The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with the appropriate role for religion in government in a case involving mainly Christian prayers at the start of a New York town's council meetings.

The justices began their day with the marshal's customary plea that "God save the United States and this honorable court." They then plunged into a lively give-and-take that highlighted the sensitive nature of offering religious invocations in public proceedings that don't appeal to everyone and governments' efforts to police the practice.

The court is weighing a federal appeals court ruling that said the Rochester suburb of Greece, N.Y., violated the Constitution because nearly every prayer in an 11-year span was overtly Christian.

The tenor of the argument indicated the justices would not agree with the appellate ruling. But it was not clear what decision they might come to instead.

Justice Elena Kagan summed up the difficult task before the court when she noted that "every time the court gets involved in things like this, it seems to make the problem worse rather than better."

The justices tried out several approaches to the issue, including one suggested by the two Greece residents who sued over the prayers to eliminate explicit references to any religion.

Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to place Texas' new abortion restrictions on hold.

The group says in a filing with the high court Monday that more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions since a court order allowed the new restrictions to take effect Friday.

Planned Parenthood says that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went too far in overruling a trial judge who blocked the law's provision that requires doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The filing was addressed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees emergency matters from Texas.

A court-martial has been scheduled for February for a U.S. Naval Academy student accused of aggravated sexual assault.

Midshipman Josh Tate appeared at an arraignment Monday at the Washington Navy Yard.

The court-martial is scheduled to begin Feb. 10. The case stems from an April 2012 party at an off-campus house in Annapolis. The alleged victim had been drinking heavily and has testified that she cannot remember having sex with Tate.

Another student also faces a separate court-martial in the case. It is scheduled for Jan. 27. Midshipman Eric Graham is charged with abusive sexual contact.

If you are facing trial by court-martial, you also have the right to hire an experienced civilian defense attorney to represent and defend you. It is your career and future that is at stake and it is important that you have an experienced attorney who will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Please contact Las Vegas Military Defense Attorneys.

A carnival ride operator facing assault charges over injuries from a ride at the North Carolina State Fair made his first appearance in court Monday, with a prosecutor saying there are still unanswered questions about what happened.

Timothy Dwayne Tutterrow, 46, of Quitman, Ga., faces three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury. Each count is punishable by up to eight years in prison.

Wake County District Court Judge Keith O. Gregory declined a request during the brief hearing to lower Tutterrow's $225,000 bond. The defendant, dressed in an orange and white striped jumpsuit, was taken back to jail in handcuffs.

Wake Sheriff Donnie Harrison said investigators determined the ride had been intentionally tampered with to bypass critical safety devices, though authorities have provided no details of the evidence against Tutterrow.

The "Vortex" jolted into motion Thursday evening as people were exiting, dropping riders from heights eyewitnesses estimated at up to 30 feet.

Three people remained hospitalized on Monday with serious injuries, including a 14-year-old. Two others were treated and released.

Josef Cowan founded our firm over 20 years ago.  The following are some questions and answers that discuss his unique qualities and why so many individuals and businesses trust our firm with their legal and business needs.

Q.    Why did you become a lawyer?

A.    I’m the youngest of 6 kids raised by a single mother.  We didn’t have much money, so I started working in the construction industry at a very young age.  In fact, I started a construction business when I was 17 years old, and that company is still in existence and has over 400 employees.  The construction industry involves a huge number of legal issues in a wide variety of different areas.  I always found the legal issues fascinating and believed that a solid understanding of the law and ability to resolve complex issues is a huge advantage in business.

Q.    What inspired you to found the Cowan Law Group?

A.    When I originally went to law school, I intended to use my legal training to help me with the construction business I started.  However, I found I have a real passion for helping individuals and small to medium-sized companies resolve their legal and business problems in ways that make good business sense.

Q.    How is the Cowan Law group different from other law firms?

A.    There are far too many firms that provide little to no value to their clients, and many that create more problems than they resolve.   In many instances, the attorneys are good, smart people, but they don’t have the background or business savvy necessary to provide truly strategic, cost-effective legal solutions to their clients.  This is a real problem because a good attorney who understands not just the legal issues, but also his client’s business challenges and objectives, is a tremendous resource and strategic advantage.  With that in mind, I created the Cowan Law Group, whose main mission is to provide legal services that are smart, creative, and practical.

Q.    So what makes you a good lawyer and advisor?

A.    I have benefitted greatly from a first class college and legal education.  What I believe is even more important, however, is my life experience.  Starting at a very young age, I have had to overcome many challenges both personally and in business.  As a lawyer and advisor, these experiences have been invaluable because, through them, I have developed an ability to look at problems and challenges and know how to navigate through them in ways that are smart and effective.  

But what is most telling is what my clients say.  Over the course of my legal career, I have successfully resolved over $700 million of legal disputes in many different areas, including general business, real estate, construction, employment, and trade secret litigation, and I have handled a large number of business transactions.  My clients often tell me that I provide counseling that is practical and mindful of business priorities, and that I handle it all well.

In a stiff blow to the government, Colombia's highest court for constitutional questions on Wednesday struck down an expansion of the military justice system that human rights activists had said would lead to greater impunity for war criminals.

In a 5-4 decision not subject to appeal, the Constitutional Court nullified a constitutional amendment and pursuant statute that would have placed under the jurisdiction of an expanded military justice system all but seven types of violations of international humanitarian law involving armed forces personnel.

Currently, all human rights cases are supposed to be tried in civil court.

Magistrate Jorge Ivan Palacio read a statement saying the court found "procedural defects" in the change's journey through Congress, accepting the arguments of opposition lawmakers and a top human rights lawyer. The decision was not released.

Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon called the ruling "a blow to the morale of the military forces that without doubt will affect Colombians' security." He said the government would consider submitting a revised military court overhaul, but gave no details.

President Juan Manuel Santos was seen as having pushed the change through Congress to win the backing of military leaders for peace talks that began last year with the country's main rebel group in Cuba.

Santos repeatedly insisted the legal change would not lead to impunity in war crimes, but such arguments did not persuade members of the U.S. Congress, which withheld at least $10 million in military aid in objection to the measure.