The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.

The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on.

Washington state's highest court has exercised an unusual amount of power on education funding, and it's prompted some lawmakers to raise constitutional concerns.

Before last year's legislative session, the court ruled that the state wasn't meeting its obligation to amply pay for basic education. In response, the Legislature added about $1 billion in school-related spending, and lawmakers widely agree they'll add more funding in coming years.

Earlier this month, the court went a step further, analyzing specific funding targets while telling lawmakers to come back with a new plan by the end of April.

Those specific demands have irked budget writers in the Legislature.

"They are way out of their lane," said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner.

Baumgartner expects lawmakers will continue adding "substantially new resources" to the state education system, but he said the court's position could erode the proper balance of power in Olympia. Baumgartner hopes lawmakers will ignore the court's latest demands, or he fears justices may exercise more power going forward.

Federal authorities would limit the use of shackles on immigrants who appear before immigration judges under a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to avoid shackling immigrants at the San Francisco immigration court in many hearings. Immigrants will still be shackled at a type of brief, procedural hearing in which several detainees are addressed at the same time.

A federal judge in San Francisco was scheduled to consider Thursday whether to approve the settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2011 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and others.

ACLU attorney Julia Harumi Mass said the agreement applies only to the San Francisco court, which serves more than 2,000 immigrants a year who are in ICE custody at three county jails in Northern California.

The lawsuit says detainees at the San Francisco court wear metal restraints on their wrists, ankles and waists and that most are bused from jails several hours away, spending hours in shackles before, during and after their hearings.

Under the proposed settlement, detainees will not be restrained at bond or merits hearings unless they pose a safety threat or risk of escape. Except in limited circumstances, they will remain shackled at master calendar hearings, which are held for larger numbers of immigrants for brief, procedural issues like scheduling.

Immigration courts are staffed by judges working for the U.S. Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, not the judiciary. The judges decide whether immigrants can remain in the country.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether a Virginia man who bought a gun for a relative in Pennsylvania can be considered an illegal straw purchaser when both men were legally eligible to purchase firearms.

The justices heard an appeal from Bruce James Abramski Jr., a former police officer. Abramski bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, in Southside Virginia, in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa., who paid him $400.

Abramski was arrested after police thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Va. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

Abramski answered “yes” on a federal form asking, “Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.”

Abramski’s lawyers told the high court that since he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law should not have applied to him.


Feds to limit use of shackles at immigration court.

The Texas Supreme Court issued a key ruling Friday that should boost consumer confidence in the liability insurance coverage that builders and general contractors carry.

Writing for the court, Justice Phil Johnson denied an insurance company's attempt to avoid paying a claim based on language found in most commercial general liability insurance policies. The court's decision was one of the most anticipated insurance cases in the country because Texas decisions often influence other courts across the nation, said Randy Maniloff, an insurance law expert at the White and Williams law firm in Philadelphia.

If the Texas Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the insurance company, coverage of construction mistakes in Texas would have virtually disappeared.

"Many contractors don't have the wherewithal to make good on their construction defects, so a lot of times insurance is the make-or-break issue for purposes of somebody getting compensation," Maniloff said. "This decision helps homeowners keep that insurance in place."

Most general liability policies have a clause that allows the insurance company to exclude liability claims when a contractor assumes liability "in a contract or agreement." Insurance companies often require contractors to buy additional coverage when they take on greater risk.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.

The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.

Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.