The decision could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election and for southern Democrats, in particular, to draw friendly electoral boundaries after the 2010 Census.

The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, came in the case of a North Carolina plan that sought to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.

While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district. The case dealt with the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to "elect representatives of their choice."

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court would not extend the law to those so-called crossover districts. The 50 percent "rule draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike," Kennedy said in striking down a North Carolina legislative district.

In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.

Defense attorney Ira Lee Sorkin's late father once had an account with Madoff. The lawyer also represented two Madoff-linked accountants in a securities case 17 years ago.

Madoff is expected to say he doesn't mind the potential conflict.

Prosecutors have sought a hearing Tuesday before Judge Denny Chin in federal court.

The court appearance is expected to be a warmup to Madoff's Thursday plea hearing when he is expected to plead guilty in the case. At least 25 investors have indicated they'd like to speak Thursday.

The 70-year-old Madoff was arrested in December and accused in a $50 billion fraud.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., who is being sued by Star Scientific, Inc.

Star Scientific, Inc. says R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. infringed on its patents on a way to cure tobacco minimizing the formation of tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNA, which may be carcinogenic.

But a trial court says the patents are unenforceable, because the inventor kept from the Patent and Trademark Office key documents and information — including that low-TSNA tobacco already had been grown in the U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that decision, saying a judge cannot throw a patent out without clear and convincing evidence that a deception was intentional.

R.J. Reynolds lawyers wanted the high court to look at the case again, saying the appeals court ignored previous rulings on how to judge when a patent applicant doesn't turn over all required information.

At issue is the case of William Osborne, who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago. He won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt, says Osborne, who has admitted his guilt in a bid for parole.

But several justices said something more should be required, including a sworn declaration of innocence that would hold out the prospect of additional punishment for lying under oath.

One condition, Justice David Souter said, is that an "individual claiming the right to test claims that he is actually innocent."

People who waived DNA testing at the time of their trial also might not be able to test it later, some justices suggested.

The Obama administration, backing Alaska prosecutors, urged the court to reject the ruling of the federal appeals court in San Francisco in favor of Osborne.

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was too broad and would erase the requirement in the federal DNA testing law that a person must assert his innocence under penalty of perjury before getting access to the evidence.

Osborne has never made that claim and in fact admitted his guilt as part of his parole proceedings, Katyal said.

In an order Monday, the justices are ending Marcus Borden's fight against the East Brunswick, N.J., school district's policy that forbids him and other staff members from joining in student-led prayer. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia sided with the district.

The high court declined to weigh in on whether Borden's desire to bow his head silently and "take a knee" with his football players violates the Constitution's prohibition on government endorsement of religion. Borden says such gestures are secular.

The school district says Borden, the East Brunswick coach since 1983, had a long history of leading prayers before he was ordered to stop. The district says the issue is whether its policy is constitutional, not Borden's actions.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia agreed that the school district policy is constitutional, but the judges differed on what exactly the coach should do when his team prays.

The case is Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, 08-482.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered last week that the answers provided on the forms, which are intended to root out bias in selecting a jury, should be off limits to the public. There are more than 60 questions on the forms including potential jurors' opinion of Bonds and whether they've followed the issue of steroid use in professional sports.

The forms also include a potential juror's name, age, gender, level of education, job, criminal record and any ethical, religious or political views that would influence the juror's decision making, as well as other personal information.

The Associated Press, ESPN, Hearst Corp., The New York Times Co., ABC-subsidiary KGO, KNTV Television Inc., NBC subsidiary KNBC-TV, The Los Angeles Times, the Medianews Group and Sports Illustrated publisher Time Inc. filed court papers seeking public access to the forms.

Media company lawyers argued that the questionnaires should be considered part of the jury-selection process, which is required to be done in open court. The lawyers noted that neither Bonds' lawyers nor federal prosecutors have asked the judge to seal the documents.

"Here, there is no valid basis for keeping the public in the dark about the answers provided by prospective and trial jurors," the papers stated.

The home run king's trial begins Monday, when potential jurors throughout the Bay Area are summoned to the federal courthouse in San Francisco to fill out the forms. The slugger's lawyers, prosecutors and the judge will question them in person about their answers beginning on Tuesday.

In a ruling announced Wednesday, a New York judge says trustees managing Helmsley's estate can distribute her funds to a broad range of charities.

Helmsley died in August 2007. She left instructions in one of the documents relating to her charitable trust that money be donated to help care for dogs, as well as other charities.

Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge Troy Webber ruled that trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust have sole discretion for which charities should get the Helmsley fortune.

Trust spokesman Howard Rubenstein says the trustees will announce the first grants from the foundation next month.