The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote.

The U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut says a Puerto Rican nationalist who's one of the last people charged in a $7 million armored car depot robbery in 1983 has agreed to plead guilty.

Federal prosecutors didn't give details Thursday of the deal with Norberto Gonzalez Claudio. His attorney hasn't responded to requests for comment.

The U.S. attorney's office says a hearing is scheduled for Friday in U.S. District Court in Hartford.

Gonzalez is not accused of directly participating in the West Hartford heist. He has pleaded not guilty to charges including bank robbery, conspiracy and transportation of stolen money. He was captured in Puerto Rico last year.

The robbery was orchestrated by Los Macheteros, a group that claimed responsibility for robberies, murders and bombings in the 1970s and '80s in the name of Puerto Rican independence.

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.

"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.

In everything it does, from product design to business deals, Apple strives for as much control as possible.

But as the world's most valuable company sets out to define and dominate the rapidly evolving markets it created with the iPhone and the iPad, Apple is likely to face antitrust regulators who want to curb its power.

Apple's clout is coming under scrutiny as the U.S. Justice Department considers filing a lawsuit against the company and five U.S. publishers on allegations they orchestrated a price-fixing scheme on electronic books.

The involved parties are trying to avoid a high-profile court battle by negotiating a settlement, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper broke the news last week about the government's plans to allege that Apple Inc. and the publishers tried to thwart e-book discounts offered by Amazon.com Inc. and drive up prices since the 2010 release of the iPad.

"I think this might be a bit of a wake-up call for Apple," says Ted Henneberry, an antitrust attorney for the Orrick law firm in Washington.

BP chief executive Bob Dudley said the company is able to fight a lengthy court battle over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dudley, who took control of BP in October 2012 after former chief executive Tony Hayward resigned amid criticism over the way he had handled the oil spill, told the Sunday Telegraph that BP can continue to function even if the court case that begins in New Orleans today continues for years.

"We have to remember we are a business that invests in decade-long cycles," he said.

"For the vast majority of people now at BP, the company is back on its feet and it is starting to move forward," he said.

BP has set aside US$40 billion to deal with fines and associated costs of the April 20, 2010 blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well which killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.

It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well.

By then, more than 750 million litres of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.

President Barack Obama called the BP spill "the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced."

Dudley said BP had improved safety standards on its rigs, five of which are working again in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the company was still committed to deepwater drilling.

"We had a choice whether or not to back away from the offshore industry and the deep water industry but we have a lot of great strengths in this area and so, rather than move away, we have gone in with even more commitment, more time and more people, more expertise," he said.

A threatened wave of class actions against American law schools became a reality last week after plaintiffs' lawyers sued a dozen more schools over their allegedly misleading use of salary and employment data. But this trend in "consumer protection" is potentially damaging, not only to U.S. law schools, but to higher education in general, said two attorneys for the national law firm LeClairRyan.

"If the goal of these suits is securing transparency on jobs data, then the plaintiffs and their counsel are going about this in entirely the wrong way," said veteran class action defense attorney  Michael Haratz, a Newark-based partner in LeClairRyan's Business Litigation team.  "While there is nothing wrong with working toward clear, consistent and coherent reporting standards, such matters are best addressed via the regulatory process—not by bending higher education to fit a consumerist paradigm more appropriate to a purchaser of traditional consumer goods."

The trend shows every sign of expanding to other institutions across the country, added Haratz. "According to a prominent legal journalist, for example, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers—someone who previously declared 2012 'the year of law school litigation'—hopes to sue up to 25 new schools every few months," he said.

The new complaints come in the wake of highly publicized class actions filed last year against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, New York Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law. The latest schools to be targeted reportedly are: Albany Law School, Brooklyn Law School, Hofstra Law School, Widener Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, DePaul University College of Law, John Marshall Law School, California Western School of Law, Southwestern Law School, University of San Francisco School of Law, and Golden Gate University School of Law.

The complaints allege that U.S. law schools artificially boost enrollments by exaggerating or misrepresenting graduates' employment and salary statistics. "The problem with such litigation is that it runs contrary to the purpose and spirit underlying the class-action lawsuit as a vehicle for consumer redress," said Robert B. Smith a Boston-based LeClair Ryan partner and leader of the firm's Education Industry team. "Why? Because the consumerist paradigm does not fit higher education. Just as law degrees should not come with guarantees of 'gainful employment or your money back,' law students should not regard themselves as consumers entitled to same. After all, they are individuals with varying degrees of talent, motivation, discipline and intelligence. Their futures are their own responsibilities."  

About LeClairRyan

As a trusted advisor, LeClairRyan provides business counsel and client representation in corporate law and litigation. In this role, the firm applies its knowledge, insight and skill to help clients achieve their business objectives while managing and minimizing their legal risks, difficulties and expenses.  With offices in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C., the firm has approximately 350 attorneys representing a wide variety of clients throughout the nation.  For more information about LeClairRyan, visit www.leclairryan.com.