The appeals court in Washington ruled that the White House Office of Administration is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act, allowing the White House to keep secret documents about an e-mail system that has been plagued with problems.

During its first term, the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when it switched to a new system, resulting in millions of messages that could not be found. The Bush White House discovered the problem in 2005 and rejected a proposed solution.

A group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued to get documents about the office's electronic record-keeping, including reports analyzing system problems, plans to find the missing e-mails and create an improved system and records of any retained messages.

In response to court orders in the case, the White House disclosed that it has located nearly 3,500 pages of documents about problems with its e-mail system. But the Bush administration argued in this case for the first time that the office's records are not subject to public disclosure, even though it had responded to hundreds of other FOIA requests in the past decade and even included instructions on its Web site for filing them.

Consumers have the right to sue as a group over advertising they believe misled them into buying products, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday in reinstating a massive suit against the tobacco industry.

The 4-3 decision rejected business arguments that, if accepted, would have virtually prohibited class-action suits for false advertising by requiring proof that every plaintiff - millions of them, in some cases - had seen an allegedly deceptive ad and relied on it to make a purchase. The court majority said that evidence is required only for the single plaintiff or small group that represents the entire class.

"This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising," said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.

The ruling could make California "the class-action capital of the country," retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.

The suit accused the companies of waging a long advertising campaign that concealed cigarettes' addictive and harmful effects. Unlike individual suits over illnesses allegedly caused by tobacco company deception, the current suit seeks reimbursement of money spent by every Californian who bought cigarettes during the period covered by the case: June 10, 1993, to April 23, 2001.

The case was filed under California's unfair-competition law, a far-reaching statute that lets private citizens sue on behalf of the general public over illegal business practices, including deceptive advertising. The law was narrowed by the business-sponsored Prop. 64, which requires a plaintiff to show that he or she had actually been harmed by the business practice.

Prop. 64 did not say, however, how the new requirement would affect class actions, in which an individual or a small group sues on behalf of consumers in the same circumstances. The crucial question Monday was whether every member of the class must show harm from the challenged business practice, a virtual impossibility in most cases.

Results for Tuesday's special election posted on the California's secretary of state's website showed more than 60 percent of voters rejected the five fiscal measures on the ballot.

A sixth measure barring pay increases for state officials amid deficits was approved by about 74 percent of the voters.

Surveys in recent weeks had found little support for the fiscal measures, and Schwarzenegger all but conceded defeat by joining President Obama in Washington on Tuesday for his announcement on auto emission rules instead of campaigning for the measures through election day.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling issued Monday, overturned a lower-court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.

The court's decision "forces women to pay a high price today because their employers discriminated yesterday," said Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Four AT&T Corp. employees who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976 sued the company to get their leave time credited toward their pensions. Their pregnancies occurred before the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves.

AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn't have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.

Los Angeles County Superior Court officials announced Tuesday they would shut down court operations one day a month and furlough employees to address a projected $90-million shortfall caused by the state's continuing budget crisis.

The county's 600 courtrooms and all court services including traffic matters will be closed the third Wednesday of each month, starting July 15, saving about $18 million annually, court officials said. Chief Justice Ronald George of the California Supreme Court is considering taking the monthly closures statewide, officials said.

If the financial situation does not improve, the courts could eventually lay off as many as 1,300 employees, or a quarter of the workforce, in the next four years, said Charles "Tim" McCoy, presiding judge of the county's court system. Such cuts would lead to total closure of some courthouses and massive cuts in court services, he said.

"The justice system provides public safety. That system needs to be operating five days a week," McCoy said at a news conference. The monthly closure plan, he said, "puts the public at some risk."

McCoy said a handful of courtrooms would remain open on the furlough days to handle emergency matters. He said he anticipated a backlog of cases to build up as a result of the closures.

The justices agreed to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that upheld the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which set up the private sector Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

A conservative activist group called the Free Enterprise Fund and a small Nevada accounting firm appealed to the Supreme Court in arguing that the law violated constitutional requirements on separation of powers because it failed to allow adequate control of the board by the U.S. president.

The board polices the U.S. audit industry, including the Big Four firms that review the books of major corporations: Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche LLP.

A board spokeswoman said: "We remain confident that the PCAOB's structure is constitutional and look forward to our opportunity to demonstrate that in the Supreme Court."

Already, they're combing through the records of potential nominees, although not, as was the case with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, in search of a way to derail confirmation.

Encouraged by the White House, they're trying to anticipate a selection, build the case for approval and be ready to deflect the attacks from conservatives already beginning.

"It's thrilling to be able to promote great judicial candidates," says Nan Aron, president of the Alliance For Justice, looking ahead to a selection by President Barack Obama that may come as early as this week or next.

Added Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of La Raza, "We're all poised to support and mobilize for an excellent nominee."

Not that the liberal-leaning groups aren't trying to nudge Obama in one direction or another. While there is a general assumption that he will select a woman and a supporter of abortion rights, Latino leaders recently sent a list of more than 80 Hispanic judges to the White House, a not-too-subtle prod to the president.