Nixon Peabody LLP has shaved $15,000 off of salaries for its first year associates in an effort to reduce expenses, the law firm confirmed this week.

In a memo to staff, firm managing partner and CEO Richard F. Langan said first year salaries will be reduced to $145,000, down from $160,000, for firm associates. The firm also has made performance-based salary cuts for current associates and has introduced a new bonus structure.

Up until this year big law firms have felt pressure to keep first-year associate salaries level with those at competitor firms.

Nixon Peabody, which has about 170 lawyers in Boston and a total of 720 lawyers, is the first major Boston firm to announce such a pay reduction, but is among several national law firms that have recently made the decision to reduce first year salaries.

Other firms that have cut first-year salaries in recent weeks include Robinson & Cole LLP, which has 200 lawyers nationally and 50 in Massachusetts, and McKenna Long & Aldridge, a Washington, D.C., firm.

Langan said in his memo, “Nixon Peabody LLP has taken measures over the past several months to review its cost of doing business while keeping its commitment to providing extraordinary client service. To maintain staffing levels in the best interest of our clients, we have decided to reduce starting compensation levels for incoming associates and summer associates to $145,000 in major financial centers with related reductions in associate compensation throughout the firm’s U.S. operations.”

The “major financial” centers the memo refers to reportedly include Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago and California, according to Abovethelaw.com. Other regions will see smaller pay decreases, corresponding to lower salary levels.

Langan’s memo continued, “Additionally, we have made downward adjustments to the base pay of our current associates based on their individual performance and contribution to our firm. Along with this change in compensation, associates will be eligible for a new bonus program, based on the firm’s financial performance, which will reward top performing associates who make extraordinary contributions to the firm. With our new bonus program and strong firm culture, we expect to attract and retain the best and brightest talent for many years to come. Through this innovative approach to associate compensation, along with a wide range of innovative pricing arrangements to meet the varied needs of our clients, we are able to continue to provide our clients with the highest level of service and lower cost practical solutions in order to meet their business needs in this challenging economic climate. We appreciate our associates’ understanding and commitment to our firm and its future.”

A same-sex Iowa couple will be allowed to wed as soon as Monday after a judge allowed them to bypass the state's three-day waiting period.

Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe of Des Moines received their waiver by 9 a.m.

Same-sex couples in Iowa began applying for marriage license Monday after a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay unions took effect.

The high court issued an order early in the day confirming that the appeals process in the case has officially concluded.

The Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous and emphatic decision on April 3 made Iowa the third state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Vermont has passed a law that will take effect in September.

A federal judge tentatively ordered the Department of Homeland Security to reopen the cases of 22 people who were denied green cards because their American spouses died during the application process.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled the so-called widow penalty doesn't necessarily require that immigrants' permanent residency applications be denied when their American spouses die. Citing a 2006 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Snyder ruled this week that applicants don't lose their status as spouses of U.S. citizens if the death occurs before the government rules on their applications.

The decision, if made final, would be a victory for more than 200 people across the country who have been affected by the widow penalty, said attorney Brent Renison, who filed the class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles.

"This case is very significant because it's the first that follows the circuit court decision and gives guidance to the agency on what it can and cannot do in these situations," Renison told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has argued the law requires that residency applications be rejected for immigrants whose American spouses die within two years of being married.

A divided Supreme Court took up its first examination of race in the Obama era Wednesday, wrestling with claims of job discrimination by white firefighters in a case that could force changes in employment practices nationwide.

The case from New Haven, Conn., pits white firefighters, who showed up at the court Wednesday in their dress uniforms, against the city over its decision to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results.

As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven scuttled the test without determining that there were flaws that might have led to the racially disproportionate results.

"So shouldn't there be some standard that there has to be a significant, a strong showing after the test has been taken that it's deficient? Before it can be set aside?" he said.

Kennedy often frowns on racial classifications, yet he is not as opposed to drawing distinctions on the basis of race as his more conservative colleagues.

But where Kennedy saw shades of gray, the rest of the court seemed to view the case clearly in terms of black and white.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court first authorized warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos of animals being tortured or killed violates constitutional free-speech rights.

The high court agreed to hear a U.S. Justice Department appeal defending the 1999 animal cruelty law after it was struck down for infringing free-speech protections.

A U.S. appeals court declared the law unconstitutional and overturned the conviction of a Virginia man, Robert Stevens, who sold three videos of pit bulls fighting each other and attacking hogs and wild boars.

His conviction in 2005 was the first in the country under the law. Stevens had been sentenced to 37 months in prison.

By a 10-3 vote, the appeals court rejected the government's argument that, for the first time in more than 25 years, there was a new category of speech not covered by constitutional free-speech protections. Usually, videos and other depictions are protected as free speech, even if they show abhorrent conduct.