An appeals court upheld federal government auctions of about $33 billion of wireless spectrum, saying it would be "imprudent and unfair" to undo them even though some rules governing them were invalid.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia allows Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc, Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile unit and others to keep billions of dollars of licenses they had won in the auctions, which took place between 2006 and 2008.

The auction process had been challenged by Council Tree Communications Inc, Bethel Native Corp and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, which contended that Federal Communications Commission rules for the auctions were unfair to smaller service providers.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring proof of kickbacks or bribes in prosecutions involving the theft of so-called honest services left prosecutors with "little choice" but to dismiss charges against two former Westar Energy executives, the U.S. attorney's office said Monday.

"The law no longer supported our position," U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said in a statement. "We were duty-bound not to go forward with the prosecution."

Former Westar Chief Executive David Wittig and his top strategy officer, Douglas Lake, were charged in 2003 with conspiring to inflate their compensation from the Topeka-based utility and taking steps to hide their actions.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson dismissed all charges against them Friday at the request of federal prosecutors.

That prompted Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy's executive vice president, to issue a statement saying the company disagreed with the Justice Department's decision and planned to pursue civil claims in an arbitration proceeding that had been put on hold pending the criminal case. He noted investors, who had borne the damages and expenses, had not received any restitution.

The ACLU of Virginia is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court ruling that bans alcohol advertising in Virginia's college newspapers.

In a 2-1 ruling in April, the 4th U.S. District Court of Appeals concluded that the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission ban is a minimally restrictive approach to combat problem drinking.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition on Monday asking the high court to review the ruling, saying a ban on truthful advertising is only constitutional if it advances "important societal goals."

ACLU legal director Rebecca Glenberg said the ban doesn't meet that standard because there is no evidence that banning the ads diminishes underage or binge drinking on campus.

Five states are asking a federal judge in Chicago to take emergency action to close two shipping locks and install barriers to prevent Asian carp from overrunning the Great Lakes via a "carp highway."

At the first hearing in the case Monday, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. showed no signs of rushing into a decision. He scheduled Sept. 7 and 8 to hear expert testimony in the case, including from scientists about the environmental DNA testing that has found genetic material from Asian carp in Illinois waterways near Lake Michigan.

The judge's questions reflected awareness of the DNA test's limits.

"Could it have been from something that ate a fish?" the judge asked about carp DNA found in water samples. Michigan assistant attorney general Robert Reichel acknowledged a bird that ate an Asian carp could excrete carp DNA into the water. The states' experts believe it's more likely that the findings show the recent presence of carp, Reichel told the judge.

The judge also asked about a single 20-pound carp discovered in June, the first to be found in a Chicago waterway above the electric barrier system. The judge asked whether scientists could pinpoint how it got there.

An attorney for Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland's office asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court Monday to strike down a new law designed to raise revenue for the state's Medicaid program.

Attorney Michael Ridgeway told the high court state lawmakers did not follow constitutional guidelines when they passed the bill. Their errors included failing to get a required three-fourths vote of the House and Senate, he said.

The law sets a 1 percent fee on claims paid by private health insurers and companies with self-insured health care plans to support Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income and elderly residents.

Attorneys for the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, the state's Medicaid provider, and other state agencies urged the court to uphold the new law and said it was meant to increase residents' access to health care services provided by Medicaid.

For the second year in row, Tully Rinckey PLLC has been named one of the fastest-growing companies by Inc. Magazine.  The publication ranked the law firm 949 out of 5,000 on its annual list of fastest-growing private companies in America.  Last year, Tully Rinckey PLLC was ranked 1,598th.

The ranking is another indication of the firm’s ongoing growth and expansion in today’s challenging climate.  Over the past year, Tully Rinckey PLLC has nearly doubled in size at both of its Albany and Washington, D.C. offices, adding nearly 10,000 square feet of office space and more than 30 new jobs.  The company anticipates future growth with plans to open several additional offices along the eastern seaboard over the next 12 to 18 months.

“The firm’s ability to not only survive, but thrive, in these challenging times is a testament to the superior legal services provided by our attorneys,” says Tully Rinckey founding partner, Mathew B. Tully.  “We have always prided ourselves in offering personal, professional and affordable legal representation.”

The annual “Inc. 5000” list is an extension of the publication’s list of the top 500 fastest-growing companies in the country.  The list is ranked according to percentage revenue growth over a four-year period.  To qualify, companies must be able to show four calendar years of sales.  All companies included on the list are U.S.-based, privately held, and independent of any subsidiary of a parent company. 

For more information please contact Ali Skinner at (518) 218-7100 or at askinner@tullylegal.com.

When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8—the 2008 ballot initiative to outlaw gay marriage—he said the motivation for the majority of voters was clear.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision announced August 4 in San Francisco. "These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8."

In Walker's reasoning, religion amounts to a "private moral view," which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. While some legal scholars say Walker's decision lands on firm legal ground—a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster—some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square.

On August 5, Prop 8's supporters filed an appeal of Walker's decision. Jim Campbell, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm involved in the litigation, said the religious freedom argument will play an important role as the case moves up the federal judicial ladder—including, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court.