The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a massive sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of at least 500,000 women claiming that Wal-Mart favors men over women in pay and promotions.

The justices suggested that they are troubled by lower court decisions allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed against the world's largest retailer.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the high court, said he is unsure "what the unlawful policy is" that Wal-Mart engaged in to deprive women of pay increases and promotions comparable to men.

Billions of dollars are at stake in the case. Class actions create pressure on businesses to settle claims and create the potential for large judgments.

Wal-Mart denies it discriminates against its female employees.

But Joseph Sellers, the lawyer for the women, said that lower courts were persuaded by statistical and other evidence put forth so far in the 10-year-old lawsuit.

Sellers said a strong corporate culture at Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Ark., headquarters that stereotyped women as less aggressive than men translated into individual pay and promotions decisions at the more than 3,400 Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs stores across the country.

Restricting use of eagle parts and feathers to members of federally recognized American Indian tribes for religious purposes does not violate the religious freedoms of non-Indians seeking the same right, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that such a prohibition, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, does not violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Tuesday's ruling comes after several cases in which non-Indians, and one man from a tribe that is no longer recognized by the federal government, sought the right to use feathers in their religious practices.

Eagle feathers are believed to be sacred among many Native Americans.

Federal law requires that eagle carcasses be sent to the National Eagle Repository in Denver, Colo., and that any tribe member wishing to use eagle feathers or parts in ceremonies apply for a permit to do so. The court noted that the repository "receives significantly more requests than it has available eagle carcasses" so there is already a long waiting period to fulfill permits.

All the cases noted in Tuesday's ruling weighed freedom of religion against the government's ability to protect the eagles and help maintain the centuries-old religious practices of Native Americans.

Federally recognized tribe members agree the law should restrict access to eagle parts to those whose ancestors have been practicing such ceremonies for centuries.

The Iowa Court of Appeals says a district court judge was wrong to suppress statements made to police by a man who walked into a police station saying he may have sexually assaulted a teenage girl.

Wednesday's decision allows prosecutors to continue their case against Ounheaun (OON'-yen) Cam, who is charged with assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.

Cam argued his statements to a Sioux Center police officer should have been suppressed because he was in custody and didn't knowingly waive his right to an attorney.

The appeals court found Cam was not in custody and did not ask about an attorney until after he had spoken to police.

The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether southern Indiana officials should be held liable for a dog that bit a 6-year-old Evansville boy.

The court heard oral arguments in the case Wednesday.

Misty Davis sued the city of Evansville on behalf of her son, Shawn. Her suit argues that animal control officials knew that the Rottweiler that attacked him was dangerous but failed to sanction its owner under the city's dangerous animal ordinance, making the attack possible

A trial judge agreed with officials' argument that they were immune, but the state Court of Appeals in August voted 2-1 to reverse that ruling.

A former Florida attorney general and congressman said Monday that Missouri should limit the fees a private law firm can collect when it handles some cases for the state attorney general.

Republican Bill McCollum came to Jefferson City to testify before a Missouri Senate panel about legislation restricting the attorney general's ability to use outside lawyers on a contingency basis. The measure would also limit outside lawyers' fees in such cases and make their expense reports a public record.

Lawyers who are hired on a contingency basis receive a portion of a judgment made in favor of their client instead of - or sometimes in addition to - their hourly rate.

McCollum supported similar legislation in Florida because of the large fees that private attorneys there collected for their work in a $205 billion settlement the tobacco industry reached with 46 states in 1998. McCollum said Florida attorneys had collected about $3.4 billion in fees from the settlement - a sum he termed "outrageous."

"The governor and the people of Florida felt that this was a big, huge rip-off," he said. "There needs to be some protections and transparencies for when an attorney general uses this outside counsel."

Private attorneys who negotiated Missouri's tobacco settlement were paid $111 million. An attempt to reduce that figure failed in the state Supreme Court in 2003.

McCollum said Missouri could have won a large award through the tobacco settlement even without agreeing to give the private attorneys a large contingency fee.

Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, said the attorney general's office had told her staff that the state had not hired outside lawyers on a contingency basis since the tobacco settlement. The state does routinely hire outside counsel for specialized cases, such as those involving Medicaid, but it pays them an hourly rate because the state is the defendant in those cases.

The Supreme Court has overturned a $14 million judgment given to a former death row inmate who accused New Orleans prosecutors of withholding evidence in order to help convict him of murder.

John Thompson had successfully sued the district attorney's office, arguing that former District Attorney Harry Connick showed deliberate indifference by not providing adequate training for assistant district attorneys.

Prosecutors did not turn over a crime lab report that indicated Thompson's blood type did not match the perpetrator in an attempted robbery in 1985. Prosecutors used that conviction to get the death penalty in another case Thompson was involved in.

Prosecutors normally have immunity for their actions while working, but Thompson had convinced a jury there had not been enough training on evidence handling. The court overturned that decision.