The dispute over a northeast Pennsylvania city's attempt to crack down on illegal immigrants is back before a federal appeals court Wednesday.

The six-year case involving Hazleton returns to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The city rules would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that employ them. A companion piece requires tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

But they've all been on hold since a federal judge struck them down, and the federal appeals court affirmed the decision, saying they usurp the federal government's power to regulate immigration.

Now a mixed decision from the Supreme Court in a related case in Arizona is sending the Pennsylvania case back to court.

North Carolina utilities regulators said Wednesday they have hired a former federal prosecutor with experience digging into corporate affairs to reveal whether regulators were misled ahead of a takeover that created America's largest electric company.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission said it has hired Anton Valukas and the Jenner & Block law firm, which he heads in Chicago. The ex-prosecutor and his firm are tasked with investigating what happened before regulators approved Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. taking over Raleigh-based Progress Energy Inc.

State law allows the costs associated with the utilities commission's investigation to be charged to Duke Energy and its shareholders rather than allowing the company to pass them along to its 3.2 million North Carolina customers.

A Duke Energy spokesman said the company was cooperating with regulators in their investigation.

The company on Wednesday separately sought to begin passing along to Carolinas energy consumers the first $89 million of $650 million in merger-related savings promised over the next five years. If that is approved, the average residential customer in North Carolina and South Carolina could save between 80 cents and 92 cents a month beginning in September.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned a $1 million award against the University of Minnesota and men's basketball coach Tubby Smith over the hiring of an assistant coach.

Jimmy Williams quit his job as an assistant coach at Oklahoma State in 2007 because he believed Smith had hiring authority when he offered him an assistant coaching job. Minnesota later withdrew the offer because Williams had NCAA rules violations during a previous stint as an assistant for the Golden Gophers more than 20 years ago.

Williams sued, and a Hennepin County jury and the state appeals court sided with him. But the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed those decisions, saying Williams was not entitled to protection against negligent misrepresentations from Smith about his hiring authority.

Pennsylvania's highest court is moving quickly to determine how to respond to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles aren't constitutional.

The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group based in Washington, has said Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of juvenile lifers.

The state Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for Sept. 13 in a pair of cases that will determine what to do about the hundreds of people serving such sentences, as well as how to handle the issue going forward.

The 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision issued June 25 still makes it possible for juveniles to get life, but it can't be automatic.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections says 373 lifers were under age 18 at the time they were sentenced.

Mr. Mizejewski of MJM Law Office, P.C. is a Eugene Criminal Lawyer focusing his practice on criminal defense and family law. Representing clients from all over Eugene, he covers all cases involving anything from DUI offenses, assault and battery, drug crimes to custody disputes and child support. Mr. Mizejewski is also known for quality representation in the Juvenile courts cases at the John Serbu Juvenile Justice Center.

Criminal defense is a serious matter and Mr. Mizejewski understands it is not an easy time for those who are charged with a crime. His experience helps him navigate through the legal system effectively during this challenging time and promises to work hand in hand with clients. Each client situation is unique and requires time and having several options is the key in resolving the issues in an efficient manner.

With an office located in the heart of downtown Eugene, Oregon, MJM Law Office, P.C. mainly represents clients from Lane County, Oregon. Frequenting the Lane County Circuit Court has helped us familiarize with the individual judges, district attorneys, and court staff. In addition, our time is spent in Juvenile Court and the other courts surrounding, including Springfield Municipal Court, Eugene Municipal Court, Cottage Grove Municipal Court, and Florence Municipal Court.

When it comes to family, it is important to hire an experience attorney to help deal with your legal concerns. These issues are life-changing and with our close network of relationships in the Lane County district, we have what it takes to serve our clients to the best of abilities. Our Eugene criminal lawyer has proudly represented for clients in the Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Junction City and Florence communities.

Backers of California's ban on same-sex marriages asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to overrule a federal appeals court that struck down the measure as unconstitutional, a move that means the bitter, four-year court fight over Proposition 8 could soon be resolved.

Lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the voter-approved ban petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court's finding that the 2008 amendment to the state constitution violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians. The request had been expected since a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-1 decision earlier this year.

If the high court declines to take the case, it would clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. Gay couples could get married in the state for several months before Proposition 8 passed, a right the measure was designed to take away. Same-sex couples still have the rights and benefits of marriage controlled by state law if they register as domestic partners.

The divided appeals court panel cited those conditions, which were unique to California at the time, as grounds for striking down the ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection. But it also went out of its way to state it was not saying similar bans in six other states it oversees were inherently unconstitutional.