A federal appeals court has affirmed a judge's decision to let stand Minnesota's law requiring the disclosure of corporate political donations, saying the state's rules are similar to laws upheld by the Supreme Court and the groups who want them blocked are unlikely to prevail.

In an opinion filed Monday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with claims that Minnesota's disclosure requirements effectively prohibit corporate independent expenditures and impose burdensome regulations that ban free speech.

"The burden on corporations appears light, and the reporting requirement greatly facilitates the government's informational interest in monitoring corporate independent expenditures," the appeals court found. The judges wrote that rather than banning contributions, the law provides a way to disclose certain information.

Minnesota law requires that in election years, businesses and independent groups must submit five reports and disclose large donations within 24 hours for the three weeks leading up to the primary and the last two weeks before the general election. In off years, one report is required. The registration requirement is triggered when businesses or independent funds spend more than $100. Penalties for violations can be up to $25,000.

One member of the three-judge panel disagreed with the majority in part, saying the state's reporting requirements chill political speech.

The Supreme Court says a Freedom of Information Act request cannot be used to trigger a False Claims Act lawsuit.

The court on Monday voted 5-3 to agree with arguments by Schindler Elevator Corp., which sought to get a lawsuit against it dismissed.

Daniel Kirk, a former employee, sued on behalf of the government, claiming Schindler had not complied with reporting requirements involving the employment of Vietnam veterans.

But a judge threw out his lawsuit, saying Kirk's information came from a FOIA request. The False Claims Act says that lawsuits cannot be filed using publicly disclosed information. The judge said FOIA reports were public information.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City overturned that decision but the high court said it was correct.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented and was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says defendants may withdraw a guilty plea if they are not told a conviction could result in deportation.

The court on Monday sided with Rene Reyes Campos. Campos said if he knew he risked being deported for a conviction for simple robbery for the benefit of a gang, he never would have pleaded guilty.

Campos was 17 when he was charged in Hennepin County in 2009, and had been a lawful U.S. resident for about seven years. He agreed to plead guilty as an adult and get a stayed sentence. He was not told the plea could affect his immigration status.

Last June, Campos moved to withdraw his plea.