Convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff will learn Monday morning whether he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars for running a decades-long swindle that bilked thousands of investors out of billions of dollars.

Madoff, who admitted in March to orchestrating one of the largest and longest-running white-collar frauds in recent memory, is set to be sentenced at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan at 10 a.m. EDT Monday.

Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan have asked for the statutory maximum of 150 years or a sentence that will effectively guarantee the 71-year-old Madoff spends the rest of his life in prison.

"He engaged in wholesale fraud for more than a generation; his so-called 'investment advisory' business was a fraud; his frauds affected thousands of investors in the United States and worldwide; and he repeatedly lied under oath and filed false documents to conceal his fraud," Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark Litt and Lisa Baroni said in a court documents last week. "The scope, duration and nature of Madoff's crimes render him exceptionally deserving of the maximum punishment allowed by law."

Ira Sorkin, Madoff's lawyer, has asked for a sentence of as little as 12 years in prison, citing Madoff's potential life expectancy of 13 years. In the alternative, he's asked for a sentence of 15 years to 20 years in prison.

On March 12, Madoff was ordered directly to jail after pleading guilty to 11 criminal charges, including money laundering and multiple counts of fraud, in a Ponzi scheme that prosecutors claim stretched back to the 1980s. Madoff himself has said the fraud began in 1990s during a recession.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin entered the preliminary order Friday, ruling that Madoff must give up his interests in all property, including real estate, investments, cars and boats.

The forfeiture represents the total amount that could be connected to Madoff's fraud, not the amount stolen or lost, and the order made clear that nothing prevents other departments or entities from seeking to recover additional funds.

A call to Madoff's lawyer, Ira Sorkin, after hours Friday was not immediately returned. In a court filing in March, Sorkin said the government's forfeiture demand of $177 billion was "grossly overstated — and misleading — even for a case of this magnitude."

The 71-year-old Madoff pleaded guilty in March to charges that his exclusive investment advisory business was actually a massive Ponzi scheme. Federal prosecutors say Madoff orchestrated perhaps the largest financial swindle in history.

Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin, who released a copy of the order Friday night, plans to seek a 150-year prison term at Madoff's sentencing Monday. Sorkin has argued in court papers for a 12-year term.

According to Friday's order, the government also settled claims against Madoff's wife. Under the arrangement, the government obtained Ruth Madoff's interest in all property, including more than $80 million-worth that she had claimed was hers, prosecutors said. The order left her $2.5 million in assets.

The state of New York wanted the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision that blocks states from investigating the lending practices of national banks with branches within its borders. It was supported by the other 49 states.

Hal Turner, 47, a former Internet radio talk show host, was taken into custody by FBI agents who went to his North Bergen home with a search warrant, according to the U.S. attorney's office.

Prosecutors quoted a Turner Internet posting as saying: "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed."

The posting included a map showing the Everett Dirksen Federal Courthouse, where the three judges are based. It said a map showing the judges' homes would later be added.

The posting also referred to the murder of the mother and husband of Chicago-based federal Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow in February 2005 — a crime that sent shock waves across the nation.

"Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court didn't get the hint after those killings," the posting said. "It appears another lesson is needed."

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced the arrest, stressing the importance federal officials placed on the case.

The 8-1 ruling by the US Supreme Court Monday on the Voting Rights Act has been greeted with a mixture of relief and praise from many civil rights groups and liberal commentators. “It’s fair to say this case was brought to tear the heart out of the Voting Rights Act, and today that effort failed,” said Debo Adegbile, lead attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

But a closer examination of the decision and the political context in which it was made reveals that the court has opened the door to gutting the most fundamental US civil rights law, whose passage in 1965 marked a watershed in the struggle against institutionalized racial discrimination.

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a local utility district in Austin, Texas sued the federal government over the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that certain state and local government units apply to the US Department of Justice for “preclearance” before they make any changes in their election rules, including changes in voter registration procedures and electoral district boundaries.

The 1965 law specified nine states and parts of several others, including most of the former Confederacy: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and most of Virginia. Alaska, Arizona and portions of Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Dakota and New York City are also affected, most of the latter because of discrimination against Hispanic and Native American voters. Including all their counties, cities, school districts, utility districts and other governmental entities, a total of some 17,000 jurisdictions are subject to preclearance.

Under the rules rejected by U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty, companies that own fuel-saving cabs would have been allowed to charge drivers slightly higher rental rates; companies with gas-hungry vehicles would see their rates decrease over a two-year period.

In October, Crotty rejected for the same reason other rules the city had devised to try to force the fleet of yellow cabs to go green by 2012. Those rules would have required new cabs to be fuel efficient.

The judge praised the city's intent but said efforts to encourage the purchase of hybrid vehicles must be careful not to interfere with Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over laws related to mileage or emission standards.

"The court's purpose is not to interfere with government officials taking actions in the public interest," he wrote. "Increasing the number of hybrid taxicabs is an appropriate and important governmental priority."

The judge noted there were no legal challenges to decisions by the city to issue new taxi medallions only to hybrid vehicles or to allow hybrid cabs to stay in service longer.

Michael A. Cardozo, head of the city's law department, said the city was disappointed.

"We do not believe that Congress intended to prohibit local governments from implementing incentive programs ... that encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly taxis. We are exploring our legal options," he said in a statement.