A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a new sentencing hearing for convicted police killer and death-row activist Mumia Abu-Jamal, finding for a second time that the death-penalty instructions given to the jury at his 1982 trial were potentially misleading.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told prosecutors to conduct the new sentencing hearing within six months or agree to a life sentence. Abu-Jamal's first-degree murder conviction still stands in the fatal shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner.

District Attorney Seth Williams said he would consider mounting another appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Defense lawyers for the former Black Panther, meanwhile, said the ruling addresses "an unfortunate chapter in Pennsylvania history."

"Pennsylvania long ago abandoned the confusing and misleading instructions and verdict slip that were relied on in Mr. Abu-Jamal's trial in order to prevent unfair and unjust death sentences," said Widener University law professor Judith Ritter, who argued the most recent appeal in November. "Mr. Abu-Jamal is entitled to no less constitutional protection."

The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on efforts by states to limit drug manufacturers' use of information about the prescription drugs that doctors like to prescribe.

The court took up a dispute between the state of Vermont and companies that sell doctors' prescribing information to pharmaceutical companies, though without patient names. The drug makers use the data to tailor their pitch to individual doctors.

The Vermont law had prevented the sale of information about individual doctors' prescribing records without the doctors' permission.

But several justices said the so-called data mining law raised troubling constitutional concerns because it appeared to make it harder for brand-name drug makers to state their case, while placing no similar restrictions on the state, insurance companies and others who favor the increased use of cheaper generic medicines.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the Vermont law seemed to be "censoring" what doctors could hear. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court has ruled in the past that governments "can't lower the decibel level of one speaker so others can be heard better."

A federal appeals struck down the Vermont law as a restriction on commercial free speech that violates the First Amendment, but another appeals court rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld similar laws in Maine and New Hampshire.

The Arizona Court of Appeals plans to hear arguments Wednesday on a civil lawsuit involving a Gilbert spa owner whose clients paid to have fish eat dead skin off their feet.

The case was filed by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of spa owner Cindy Vong.

A lower court dismissed the suit.

The Arizona Republic reports the Arizona Board of Cosmetology threatened to pull Vong's license in early 2009 if she didn't stop offering the pedicure service. The board alleged the fish were unsafe because they could not be sterilized.

Vong says the board's ruling hurt her financially.

The Institute sued in December 2009, alleging the board lacked jurisdiction over the practice because it was not a cosmetic service and that it violated Vong's right to run her business.