Every morning, they don their black robes, take their seats and listen to the pleas of a long line of immigrants desperate to stay in America. The pace is fast, the pressure intense, the stories sometimes haunting. The work, these judges say, is exhausting:

"The volume is constant and unrelenting.' ... 'There is not enough time to think.' ... 'Nobody gives a damn about us!' ... 'I know I couldn't do this job if I were not on medication for depression or did not have access to competent psychological care myself.' ... 'I cannot take this place anymore. What a dismal job this is!'"

These are the voices of immigration judges who determine the fate of tens of thousands of people every year - illegal border crossers, visa violators, refugees who flee China, El Salvador, Iran and other countries, each making a case to remain here.

These judges are at the heart of a bloated immigration court system saddled by explosive growth, a troubled reputation and a record backlog, according to one estimate, of nearly 268,000 cases. The problems are drawing increased scrutiny of a little-seen world where justice can seem arbitrary, lives can remain in limbo for years - and blame seems to be in abundance.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a massive sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of at least 500,000 women claiming that Wal-Mart favors men over women in pay and promotions.

The justices suggested that they are troubled by lower court decisions allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed against the world's largest retailer.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the high court, said he is unsure "what the unlawful policy is" that Wal-Mart engaged in to deprive women of pay increases and promotions comparable to men.

Billions of dollars are at stake in the case. Class actions create pressure on businesses to settle claims and create the potential for large judgments.

Wal-Mart denies it discriminates against its female employees.

But Joseph Sellers, the lawyer for the women, said that lower courts were persuaded by statistical and other evidence put forth so far in the 10-year-old lawsuit.

Sellers said a strong corporate culture at Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters that stereotyped women as less aggressive than men translated into individual pay and promotions decisions at the more than 3,400 Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs stores across the country.

The slim margin between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and his challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg, has grown slightly in favor of the incumbent as late election numbers are tallied.

But the race that reflected Wisconsin's fight over union rights is still too close to call Wednesday morning. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, conservative-leaning Prosser is leading Kloppenburg by 835 votes. Final, official results could vary and a recount appears likely.

The race highlights the divide in the state over Republican Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining law, which would strip public workers of nearly all their union rights. The issue, which could ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court, has propelled the relatively unknown Kloppenburg into prominence and heightened voter interest in the election.

Federal authorities have charged two men with running an insider trading scheme that netted more than $30 million with information stolen from law firms.
Garrett Bauer is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J., on Wednesday afternoon. Matthew Kluger will make his first appearance in federal court in Alexandria, Va.

They're accused of trading on inside information stolen from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco and Hong Kong.

Authorities also allege the decades-long scheme used information stolen from prominent New York law firms Cravath Swaine & Moore and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Two women who had sales jobs with Eaton Corp. have sued the Cleveland-based manufacturer alleging gender discrimination.

The two filed the class-action lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in New York City. They worked in Eaton offices in New York and New Jersey.

The women allege they were paid less than male counterparts, were passed over for promotions and suffered harassment that led to one woman having a heart attack.

Spokesman Scott Schroeder (SHROH'-dehr) says the company generally doesn't comment on pending lawsuits but is committed to fair and equal treatment of employees. He says Eaton doesn't discriminate.

The lawsuit seeks $150 million in damages for what could be hundreds of current or former employees. The suit also seeks changes in the alleged discriminatory pay and promotion policies.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered Health Net Inc., a major health maintenance organization, to cover more than $180 million in claims by consumers, health care providers and creditors in Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon told The Advocate that Louisiana will get the smallest portion of the payout.

"We have about $12 million coming to us to policyholders, providers and general creditors, meaning companies who sold them supplies or that rented them space," Donelon said.

Donelon said the unanimous ruling, issued Friday, will reimburse all of AmCare Louisiana HMO's members, providers, and creditors for any losses caused by Health Net's conduct.

Health Net sold health plans in the three states to AmCareco Inc. in 1999. In 2002, the troubled health plans were placed under state supervision. Each of the state's insurance departments sued AmCareco and Health Net, alleging fraud, negligence, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

In 2005, a state district court jury awarded the Texas plaintiffs around $100 million in damages. In 2005, a state judge in Baton Rouge issued similar verdicts against Health Net and awarded $30 million to the Louisiana and Oklahoma plaintiffs.

A sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart on behalf of at least 500,000 past and present female employees appeared to be on the verge of unraveling at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, as conservative justices questioned the rationale for holding the retail giant accountable for store-level decisions.

In particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, said the women's claims seemed contradictory. The plaintiffs said on the one hand that Wal-Mart was infused with sex bias, Kennedy said, and on the other hand that the company provided no standards to store managers who made the personnel decisions.

"It seems to me there's an inconsistency there, and I'm just not sure what the unlawful policy is," Kennedy said during the one-hour argument.

The women's lawyer, Joseph Sellers, replied that the only contradiction was between Wal-Mart's professed policy of nondiscrimination and its practice of paying women less than men and promoting them less often.

The Wal-Mart suit was filed in San Francisco by six women nearly a decade ago. Lower courts have certified it as a class action on behalf of female employees who have worked at the chain's retail stores and Sam's Club warehouses since December 1998.