Congress has recognized that sometimes this power can be abused by managers who retaliate if they don't like something that employee has said or done.

This week, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases examining how, when – or even if – employees can fight back against such abuses of power. On Tuesday, the high court will examine whether a US postal worker can claim retaliation in a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because she says her supervisor refused to let her return to her old job because he didn't like her personally. Instead, he hired a younger, less experienced worker.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear the case of a former assistant manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant who alleges he was fired in retaliation for his repeated complaints about racial prejudice by his supervisor.

In both cases the laws cited do not explicitly authorize legal action in response to an act of retaliation. Lawyers for the employees say retaliation is a particularly virulent form of illegal discrimination and thus falls within the scope of the US's civil rights laws even when those laws don't specifically mention retaliation.

Lawyers for companies and supervisors counter that if Congress wanted to authorize lawsuits to punish acts of retaliation, it would have written it into each statute.

Much to the surprise of Nee's lawyers, Grabau started to issue his ruling close to 10 a.m., before closing arguments had been made. "The Commonwealth has proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt ..., " he began.

Several people gasped. Some of Nee's family and friends began sobbing. Nee's father, Thomas, stormed out of the crowded courtroom, red-faced, muttering "This is due process?"

But when Nee's lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, stood up and pointed out that he had not made his closing argument yet, the judge stopped short of announcing his decision and directed the lawyer to begin his closing argument.

Almost two hours later, following Drechsler's impassioned argument on behalf of his client, the judge issued his ruling, convicting Nee on one of three charges. Nee is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday.

Inside the packed courtroom yesterday, Nee embraced his sobbing mother, telling her: "It's all right. It's all right."

It was an emotional and dramatic conclusion to a four-day bench trial that included testimony from a dozen witnesses. It also marked the end of a disturbing case that sent shockwaves through the town of Marshfield in the fall of 2004, when Nee and his friend, 16-year-old Tobin Kerns, were accused of conspiring to kill students and faculty at Marshfield High.

Authorities learned about the plan in September of that year, when Nee went to police with two classmates and told officers that Kerns was planning a massacre at the school. Nee told police the plan involved taking ammunition and explosive devices into the school, securing the school's exit doors with bicycle locks, and shooting students and staff.

Police arrested Kerns the following day.

Police didn't arrest Nee until a month later, after friends of Kerns implicated Nee as the mastermind of the plot. The two youths were once close friends; Nee even lived at the Kerns's home for a month during the spring of 2004.

Kerns's father, Ben, said that the boys had a falling out and that he believed Nee was trying to frame his son.

A grand jury returned indictments against Nee and Kerns in October 2004, charging both with conspiracy to commit murder, promotion of anarchy, and threatened use of deadly weapons at a school. Kerns and Nee pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Kerns was tried and found guilty of threatening to use deadly weapons and conspiracy to commit murder. In November, he was sentenced to 10 months in jail. He is being held at the Plymouth House of Correction.

In his closing argument yesterday, Drechsler cited a lack of physical evidence in Nee's case and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimony.

Nee never planned to take part in the alleged plot, Drechsler said.

"My client was the first one who went to the police," he said. "Do the actions of Joe Nee bespeak of someone who intended to attack the school and kill people?"

Assistant District Attorney Karen O'Sullivan gave the judge the prosecution's point of view.

"The defendant's motive for going to police was to save himself," she said. "The defendant did not have intimate knowledge [of the plan] because he had overheard Mr. Kerns; the plan was as much his as it was Kerns's.

"This was more than a couple of teenagers shooting their mouths off," she said.

Grabau could sentence Nee to as much as 20 years in prison or let him go. Since January 2005, Nee has been free on $20,000 cash bail.

He is currently a student at Bunker Hill Community College.

Lawyers on both sides of the case said they were satisfied with the judge's ruling.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said he was pleased Nee was convicted on what he believed to be "the most serious" of the three charges.

