At issue is language in a drug labeling rule from 2006 that effectively limits when people can sue in state court over injury claims involving medications. The FDA contends federal regulations prevail when there is a conflict with state law. This concept is called pre-emption.

Internal agency documents showed that career officials opposed this approach, according to a report released by Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the past, the agency had viewed private suits as an additional layer of protection against unsafe drugs, the report said.

"Much of the argument for why we are proposing to invoke pre-emption seems to be based on a false assumption that the FDA approved labeling is fully accurate and up-to-date in a real time basis," the report quoted Dr. John Jenkins, who oversees FDA's new drug reviews, as saying. "We know that such an assumption is false."

Marco Allen Chapman's execution was scheduled for Nov. 21 after the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld his sentence last week. Chapman, 36, would be the first inmate put to death in the state in nearly 10 years.

The defense attorneys filed two motions with the Supreme Court on Monday asking for a stay of execution, even though Chapman dismissed them in 2004 before pleading guilty and asking to be put to death.

The public defenders questioned Chapman's competency in one motion for a stay. In another, they argued that Chapman shouldn't be executed until appeals are exhausted in a separate case that questions the validity of Kentucky's execution protocol. That case is pending before the state Supreme Court.

Public defenders Donna Boyce, Randall Wheeler and Emily Rhorer wrote in one of the motions that Chapman "will suffer the most irreparable injury known to law" if the stay isn't granted. "He will be executed before it is determined whether his execution would be legal," they wrote.

The law is designed to keep sex offenders away from children by monitoring how close they live to schools, parks and other spots where kids gather. But critics say it unfairly subjects homeless offenders to a life sentence if they fail to register a home address.

The Georgia Supreme Court's 6-1 decision Monday found the law's registration requirements were "unconstitutionally vague." The opinion also held that homeless offenders are not exempt from the statute, and suggested special reporting requirements for the homeless.

The case involves William James Santos, a homeless man and convicted sex offender who was kicked out of a Gainesville homeless shelter in July 2006 and was arrested three months later on charges he failed to register with Georgia's sex offender list.

Police in Warwick said Dennis Ricca died Oct. 17 of a single gunshot wound to the head. The 55-year-old was found behind the wheel of his pickup truck in the driveway of his summer home in Greenwood Lake, about 50 miles northwest of Manhattan. A 9 mm handgun was by his side.

Ricca was found three days after he and Leno were sued by the estate of Macy's department store heir John W. Straus. The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, accuses them of knowingly buying valuable cars after an improper auction rigged to wrest the vehicles from Straus when he was ill.

Court papers said Leno paid $180,000 for a 1931 Duesenberg that was worth $1.2 million, and Ricca bought a 1930 Rolls Royce for an unknown amount. The cars were worth a total of $1.7 million and had been in the Straus family for 75 years, court papers say.

The lawsuit said parking garage owner Garage Management Corp. claimed it auctioned the long-stored cars to satisfy unpaid bills, although they actually had been paid. Ricca was the company's director of maintenance at the Upper East Side garage where the two cars were parked.

The ITC imposed the ban in June 2007 because it found that some Qualcomm chips infringed on a battery-saving technology patent owned by Broadcom Corp., a rival maker of cell phone chips. The ban was stayed in September 2007 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pending appeal.

In its opinion Tuesday, the court said the ITC lacked the authority to ban the imports of phones made by companies such as Motorola Inc. and Samsung Electronics Corp., even if their phones included Qualcomm chips. It sent the case back to the commission.

"Qualcomm is very pleased with the Court's opinion," said Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm. "In effect, the Court has disapproved Broadcom's tactic of attacking the wireless industry, including handset manufacturers and wireless operators, without providing them with the opportunity to defend themselves in the action."

Broadcom spokesman Bill Blanning said the company was pleased that the appeals court affirmed the validity of its patent and that it had been infringed.

"We look forward to addressing this issue upon remand to the ITC. We will continue to pursue other avenues for enforcement against infringement of our intellectual property by Qualcomm," Blanning said.

Qualcomm shares fell $1.98, or 4.7 percent, to $40.32 on Tuesday. Broadcom shares fell $1.27, or 7.8 percent, to $15.10.

But what happens when the issue is less clear and a judge has the appearance of a conflict, but no personal stake in the outcome of a dispute? The court is considering a case that asks whether the Constitution requires judges to step aside in that instance.

The justices met in private Friday to discuss a lawsuit over a coal contract in West Virginia in which a state Supreme Court justice rejected calls to step aside because the leader of one company in the case spent more than $3 million to help him get elected.

Justice Brent Benjamin twice was in the majority in 3-2 decisions overturning a $50 million jury verdict against Massey Energy Co. Don Blankenship, Massey's president, chairman and chief executive officer, was a key Benjamin backer. Two other state court justices recused themselves from the case the second time it was under consideration.

The losing party, Harman Mining Corp., says the appearance of bias by Benjamin is so strong that Harman's constitutional rights were violated. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson is representing Harman.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Eight same-sex couples sued in 2004, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.