Jerry Sandusky's decision Tuesday to waive his preliminary hearing shifts the focus in the child sex-abuse scandal to two Penn State administrators accused of failing to properly report suspected abuse and lying to the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

Tim Curley and Gary Schultz face their own pretrial hearing on Friday in Harrisburg, and although the charges are much different, with far less severe potential penalties, their cases could hinge on a man also expected to be a prime witness against Sandusky: assistant football coach Mike McQueary.

McQueary testified that he happened upon "rhythmic, slapping sounds" in the football team locker room showers in March 2002, and looked in to see a naked boy being sodomized by the former defensive coordinator, according to a grand jury presentment.

McQueary, then a 28-year-old graduate assistant, reported what he saw to then-football coach Joe Paterno, the grand jury said. Paterno called Curley, the university's athletic director, the next day, and a week and a half later McQueary met with Curley and Schultz — who oversaw university police in his position as a vice president.

The Supreme Court stepped into the fight Monday over a tough Arizona law that requires local police to help enforce federal immigration laws — pushing the court deeper into hot, partisan issues of the 2012 election campaign.

The court's election-year docket now contains three politically charged disputes, including President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and Texas redistricting.

The debate over immigration already is shaping presidential politics, and now the court is undertaking a review of an Arizona law that has spawned a host of copycat state laws targeting illegal immigrants.

The court will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.

The case is the court's biggest foray into immigration law in decades, said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro, an expert in that area.

A federal judge in Brooklyn is poised to hear arguments Tuesday over whether the federal government is acting constitutionally in its decisions over the access teenage girls are given to morning-after contraceptive pills.

The arguments come just a week after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and announced that the pills would only be available without prescription to those 17 and older who can prove their age. President Barack Obama said he supported the decision regarding a pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken soon enough after unprotected sex.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs and that politics has played a role in decision making. Social conservatives have said the pill is tantamount to abortion.

Judge Edward Korman was highly critical of the government's handling of the issue when he ordered the FDA two years ago to let 17-year-olds obtain the medication. At the time, he accused the government of letting "political considerations, delays and implausible justifications for decision-making" cloud the approval process.

The highest court in Massachusetts has sided with The Boston Globe in a battle to release a report and transcript of an inquest into the 1986 shooting death of the brother of an Alabama professor accused of killing three colleagues in a 2010 shooting rampage.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that the inquest materials can be released, but said Amy Bishop, her family, prosecutors and others can still argue to show "good cause" why the materials should remain sealed.

After Bishop was charged in Alabama, a Massachusetts judge conducted an inquest into her brother's death. A grand jury later indicted Bishop for murder.

The high court outlined new rules for the release of inquest materials, saying they should become public after prosecutors decide whether to bring criminal charges.

Bank holding company Washington Mutual Inc. has agreed to a settlement with some creditors involved in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and has filed a new reorganization plan.

Washington Mutual said in a statement late Monday that the settlement will allow it to distribute more than $7 billion to its creditors. The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

"The comprehensive settlement announced today represents a fair and reasonable recovery for the thousands of equity holders of the company who have been following this case closely for three years," Michael Willingham, chairman of the committee of equity security holders appointed in the company's Chapter 11 proceedings.

Washington Mutual's bankruptcy case is three years old and its reorganization plans have twice been rejected by Bankruptcy Court Judge Mary Walrath. The company is hoping to exit bankruptcy protection by the end of February. It has a hearing scheduled for Jan. 11, 2012 in which the bankruptcy court will consider approval of the reorganization plan's disclosure statement. The company also plans to ask the bankruptcy court for a mid-February hearing to confirm its reorganization plan.

Texas' March primary will likely be delayed after the Supreme Court on Friday blocked the use of state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges.

The court issued a brief order late Friday that applies to electoral maps drawn by federal judges in San Antonio for the Texas Legislature and Congress that would have ensured minorities made up the majority in three additional Texas congressional districts. The justices said they will hear arguments on Jan. 9.

The judges issued the new maps for the 2012 election in Texas after a lawsuit was filed in San Antonio over redistricting maps drawn by the GOP-led Legislature. The maps were to remain in place until the lawsuit was resolved.

The Supreme Court's order brings to a halt filing for legislative and congressional primary elections that began Nov. 28. The primaries had been scheduled to take place in March, but the Supreme Court's decision means those elections almost certainly will be delayed, possibly until May.