"I'm hopeful the town of Marshfield will be able to heal from this," he said. "I'm hopeful that the two young men charged with these crimes will get their acts together and try to be good citizens."

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration to inform recipients in the program that they can change Medicaid plans every year. It also asks for undisclosed damages for all of the 200,000 participants.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Broward County residents. But it is being expanded to the class action, said Shawn Boehringer, a lawyer with Legal Aid of Broward County. The lawyers haven't yet told Northeast Floridians of their part in the lawsuit. That will come later, he said.

Lawyers for the state have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming health care providers already tell people they can change their plan every year and that the three original plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue because they aren't participants in the pilot program.

According to the lawsuit, federal law lets recipients change plans at any time if they have "good cause," but notices sent to program participants didn't explain that adequately.

The state also failed to provide the required notice letting people know they can change their Medicaid plan, or drop it, once a year, the suit says.

Reaction to the pilot program has been all over the map in Florida. A Georgetown University study surveyed 186 physicians in Duval and Broward counties last year and found doctors unhappy with the program and refusing to participate.

But Jay Millson, executive vice president of the Duval Medical Society, said the reaction to the pilot program has been largely positive.

The Nassau County Commission asked the state to exempt the county from the program, but the state refused.

Nassau County Commissioner Mike Boyle said his constituents didn't see a need for the program because they thought Medicaid was fine before.

Pat Glynn, executive director of First Coast Advantage, which manages the care of about 15,000 people with Medicaid in Duval County, said the reaction to the pilot program has been positive.

"I'm sure there are things we can do better, but for the most part the people seem happy," he said, adding that many of the concerns came from people who weren't yet familiar with how the program works.

The Kansas Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a grand jury from obtaining patient records from a physician who is one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.

The grand jury is investigating whether Dr. George Tiller has broken Kansas laws restricting abortion, as many abortion opponents allege. The grand jury subpoenaed the medical files of about 2,000 women, including some who decided against having abortions.

Abortion opponents forced Sedgwick County to convene the grand jury by submitting petitions, the second such citizen investigation since 2006 of Tiller, who has long been at the center of the nation's abortion battle. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and eight years later a woman shot him in both arms.

Tiller's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to quash the grand jury's subpoenas, and the court agreed to block their enforcement until it considers the issue.

Chief Justice Kay McFarland said Tiller's challenge raised "significant issues" about patients' privacy and a grand jury's power to subpoena records.

The Sedgwick County prosecutor presenting evidence to the grand jury had objected to the attempts to block the subpoenas, noting that the grand jury's term is limited, but McFarland said the grand jury's term can be extended.

The court set a Feb. 11 deadline for legal arguments in favor of allowing the subpoenas. Tiller's attorneys then have until Feb. 25 to respond.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, called the high court's decision "extremely disappointing."

"There is no way to determine if the reasons for these late abortions were done within the narrow legal criteria without looking at the records themselves," she said. "His lawyers say they are worried about women's privacy. They are worried about protecting Dr. Tiller."

Tiller's attorneys, Dan Monnat and Lee Thompson, did not immediately return calls seeking comment Tuesday.

The grand jury is seeking records of all women who visited Tiller's clinic between July 2003 and last month and were at least 22 weeks pregnant at the time. The grand jury also subpoenaed information about current and former employees and referring physicians.

The edited patient records would not have the women's names, but they would have patient identification numbers. Tiller's attorneys claimed in court last week that in an earlier investigation, former Attorney General Phill Kline was able to track down patients' names using the identifying numbers on patients' files.

A spokesman for Kline, who is now Johnson County district attorney, denied that any patients had ever been identified.

Kline eventually filed 30 misdemeanor charges against Tiller before leaving office last year, only to see the case dismissed for jurisdictional reasons.

Callahan asked the Supreme Court Wednesday afternooon to stop the execution.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments in a Kentucky challenge to lethal injection, a case that has delayed executions nationwide. A ruling is unlikely before spring. Alabama uses lethal injection in its executions.

