The Supreme Court said Tuesday the Tohono O'Odham Nation cannot press its lawsuit claiming mismanagement of tribal resources in two different federal courts at the same time.

The Arizona-based tribe sued in both U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in December 2006, complaining the federal government had mismanaged its reservation lands, mineral resources and income.

The Court of Federal Claims threw out the lawsuit filed in its court, saying it did not have jurisdiction and the two lawsuits were too similar. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the lawsuit, however.

The high court ruled Tuesday in a 7-1 vote to throw out the lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims again. The tribe's lawsuit in the U.S. District Court was not affected by this ruling.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and Justice Elena Kagan did not participate because she was involved with the case as solicitor general.

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.