The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from some television networks being sued by a paranormal investigator who claims his idea was stolen and turned into the television show "Ghost Hunters."

Without comment, the court turned away an appeal from NBC Universal, Inc., Universal Television Networks and Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.

Parapsychologist Larry Montz and producer Daena Smoller unsuccessfully shopped around an idea for a show about paranormal investigators in 1981. "Ghost Hunters" appeared on the Sci Fi Channel — now known as SyFy — in 2004.

Montz and Smoller sued in federal court. The courts threw out their copyright claims, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that they could sue for breach of an implied contract and breach of confidence claims.

The Supreme Court says the Florida courts should reconsider whether arbitration is required for claims against an auditing firm that worked on a fund that invested with Bernie Madoff.

The high court on Monday reversed a decision by a Florida appeals court. KPMG was sued by investors in the Rye Funds, which lost millions of dollars to Madoff's Ponzi scheme. KPMG was the auditor for the Rye Funds, and the investors said the company did not use proper auditing standards.

KPMG says its contract requires arbitration but the state courts would not allow it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida courts only looked at part of the claims being brought against KPMG. The high court ordered the lower courts to investigate all of the claims before making a decision.

The Supreme Court seemed unlikely on Tuesday to allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court, despite his complaint that their neglect left him with two permanently damaged arms.

Justices heard appeals from lawyers representing employees of the GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp, who work at the privately run Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, Calif. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled inmate Richard Lee Pollard could sue GEO officials for his treatment after he fell and fractured both of his elbows.

Pollard said GEO officials put him in a metal restraint that caused him pain, and refused to provide him with a splint, making his injuries worse and causing permanent impairment. He sued in federal court for money, claiming GEO officials had violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The federal appeals court allowed his lawsuit against the GEO officials to move forward. Courts normally don't allow government employees to be sued in those types of lawsuits, but the high court has authorized some if constitutionally protected rights have been violated by the federal employee and there is no state court remedy.

The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.

Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart "is simply unworkable," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.

The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective "assistance of counsel" because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that "counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that there must not be "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different."

In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim.

The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.

No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.

And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.

With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.

The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.

Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.

The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion.