The combination won't affect Stinson's Kansas City office, a spokeswoman said. That office has 197 attorneys and 276 staff members. The combination will be effective July 1, subject to due diligence and a review of potential client conflicts.

"We are always looking for what is best for our clients and providing them with the best service and expertise possible," Mark Foster, Stinson's managing partner, said in a release. "Blumenfeld Kaplan & Sandweiss is an excellent law firm with a top-notch team of lawyers. Our clients will benefit from the synergies created as a result this combination."

Stinson traces its heritage to 1878. The firm opened its St. Louis office in 1994. The firm's lawyers have extensive experience in real estate law, mergers and acquisitions, labor and employment, business litigation, financial services, health care, sports law and product liability.

Blumenfeld was established in St. Louis in 1950 by John Blumenfeld, a prominent real estate lawyer who continues to be active with the firm. Today, it ranks among the 15 largest law firms in St. Louis. Its main areas of practice include real estate, tax, estate planning, succession planning, mergers and acquisitions, immigration, labor and employment, intellectual property and litigation.

"The potential benefits for our clients created by this combination with Stinson Morrison Hecker are significant," Philip Kaplan, president of Blumenfeld, said in the release. "Our practice has continued to grow on the local, national and international stages, and this combination will allow us to provide additional talent that will expand and enhance the efficient delivery of legal services."

Stinson ranks No. 2 on the Kansas City Business Journal's list of area law firms. Blumenfeld is tied at No. 15 with Lashly and Baer PC on the St. Louis Business Journal's list of area law firms.

Kentucky's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court. "The outcome ... has broad implications for the municipal bond market at large, far beyond Kentucky's borders," John R. Farris, Kentucky's secretary of finance, said in a written statement.

If the justices uphold the Kentucky court's ruling, states that exempt their bonds while taxing those from other states would either have to tax municipal bonds from all states equally or exempt all bonds in order to come into compliance, several legal experts said.

But based on a separate Supreme Court decision last month involving interstate commerce, which ruled in favor of local governments in New York, many observers think the Court is likely to overrule the Kentucky decision and maintain the status quo.

By exempting municipal bonds from state taxes, governments can offer in-state investors lower interest rates and as a result lower their cost of borrowing. Muni bonds, which are used to fund roads, schools and other public projects, are also exempt from federal taxes.

The bonds can be particularly appealing to investors from high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts. There are hundreds of mutual funds comprised of muni bonds from single states, with over $160 billion in assets, bond analysts said.

State and local governments issued approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds in 2006, one bond analyst said.

Like Kentucky, more than 40 states exempt at least some of their in-state bonds from taxation, the National Association of State Treasurers said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Kentucky's policy was challenged by George and Catherine Davis, who argued it is unconstitutional and requested a refund of the taxes they paid on out-of-state muni bonds.

If the Davises prevail at the high court, Kentucky and the other states could be forced to pay those refunds, said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The case could also impact the Section 529 college savings plans offered by many states, said Leonard Weiser-Varon, a public finance expert at the Mintz Levin law firm in Boston.

Bond fund managers downplayed the issue. Tom Metzold, a vice president and portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Corp., said that a ruling against the states could result in a one-time reduction in the value of muni bonds. Otherwise, "it will be much ado about nothing," he said.

Ronald Fielding, who manages the municipal bond funds group at Oppenheimer Funds, estimated that investors who own bonds from high-tax states could see the value of their portfolios decline by 1.5 percent to 2 percent if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Davises.

But many legal experts think the justices are likely to rule in favor of Kentucky instead. Last month, the justices found that local governments in New York could compel private trash haulers to use government-owned facilities, even if it would be cheaper to dispose of it at out-of-state dumps.

Gregory Germain, an associate professor at the Syracuse University College of Law, said that ruling carved out "a very broad exemption" to the commerce clause for laws that may discriminate against interstate commerce but favor a government entity.

The case is Kentucky v. Davis, 06-666. It won't be argued until the Court's next term, which begins in October.

California will resume sending an estimated 8,000 prisoners to other states next month after an appeals court ruled that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can do so while he challenges a prior ruling that halted the transfers.

Schwarzenegger praised the decision by the Third District Appellate Court, which was filed late last week and announced Monday, saying it would let the state take a critical step toward reducing prison overcrowding. Critics, however, warned that shipping inmates against their will could be dangerous for guards, prisoners and the public.

For the governor, the decision couldn't have come soon enough. Three judges have scheduled separate hearings next month to consider appointing a panel that could cap the state's inmate population—which could potentially order the release of thousands of prisoners. The state now has 172,000 prisoners living in space designed for fewer than 100,000.

Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying the transfers will help California avoid the court-ordered release of dangerous felons and even increase safety for overburdened guards.

