Plea bargain negotiations between criminals and prosecutors will now come under constitutional scrutiny because a divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that convictions can be overturned if defense lawyers don't adequately assist clients in deciding whether to accept such offers.

The court's decision could affect nearly every criminal case in the United States, where more than 9 in 10 convictions come by guilty pleas.

In a rare move justices use to underscore their objections, Justice Antonin Scalia read his dissent aloud from the bench. He said the court's decision "upends decades of our cases ... and opens a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" — plea bargaining law — even though there is no legal right to be offered a plea bargain.

"In the United States, we have plea bargaining a plenty, but until today, it has been regarded as a necessary evil," said Scalia, who was on the losing side of two 5-4 decisions on the issue. "...Today, however, the Supreme Court elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement. It is no longer a somewhat embarrassing adjunct to our criminal justice system; rather as the court announces ... 'it is the criminal justice system.'"

The two majority opinions, both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, have potentially broad impact because 97 percent of federal convictions and 94 percent of state convictions in 2009 were obtained by a guilty plea, according to the Justice Department.

The rulings crafted by Kennedy mean that criminal defense lawyers are now required to inform their clients of plea bargain offers, regardless of whether they think the client should accept them, and must give their clients good advice on whether to accept a plea bargain at all stages of prosecution. If they don't, Kennedy said, they will run afoul of the Sixth Amendment guarantee that criminal defendants have a right to assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court indicated Monday that it could throw out an $18 million penalty against a natural gas company convicted of an environmental violation in Rhode Island.

In arguments at the high court, several justices sounded skeptical of the government's case for upholding the penalty against Texas-based Southern Union Co. over its improper storage of mercury in a building in Pawtucket.

The arguments focused on whether a line of Supreme Court cases limiting judges' discretion to increase prison sentences also should apply to criminal fines, as Southern Union says.

The Obama administration says judges have much more discretion to hand out fines.

Unlike other Supreme Court disputes involving corporations, this case does not appear to divide the justices along ideological lines. In the sentencing cases, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has been the most forceful advocate for reining in judges and requiring juries to find any facts that could lead to a longer sentence.

Scalia said he sees the Southern Union case as a logical extension of the court's earlier rulings. He said it would be odd to require a jury to establish facts that lead to even the shortest jail term, yet give judges freedom to decide on fines that "will make a pauper of you."

The Supreme Court has turned down Louisiana's bid to recover the congressional seat taken from the state as a result of the 2010 Census.

The court is not commenting on its order Monday preventing the state from pursuing a lawsuit that claims the Census unfairly included undocumented immigrants in each state's population count.

Louisiana said California, Florida, Texas and other states with large populations of undocumented immigrants gained seats in the House of Representatives at the expense of Louisiana and a handful of other states. Louisiana went from 7 to 6 seats in the House based on the Census.

The lawsuit asked the court to order the federal government to re-calculate House seats based only on legal residents.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of First Solar Inc. between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

First Solar engages in the design, manufacture and sale of thin-film semiconductor solar modules and photovoltaic solar power systems in the United States and internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain solar module manufacturing flaws on the Company’s earnings; (2) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased First Solar securities between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have until May 14, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

A federal appeals court has put on hold the suspension of two Florida CVS pharmacies that would have prevented them from selling controlled substances.

The court on Wednesday stopped the suspension while it considers an appeal from the stores. The Drug Enforcement Administration had issued the suspension because of alleged lax enforcement of restrictions on a powerful painkiller.

The DEA says the pharmacies were dispensing the painkiller oxycodone far in excess of legitimate needs. CVS says it has taken steps to reduce the prescriptions.

On Tuesday, a federal judge denied the CVS stores' request for a preliminary injunction in the case, but the stores immediately appealed.

The appeals court has already put on hold DEA's suspension of Cardinal Health's Lakeland, Fla.-based center that supplied the stores.

A federal judge planned to hear Thursday whether former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would create problems for his upcoming trial by hiring lawyers who represented his mistress in a lawsuit over the couple's alleged sex tape.

The hearing scheduled in Greensboro aims to air whether lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham could use insider knowledge of Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter at the former presidential candidate's trial beginning next month.

Duncan and Van Laningham represented Hunter in a lawsuit that ended last month with a settlement that ordered all copies of the tape destroyed.

Federal prosecutors have said they'll likely call Hunter as a witness at Edwards' trial on campaign finance charges that he used nearly $1 million from two wealthy donors to hide the pregnant Hunter as he sought the White House in 2008. He has pleaded not guilty.

"To whom would Mr. Duncan's and Ms. Van Laningham's allegiance lie? Their new client or the one they represented as recently as two weeks ago in a lawsuit seeking to enforce those very privacy rights?" federal prosecutors said in a court filing last week.

Because of their previous attorney-client relationship with Hunter, Duncan and Van Laningham might take it easy on her if they were questioning Hunter under oath, prosecutors said.