The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the consolidated cases of Munaf v. Geren and Geren v. Omar where the Court is considering whether federal courts have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by American citizens detained by US military personnel operating under a multinational force. The cases also present the issue of whether a federal court would have jurisdiction over a habeas petition filed by an American citizen if a foreign court convicted the citizen of a crime, but the citizen is still in the physical custody of American authorities. Mohammad Munaf was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Baghdad, and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in April 2007 that it lacked authority to interfere with the Iraqi court case. Two months earlier, however, the same court ruled that Shawqi Omar, arrested for allegedly harboring insurgents in Iraq, has a right to argue his case in US courts. The appeals court blocked Omar's transfer to Iraqi courts. Earlier this month, Munaf's conviction was overturned by an Iraqi appeals court. Lawyers for the detainees argued that because they are in US custody, they should have access to US courts, but several justices seemed to reject that argument, noting that could lead to any Multi-National Force-Iraq detainee challenging their arrest in US courts. AP has more.

The Court also heard oral arguments in United States v. Ressam, where "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam is challenging his conviction under 18 USC § 844(h)(2), which authorizes a mandatory minimum ten year jail term for anyone carrying explosives while committing a felony. In Ressam's case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the count as the underlying felony - lying on customs papers - was not related to the explosives charge. Ressam has been sentenced to 22 years in prison  for plotting to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999. US Attorney General Michael Mukasey argued the case on behalf of the government.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected aconservative group's legal fight to air commercials promoting a moviecritical of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The case, rejected on jurisdictional grounds, was appealed after afederal District Court refused to issue a preliminary injunctionclearing the way for the promotions.

At issue was whetherbroadcast ads promoting the 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie"are subject to strict campaign finance laws on political advocacy, orwould be considered a constitutionally protected form of commercialspeech.

Citizens United, a Washington-based advocacyorganization, had urged the justices to accept its appeal on anexpedited basis this spring, in time for the ads to have an impact onthe election season.

Clinton is in a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination with Sen. Barack Obama.

WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday thatTexas can execute a Mexican murderer being held on its death row. Thecase pitted President Bush against his home state in a dispute overfederal authority, local sovereignty and foreign treaties.

The man at the center of the case, Jose Ernesto Medellin, faces execution for two slayings.

At issue was whether the state must give in to demands by the presidentto allow the prisoner new court hearings and sentencing.

Bushmade that demand reluctantly, after an international court concludedMedellin was improperly denied access to his consulate before hisoriginal prosecution -- a violation of a treaty signed by the UnitedStates decades ago.

The Supreme Court justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the state's position.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that theinternational court's ruling "is not domestic law," so Bush's authorityto demand a new hearing for Medellin is limited.

Medellin was 18 when he participated in the June 1993 gang rape andmurder of two Harris County, Texas, girls -- 14-year-old JenniferErtman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena. He was later convicted of thecrimes and sentenced to death.

In one of the first rulings of its kind, a Staten Island judge has said that a teenage girl could be charged with violating a restraining order by using MySpace.com to reach out to people she was told not to contact.

The girl, Melisa Fernino, 16, of West Brighton, Staten Island, was charged with three counts of criminal contempt in September after she was accused of sending a MySpace "friend request" to Sandra Delgrosso and her two daughters on August 23. The order was put in place after Fernino made several violent threats against Delgrosso, who had dated her father, and against her two daughters, said a Staten Island official who insisted on anonymity because the case originated in Family Court, where proceedings are private.

On Wednesday, Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. of Staten Island Criminal Court turned down Fernino's request to dismiss the contempt charges, ruling that MySpace was a form of contact just like speaking in person or by telephone and that the order of restraint had barred any sort of contact with the Delgrossos. The judge's decision was reported in The Staten Island Advance.

In documents filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, federal prosecutors asked a judge to halt a federal civil lawsuit that accused Pittsburgh-based Alcoa of bribing officials through overseas shell companies to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments.

"The United States has a direct and substantial interest in this case, as the subject matter giving rise to this case is also the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation," prosecutors in the Justice Department's fraud section said in court filings.

Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C., also known as Alba, in which the Bahrain government holds a 77 percent stake, is seeking more than $1 billion in damages from Alcoa and other affiliated defendants, according to a federal lawsuit filed last month.

"The Alba complaint alleges numerous facts which, if true, could be relevant to the government's criminal investigation and a potential criminal trial," prosecutors said in court filings.

The disbarment order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had been expected.

"When a member of the bar is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory," the appeals court ruled.

Last May, a court panel that oversees lawyer ethics recommended that Libby be stripped of his law license in Washington. The Board on Professional Responsibility then found that Libby's conviction for lying to the FBI about the case of former CIA operative Valerie Plame amounted to "crimes that involve moral turpitude."