"Out of state transfers will improve the safety of California's institutions for our correctional officers and staff as well as the inmates, and will provide much needed space for rehabilitation programs," Schwarzenegger said. "Transferring of inmates out of state is a critical component of the state's overall plan to relieve overcrowding."

The decision follows the Legislature's approval in April of a $7.8 billion plan also designed to help stave off a federal takeover. The plan calls for heavy state borrowing to pay for adding 53,000 new beds, as well as boosting education, job training and other rehabilitation programs. The plan also authorizes the governor to continue transferring inmates out of state until 2011 to relieve overcrowding.

Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which sued the state over the transfers and prevailed in a Sacramento County Superior Court in February, said the transfers will expose guards to serious dangers.

He pointed to a riot in an Indiana prison last month as evidence. That riot, involving about 500 inmates, apparently began after prisoners recently transferred from Arizona refused to return to their living quarters.

"Inmates who are forced to leave the jurisdictions in which their families have the opportunity to visit them creates a very volatile situation that's unsafe for the inmates, unsafe for the guards, and unsafe for the public," Corcoran said.

California transferred 353 inmates out of state before Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled in February that the transfers appeared to violate the state's emergency act and a provision in the state constitution.

Those inmates are in Tennessee and Arizona.

According to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, inmates sent in June could go to facilities in Tallahatchie, Mississippi or near Oklahoma City.

Corrections plans to send 300 in June and ramp up shipments of 400 to 500 inmates a month by the fall.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Prison Construction and Operations, said he plans to hold hearings next month on the safety of the transfers.

"I have some concerns about Corrections being able to do this without officer injuries."

But Spitzer said Monday's ruling was great news because out-of-state transfers are the only way to prevent early releases.

Democratic objections to the immigration reform proposal have focused on its restrictions on the right of legal immigrants to be joined by their families and its preference for high-tech workers. Under the proposal, undocumented immigrants would be able to obtain a probationary card allowing them to live and work legally in the United States, but which would not place them on the road to permanent residency or citizenship. The proposal also seeks to create a temporary guest worker program that would be implemented once the borders are declared "secure." Up to 1.5 million migrant farm-workers can also obtain legal status through an "AgJobs" measure, supported by Sen. Diana Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). AgJobs creates a five-year pilot program that would grant legal status to those who have worked in US farms for at least 150 days in the last two years.

At issue in the case is how the General Assembly passed the law and whether it was constitutional.

North Carolina law requires votes on separate days for laws that lead to higher taxes or borrow against the state's credit.

Attorneys for the state have argued that the lottery law does neither and that both chambers' votes were legal. (In April 2005, the House approved the lottery bill by a vote of 61-59. In August of the same year, the Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for the measure to pass 25-24.)

The bigger question, however, for appeals court judges Tuesday was what happens if the lottery, which recently reached the $1 billion sales mark, is ruled unconstitutional -- specifically, what would happen to all the money already rewarded.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, said they were only seeking to change the future of the lottery law and wasn't interested in lottery winnings since the lottery launched in March 2006.

"We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed," Justice David Souter wrote for the court majority.

At issue is a class action lawsuit against Bell Atlantic, which contends that lack of competition for local telephone service and "parallel conduct" of the regional Bells were evidence of an antitrust conspiracy.

More than a decade after the court-ordered breakup of AT&T into seven regional Bells, Congress passed a landmark legislation in 1996 designed to foster competition among carriers. It required regional Bells such as Verizon to make their networks available to rivals in exchange for gaining access to the lucrative long-distance voice and data markets.

The case was dismissed by a district court judge, who said the plaintiffs could not sue based only on a "bare-bones" allegation of conspiracy.

But that decision was reversed by a federal appeals court in New York, which ruled the case should not be dismissed unless the charges were implausible.

The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division has sided with the telephone companies, arguing that "parallel action and inaction" alone was not enough to provide a basis for an antitrust lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion agreed, ruling that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy is not enough. There must be enough facts to suggest an agreement was made, Souter said.

Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks was transferred to a maximum security prison near his hometown of Adelaide South Australia Sunday to serve the remainder of his nine-month prison sentence. In March, a US military commission at Guantanamo Bay recommended sentencing Hicks to seven years in prison, but all but nine months of that were effectively suspended by a military judge under the terms of a plea agreement kept secret from the panel of military officers during its deliberations.

Hicks has spent more than five years in US custody since being captured in Afghanistan. Under the plea agreement, Hicks was required to state that he "has never been illegally treated" while being held as an enemy combatant by the United States and that his detention was lawful pursuant to the laws of armed conflict. Hicks is also prohibited from having contact with the media for a period of one year, is to not take any legal action against the United States for his treatment during his 5 year detention, and is required to turn over any profits from an eventual sale of his story to the Australian government.