In a 2-1 decision, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday lifted the stay granted by U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins in Montgomery on Dec. 14.

The court said Callahan waited too late to challenge the method of execution.

Callahan, who is now scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Thursday at Holman prison near Atmore, was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of Jacksonville State University student Rebecca Suzanne Howell on Feb. 4, 1982.

Authorities said she was abducted from a coin laundry in Jacksonville and raped before being strangled and dumped in Tallasseehatchee Creek.

In lifting the stay, the 11th Circuit ruling said it did not make any finding on "the relative merits of Callahan's constitutional claim because we conclude the claim is barred by the statue of limitations."

Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Susan Black, forming the majority, said the two-year time deadline began on July 31, 2002, when Callahan selected lethal injection as the method by which he would be put to death. They said he waited more than two years after the deadline expired to challenge lethal injection.

In dissent, Judge Charles Wilson said the time period to file a challenge does not begin "until the prisoner knows or has reason to know the facts giving rise to his claim and the prisoner's execution becomes imminent."

Wilson said the majority's approach "requires a death-sentenced prisoner to file a method-of-execution claim years before his execution is to take place, during which time the challenged protocol could be materially changed."

In his Dec. 14 order, Watkins wrote that the public interest would not be served by an unconstitutional execution, and Callahan's constitutional challenge should be resolved first. The judge said it would be "a waste of judicial resources" to hold a trial on Callahan's suit before the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the Kentucky case.

The state attorney general's office had opposed a stay and appealed to the 11th Circuit.

On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court stopped the execution of another Alabama death row inmate, Tommy Arthur, one day before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection at Holman prison. That stay also stemmed from the pending Kentucky case.

Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton and a one-time aide to Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, has been in the House of Representatives for all seven of Bush's State of the Union speeches.

On three occasions he was the only justice to cross the street from the court to the Capitol. In addition, Breyer also was the only justice at Bush's first speech to Congress in 2001, a couple months after the justices voted 5-4 to stop Florida's ballot recount and ensure Bush's presidency. Breyer had opposed halting the recount.

Breyer was joined Monday by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.

Roberts and Alito, Bush's two court appointees, have attended all three speeches since joining the court.

The last time Breyer missed the State of the Union was in 2000, in Clinton's last year in office. He had the flu.

That speech was the only time in recent memory when no justice was present, other than in 1986, when the speech was rescheduled because of the explosion of the Challenger shuttle.

Justices typically have said little about why they do or don't attend the speech. One exception is Justice Antonin Scalia, who hasn't gone in at least nine years.

Scalia, commenting in 2000, said the speech has become increasingly partisan — a potential problem for justices who customarily refrain from applauding anything even remotely political.

"One side will clap for this, and then the other side will clap for that," Scalia said. "And you know, we sit there like bumps on a log."

___

Put the second woman on the Supreme Court together with the first woman on Great Britain's highest court and what do you get? A conversation about bathrooms, of course.

"Everybody's got a bathroom story, haven't they?" said Lady Brenda Hale, the first woman Law Lord, at a recent forum at Georgetown University's law school with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg recalled that when she joined the court in 1993, court workers altered the woman's bathroom adjacent to the room where the justices put on their robes to make it as large as the men's room. But it took a letter from advice columnist Dear Abby to get the court to change its tradition and open public women's bathrooms before 9 a.m., she said.

Sandra Day O'Connor, named to the Supreme Court in 1981, "had taken care of most of the irrationalities before I got there," Ginsburg said.

Hale told her own tale of being informed there was no women's restroom at the Privy Council, the final appeals court for the British empire.

The trailblazing judges also discussed recent changes in England that include renaming the high court the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, moving the court from Parliament to its own building and instituting mandatory retirement at 75.

Hale, also known as the Baroness Hale of Richmond, said the age limit was a response to colleagues "who went on long beyond it was sensible for them to go on, but were not sufficiently incompetent to be removed."

Ginsburg noted with relief that there is no retirement age for U.S. judges. She will turn 75 in March.