Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.

The AP examined about a quarter of the fund's total contributions, and found only two that came from businesses.

The willingness of thousands of individual Americans to contribute to the Arizona fund illustrates broad concern and frustration over border security and illegal immigration. The state's legislation has since renewed calls for broader immigration changes.

The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law generally must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.

A Toronto-based law firm with a history of targeting litigation at corporations as varied as chocolate companies and silicone breast implant manufacturers has a new company in the crosshairs: Facebook.

Merchant Law Group, which has offices in 10 Canadian cities, last week launched litigation seeking class action status against the massive social-networking site, alleging the mishandling of sensitive user data--the latest development in a resurgence of action against the social network's privacy policies, after it looked for a while as if all the fuss had calmed down.

The suit alleges that Facebook changed user privacy settings and its terms of service without adequate consent from users, rendering a significant amount of information public to the Web when it had once been protected. The lead plaintiff is a Winnipeg, Manitoba, resident named Donald J. Woligroski, and the complaint alleges that he "has been subject to, inter alia, breach of privacy and the misappropriation of his personal information and, in the addition or alternative, the conversion of said information for commercial use through the materially deceptive conduct of the Defendant"--that defendant being Facebook.

Patton Boggs LLP, which operates one of Denver's top 20 law offices, is acquiring the Breaux-Lott Leadership Group, a Washington firm that includes former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., as well as former Sen. John Breaux, D-La.

Lott and Breaux will join Patton Boggs' D.C. office as special senior counsel along with their sons, John Breaux Jr. and Chester Trent Lott Jr.; three public policy advisers; and three staff members.

"This acquisition is a strategic coup and a cornerstone for our bipartisan growth," said Thomas Hale Boggs Jr., chairman of Washington-based Patton Boggs in a statement.

Over the past year, the firm has added former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, former commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Suedeen Kelly and a veteran in the pharmaceutical and food and drug sectors, Dick Thompson.

Patton Boggs' core practice areas are public policy and regulatory, litigation, business and intellectual property. It has offices in Denver as well as New York, New Jersey, Dallas, Anchorage, northern Virginia and internationally in Doha, Qatar; and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Elena Kagan as “well-qualified,” the highest mark the committee offers.

Since 1953, the ABA has had a role in reviewing the qualifications of federal court nominees, including Supreme Court nominees.  A committee of 15 members — two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the 12 other federal judicial circuits and one who serves as chair — measures the individual’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. 

While the standing committee insulates its work from all other activities of the association, ABA president Carolyn Lamm is familiar with the procedures used to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications.  Lamm served as chair of the committee from 1995 to 1996. 

Lamm explained, “In terms of legal competence, you’re looking at legal, analytical ability.  You’re looking at what they’ve written, how they’ve argued, whether they’ve argued — how they’ve done it.  We listen to opponents, or from those on the same side and from judges to find out, how did they do as lawyers and what is their legal ability?”

A comprehensive evaluation is conducted by interviewing a broad spectrum of the legal community, reviewing pertinent materials written by the nominee, and interviewing the nominee personally.  After the evaluation is complete, the findings are assembled into a report which is reviewed by each member of the standing committee who then individually rates the nominee as either “well-qualified,” “qualified” or “not-qualified.”  The majority vote constitutes the official rating of the ABA standing committee.

To merit a “well-qualified” rating, a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.  Kagan’s well-qualified rating was unanimous with one abstention.

Investigations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court differ in respect to other federal nominees in that they are conducted after the president has selected a nominee; they involve all members of the standing committee; a team or teams of law professors examine the nominee’s legal writings; and a group of practicing lawyers with Supreme Court experience also examines the writings.

Kagan currently serves as solicitor general of the United States.  She was nominated to fill the seat of John Paul Stevens, who will step down at the end of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term.

When asked how the standing committee evaluates nominees who may not have had prior judicial experience, standing committee chair Kim Askew noted, “There are many, many judges who have served on courts who have never been judges and are very effective judges.  We look at what they do and we go to the three criteria — professional competence, integrity, and temperament — and we look at what they have done in their legal careers in the practice of law, which may or may not be on a bench.”

The past five U.S. Supreme Court nominees were also found well-qualified by the committee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its confirmation hearing for Kagan on June 28.  Kim Askew, the chair of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has been invited to testify relating to the standing committee’s rating.

Lawyers for thousands of Sept. 11 responders are back in a New York City court trying to rally support for a deal that would end a seven-year legal fight over the toxic fallout caused by the collapse of the World Trade Center.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein earlier this month gave his preliminary approval to a deal that would resolve lawsuits filed by nearly 10,000 police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing the city over their exposure to toxic ash. He was scheduled to hear more testimony on the settlement Wednesday.

Opponents of the deal may be given a chance to speak against it, although the judge has indicated he favors it.

The settlement would pay between $625 million and $712.5 million, depending on how many people take it.

A Texas judge charged with closing her court before a death row inmate could file a last-minute appeal is headed before a state disciplinary panel.

Judge Sharon Keller on Friday faces five counts of judicial misconduct. The hearing comes nearly three years after she said "We close at 5" while attorneys for a condemned man scrambled to file an appeal hours before his execution.

Keller is presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct could dismiss the charges or recommend she be removed from the bench.

Keller faces no criminal charges. The commission has urged removal of a judge who wasn't under indictment only six times since 2002.

Prosecutors say they'll present a case where the removal option is "on the table."

City lawyers called on local Boy Scout officials to muster "the courage of their convictions" and challenge their national group's ban on gays as a trial over government funding opened Tuesday.

The city of Philadelphia wants to end its $1-a-year lease to the local Boy Scouts chapter unless it rejects a Boy Scouts of America policy banning "avowed" gays. The city says the national rule violates a local law banning discrimination on sexual-orientation and other grounds.

Local scout chapters, including the Cradle of Liberty Council in Philadelphia, have struggled in recent years to satisfy both public and private funders as well as their national leadership's dictums. The Boy Scout oath calls for members to be "morally straight," which the national group interprets to mean that gays cannot participate.

In 2004, the Philadelphia chapter agreed to ban any "unlawful" discrimination. But the city said the policy didn't go far enough, given that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 had said scouts and other private organizations can legally restrict membership.