"The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in his filing.

"This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said.

Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote earlier this month, overturned the high court's May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other plaintiffs have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change.

Attorney Joe Sandler told a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday that his clients' lawsuit against the federal Drug Enforcement Administration should move forward so that the farmers might have a chance to use their state permits to grow hemp for seeds and oil. The lawsuit was dismissed in U.S. District Court.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the farmers — state Rep. David Monson and Wayne Hauge — can cultivate hemp under North Dakota laws without violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Hemp is related to the illegal drug marijuana, and under the federal law, parts of an industrial hemp plant are considered controlled substances.

Sandler argued that while hemp plants might fall under the federal law, the law doesn't apply because the parts of the plant that could be considered a drug would never leave the farms. He also underlined the differences between marijuana and the crop the farmers want to grow, saying the judge who dismissed the case incorrectly treated marijuana and hemp as the same thing.

Industrial hemp is legally grown in several countries, including Canada, and the U.S. imports many products made from hemp seed, oil and fiber. The plant has much lower concentrations of the psychoactive chemical THC found in marijuana plants.

Melissa Patterson, a Justice Department attorney, told the appeals panel that Congress does have the power to regulate the crop in this case and that Congress has determined through the Controlled Substances Act that the plants, whether used for drugs or not, should be restricted.

In a 6-0 decision, the court said the fees permitted under the 1999 Check Cashers Act were really triple-digit interest rates. The state constitution limits interest rates on loans to 17 percent.

"Because that fee is in reality an amount owed to the lender in return for the use of borrowed money, we must conclude that the fees authorized clearly constitute interest," Justice Paul Danielson wrote.

Through a payday loan in Arkansas, a customer writing a check for $400, for example, typically would receive $350. The lender would keep the check for about two weeks before cashing it.

The customer could buy back the check for $350 during that two-week period, but otherwise would pay the full $400 when the company cashed his check. The $50 charge on a $350 loan for 14 days equates to 371 percent, well above Arkansas' usury limit.

Attorney Todd Turner, who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the Check Cashers Act, said the ruling means it will be impossible for payday lenders to operate in the state.

"It's great for all the Arkansas residents who have been paying 600 percent for these loans," Turner said.

Tom Hardin, attorney for the Arkansas Financial Services Association that sought to preserve the law, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Even before Thursday's ruling, the number of payday lenders in the state has dwindled in response to threats of lawsuits from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. An advocacy group said in a report last month that the number of payday lenders operating in the state has dropped from 237 in March to just 33.

In its 6-0 decision, the court overturned a Pulaski County judge who last year ruled that the 1999 act was constitutional.

The pop duo's lawsuit says they learned in April 2007 that an unidentified singer-songwriter had used "Maneater" in a 2006 recording.

The papers, filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, claim Warner/Chappell Music Inc. breached its publishing contract with Hall and Oates by refusing "in bad faith" to sue for copyright infringement.

The singers seek unspecified money damages and want to terminate their agreement with Warner/Chappell.

A Warner/Chappell spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment on Thursday.

Hall and Oates' hits, which came mostly in the 1970s and '80s, also include "Rich Girl," "Private Eyes" and "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)."

The justices, in an order Monday, accepted the appeal of prosecutors in Alaska. They asked the court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling in favor of William Osborne, who was convicted of rape, kidnapping and assault in an attack on a prostitute in 1993.

The woman was raped at gunpoint, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near the Anchorage International Airport.

Osborne admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly identified Osborne as having participated in the crimes. The testing would be done on a condom and hairs found by investigators.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, said Osborne has a right to subject the evidence to advanced DNA testing that was not available at the time of his trial.

Forty-four states and the federal government have laws that give convicts access to DNA testing, but Alaska does not.

Osborne urged the court to reject the appeal, saying that because so many states have laws on the topic, it rarely arises in federal court.

Prosecutors argued that even if testing determines that the hairs and sperm are not Osborne's, other evidence introduced at his trial is sufficient to leave his conviction in place. That matter is not before the high court.