nationwide, more than 150 attorneys gathered Wednesday to sharpen their legal skills on the eve of a major federal court hearing on whether dozens of cases will be consolidated before a single judge.

The main topic at the conference, organized by legal publisher HarrisMartin, was today's scheduled hearing before a panel of federal judges in San Diego who will choose whether to combine more than 100 Toyota lawsuits and where to send them.

Lawyers for people suing Toyota and the company itself have suggested 19 jurisdictions, according to court documents. But the panel is not required to pick from that list.

"You have consumers that have been affected in every state," said Howard Bushman, a Miami attorney whose recent cases included a $24 million settlement for AIDS patients who paid for a drug they didn't need.

Toyota has been hit with an avalanche of lawsuits that could cost it billions of dollars after its recall of 8 million vehicles worldwide, including about 6 million in the U.S., over sudden unexpected acceleration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has linked 52 deaths to the accelerator problems, which Toyota has blamed on floor mats that can snag accelerator pedals or on pedals that sometimes stick.

The state was the first to legalize medicinal marijuana use, with voters passing it in 1996. Since then, 14 states have followed California's lead, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end failed marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We really can't overstate the significance of Californians being the first to have the opportunity to end this public policy disaster."

California is not alone in the push to expand legal use of marijuana. Legislators in Rhode Island, another state hit hard by the economic downturn, are considering a plan to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less by anyone 18 or older.

A proposal to legalize the sale and use of marijuana in Washington was recently defeated in that state's legislature, though lawmakers there did expand the pool of medical professionals that could prescribe the drug for medicinal use.

And a group in Nevada is pushing an initiative that marks the state's fourth attempt in a decade to legalize the drug.

The California secretary of state's office certified the initiative for the general election ballot Wednesday after it was determined that supporters had gathered enough valid signatures.

Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, accused of insider trading along with several associates, won a suspension of a court order to hand over wiretap evidence to U.S. market regulators, pending appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ordered a stay in favor of Rajaratnam and co-defendant Danielle Chiesi on Wednesday after a lower court order in February compelled them to disclose wiretap evidence gathered in the criminal case.

Lawyers for Sri Lanka-born U.S. citizen Rajaratnam and former New Castle Funds LLC trader Chiesi are seeking to suppress 18,000 recordings in what U.S. prosecutors describe as the biggest hedge fund insider trading case in the United States.

A trial on civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was set to start in August before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff.

Rajaratnam's lawyers argued before a three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday that the use of the recordings in the SEC case ignored "the plain text" of the wiretap statute and privacy concerns.

A federal appeals court says Philadelphia's two major daily newspapers can deny creditors the right to use about $300 million owed them to bid at an upcoming bankruptcy auction.

Monday's split 2-1 decision upholds a lower court ruling in a bitter dispute for control of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.

The panel says the bankruptcy code "unambiguously permits" a debtor to craft any plan that gives lenders a clear equivalent of their secured interest. The opinion says lenders have no statutory right to bid with the company's IOUs.

An auction is set for next month.

A local ownership group — comprised of two current and one new investor — hopes to win the auction with a bid of $67 million in cash and real estate.

All the men argued that the state violated their Sixth Amendment due process rights because they were sentenced to death by a judge instead of a jury, as required under the 2002 federal decision.

But in a unanimous ruling handed down Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that their cases were all appealed and the judgments made final before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was issued — and that 2002 decision can't be retroactively applied to the Idaho inmates' cases.

All six inmates have appeals in various stages of state and federal court that will now move forward.

An appellate court has upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

In a separate 3-0 ruling, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Sacramento athiest Michael Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.