A statewide court rule letting judges regulate the appearance of witnesses — such as asking them to remove face coverings — was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.

Justices heard last month from a Muslim woman who sued because her small claims case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil.

Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnnah Muhammad he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. The 45-year-old from Detroit kept her niqab on during the 2006 hearing.

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that women wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not their husband or close relative.

After Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association got behind a court rule giving judges "reasonable" control over the appearance of parties and witnesses to observe their demeanor and ensure they can be accurately identified.

The two justices who voted against the rule Wednesday said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.

Muhammad originally went to court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

The Detroit area is home to one of the country's largest Muslim populations. Legal observers have said the veil flap is a cutting-edge issue that will arise elsewhere in the United States.

The court's 4-3 ruling — the first such decision by Georgia's top appellate court — found that Expedia must collect hotel occupancy taxes from its customers and pay them to the city of Columbus.

An attorney representing Columbus said the ruling doesn't say whether Expedia owes back taxes, and said that issue may be decided by a lower court.

While the Georgia court's ruling doesn't apply to cases in other states, city attorneys say it could bring fresh momentum to dozens of other lawsuits around the country brought by frustrated officials who say the online travel scheme is depriving them of tax dollars.

"Decisions like this are persuasive if nothing else," said Wade Tomlinson, who represented the city of Columbus in the lawsuit. "Other courts will look at it, consider it and apply it."

Many similar complaints have been dismissed by federal or state judges, but attorneys say several are still pending, including lawsuits filed by officials or customers in Atlanta, Baltimore, San Antonio and a federal class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Georgia cities. Similar complaints have also been filed in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Anaheim, Calif.

The lawsuits hinge on the complicated pricing schemes used by Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity and other online travel sites.

When consumers make reservations at the sites, they pay more for a room than the online outfits pay the hotels for the room, allowing the online companies to pocket the difference.

The ruling came after a contentious hearing that ultimately spilled into a courthouse hallway, where the former manager, Mike Gilbert, and a lawyer for Fred Goldman exchanged heated accusations.

Goldman — the father of Ronald Goldman, who was slain alongside Simpson's ex-wife 15 years ago — is seeking to satisfy a $33.5 million civil judgment against Simpson by selling the suit the Hall of Famer wore to court when he was acquitted on murder charges.

Gilbert said Simpson gave him the suit the day after his Oct. 3, 1995, acquittal. He claims it is his property because Simpson had not yet been found civilly liable for Ronald Goldman's and Nicole Brown Simpson's deaths.

Gilbert told Fred Goldman's lawyer, David Cook, that Goldman previously said his pursuit of Simpson was not about money.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Obama's judicial nominees, including Sotomayor and three others to the U.S. Court of Appeals, raise questions about what role a judge's background should play in deciding cases.

"I'm troubled, I have to say, by President Obama's philosophy of judging," Sessions, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, told USA TODAY and Gannett Washington Bureau reporters. "When he talks about wanting a judge to show empathy, that's very troubling to me."

Sessions, a former prosecutor, said he does not expect Republicans to filibuster Sotomayor's nomination, but he said she is the latest in a pattern of Obama nominees he has found troublesome.

"She seems to be willing to accept that a judge's rulings may be influenced by the judge's personal backgrounds or feelings, which is sort of what President Obama has said," Sessions said.

Hearings for Sotomayor's nomination are scheduled to begin July 13.

Sessions singled out three other nominations: David Hamilton of Indiana for the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Andre Davis of Maryland for the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; and Gerard Lynch of New York for the New York City-based 2nd Circuit.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman, who has studied judicial appointments, said it is difficult to generalize about any Obama pattern with so few nominations.

"The differences struck me more than any similarities," Hellman said of the nominees. "Lynch is a straight-down-the-middle former prosecutor. With Hamilton, you have someone who happens to have two high-profile cases in two of the most contested areas of the law, abortion and prayer."

Sessions focused on two Hamilton rulings. In one, Hamilton invalidated an Indiana law requiring women seeking abortions to obtain information about the procedure's risks. In the other, Hamilton forbade references to Jesus Christ in opening prayers at the Indiana Legislature. Both decisions were reversed.

The convictions stand against the so-called "Cuban Five," who maintain they did not receive a fair trial because of strong anti-Castro sentiment in Miami. The men have been lionized as heroes in Cuba. Exile groups say they were justly punished.

The five — Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino (aka Luis Medina), Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and Fernando Gonzalez (aka Ruben Campa) — were convicted in 2001 of being unregistered foreign agents. Three also were found guilty of conspiracy to obtain military secrets from the U.S. Southern Command headquarters.

Hernandez was convicted of murder conspiracy in the deaths of four pilots, members of the Miami-based Brothers to the Rescue organization, who were shot down by Cuban fighter jets in 1996 off the island's coast. The group sought to identify and help migrants leaving Cuba by sea. The Cuban government maintains the planes violated its airspace to scatter political pamphlets over the island.

U.S. Senate Republicans are in a quandary over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, aiming to raise pointed questions about her record without angering increasingly influential Hispanic voters.

Senator John Cornyn exemplifies the Republican dilemma over Sotomayor, who is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who seems certain to be confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

One of seven Republicans on the 19-member Senate Judiciary Committee, Cornyn will take part in what he promises will be tough but civil questioning of Sotomayor, Democratic President Barack Obama's choice, at her hearing starting on July 13.

Cornyn is also chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee that is charged with expanding a shrinking party and winning seats in the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate.

Hispanics, the fastest-growing U.S. minority who make up 15 percent of the population, are a key to any expansion plans.

Hispanics voted by a two-to-one margin for Obama in last year's presidential election. Many Hispanic voters greeted news of Sotomayor's nomination with joy, and Republicans are aware that Hispanics will be watching carefully how she is handled.

The justices, in an order Monday, say they will hear arguments next year in a case involving eight Shell station operators in Massachusetts who are fighting changes in lease terms that they say were intended to convert stations run by franchisees to company-owned facilities.

A federal jury awarded the gas station operators $3.3 million. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld some aspects of the verdict and overturned others.

Shell, owned by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and the station operators all appealed to the Supreme Court. The Obama administration also asked the court to intervene and rule in Shell's favor.

The case turns on provisions of the 30-year-old Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. Appeals courts around the country are divided on the issue.

The cases are Mac's Shell Service v. Shell Oil, 08-240, and Shell Oil v. Mac's Shell Service, 08-372.