The Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote Tuesday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos and other depictions of animal cruelty, saying the law infringed on free speech rights.

"We read (the law) to create a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, noting that nowhere in the disputed law was there a requirement that the depicted conduct actually be "cruel."

The text of the law, used to prosecute a Virginia man who had advertised videos of dogfights in an underground magazine, sweepingly covered "any depiction" in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed."

Yet as the justices struck down that prohibition, they specifically said they were not deciding the validity of a law that would target only so-called "crush videos," which typically show women's high heels digging into kittens and other small animals and which had inspired Congress to write the 1999 law in the first place.

Robert Stevens, who had run a business known as "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," appealed his conviction under the law, saying it violated his First Amendment speech rights. He also contended he was trying to provide educational and historical materials about the pit bull breed, not promoting illegal dogfighting.

It's been called a groundbreaking law, but a measure approved in Nebraska last week that changes the rationale for abortion bans probably won't go into effect anytime soon — if ever.

Instead, abortion opponents are hoping it will become the most important case on abortion to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Even they acknowledge the ban on abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy won't see the light of day unless the high court rules that it is constitutional.

Mary Spaulding Balch, legislative director for National Right to Life, said a court injunction will likely prevent the implementation of the law. The measure passed last week by Nebraska's nonpartisan Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to take effect in October.

Lower courts have no precedent to support the law, which bases the new restrictions on the assertion that fetuses feel pain.

Employers won a big victory Thursday in the ongoing fight over medical marijuana.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that employers no longer need to accommodate workers who legally use medical marijuana.

That means employers can terminate workers with medical marijuana cards who fail drug tests.

The ruling settled more than a decade of debate about the legal rights of employers when it comes to legal marijuana use.

“If a person shows a medical marijuana card, it’s no longer a get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Rich Meneghello, managing partner at the law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP, who represents employers.

Oregon voters legalized the use of medical marijuana in 1998. The law has been the subject of numerous legal challenges since then.

White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley was back in court Monday for domestic abuse charges.

Bradley was arrested again on Thursday after allegedly violating an order of protection from his wife.

Bradley was booked on three charges: harassment, tampering with a witness, and contempt of court.

Prosecutors claims since March 5, Bradley has repeatedly intentionally violated an order of protection not to harass or cause fear. The new charges alleged he yelled at his wife, Fumiko, on five different occasions.

The judge on Monday ordered him to stay away from Fumiko and to attend an anti-violence class.

A city spokeswoman is denying weekend reports saying that Bradley could resign as early as today.

In the first incident, Mrs. Bradley told police her husband confronted her at the house she was staying at and yelled that in order for him to save his career, she needed to enter a mental hospital or tell police she had lied to them.

The high court on Monday turned away an appeal from Homaidan Al-Turki. He was convicted of false imprisonment, conspiracy, criminal extortion, theft and unlawful sexual contact.

Al-Turki was convicted of sexually abusing his Indonesian housekeeper and paying her less than $2 per day.

He complained that he wasn't allowed to question a potential juror about potential anti-Muslim sentiment.

The high court on Monday refused to lift a temporary injunction against Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. A lower court judge had banned the company from working with American Airlines AAdvantage points while the airline's lawsuit against the brokers was going through the court.

American Airlines says Frequent Flyer Depot's practice of getting American's passengers to sell them their frequent flyer points is illegal. The brokers would then use the points to buy tickets for people who did not want to deal directly with American Airlines.

American says the AAdvantage program prohibits the selling of its frequent flyer points.

The brokers say buying an airline ticket from them is cheaper than buying it from American. They also say that the AAdvantage program is not a contract under which the airline can sue.

A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message but described it as a joke.

In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message - threatening to "rip out your ... heart and feed it to you" and to "pound your head in with an ice pick" - conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech.

The dissenting justice, Frances Rothschild, said no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site - in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults - would interpret any of them as a serious threat.

The case is one of the first in California to examine the boundaries between free expression and so-called cyber-bullying. The court majority said a message that threatens physical harm, even if it wasn't meant to be serious, loses its First Amendment protection and can be grounds for a lawsuit.

The plaintiff, identified only as D.C., set up a Web site in 2005 to promote an entertainment career after recording an album and starring in a film. Believing - wrongly, the court said - that he was gay, some fellow students at a Los Angeles high school posted comments that mocked him, feigned sexual interest or threatened violence.

The boy's father said he withdrew D.C. from the school, at the suggestion of Los Angeles police, and moved the family to an undisclosed spot in Northern California. D.C. sued six students and their parents, claiming hate crimes, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The ruling involved a claim by one defendant, a 16-year-old identified as R.R., that the suit interfered with his freedom of speech. In a court filing, R.R. said he didn't know D.C. personally but was offended by the Web site's self-promotional tone and "decided to add my own message to the Internet graffiti contest," posing as a parent who was so offended by D.C.'s singing that he wanted to kill him.