The state Supreme Court's conservative and liberal factions are set to clash over travel reimbursements and court finances.

The court's seven justices are set to meet on Monday morning. On the agenda is Justice Pat Roggensack's request for state reimbursement for traveling around the state for a personal project and questions about why Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson hired two executive assistants when the court's budget calls for one.

Roggensack says her project on racial disparities in sentencing falls is both personal and court related. Abrahamson contends the two assistants split their time.

Tensions have run high on the court since conservative-leaning justices gained a majority in 2008, leaving liberal-leaning Abrahamson and another justice in the minority.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge on Thursday to question star pitcher Roger Clemens about his knowledge of a potential conflict of interest his attorney may have involving former teammate-turned-prosecution-witness Andy Pettitte.

Prosecutors filed a memo suggesting questions U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton should pose to Clemens and his attorneys at a hearing on the matter next Wednesday in federal court in Washington.

They say the judge should ask the seven-time Cy Young Award winner if he understands that lawyer Rusty Hardin has a potential conflict because he briefly advised Pettitte shortly before the release of a report in December 2007 that said both players had used human growth hormone. Prosecutors also want to make sure that Clemens' attorneys have not revealed to him any information regarding their representation of his former teammate and asked the judge to ensure that Clemens still wants Hardin and his Houston-based firm to represent him.

Clemens denies that he used any performance-enhancing drugs. Pettitte has admitted that he did and said Clemens admitted privately to him that he did as well.

With Rahm Emanuel back in the race for Chicago mayor thanks to a ruling from Illinois' highest court, the question now is what effect the legal dispute had on the race.

A lower court threw the former White House chief of staff off the ballot earlier in the week because he had not lived in Chicago for a full year before the Feb. 22 election. The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in Emanuel's favor.

It's unclear if the other contenders were able to attract some notice from voters who thought Emanuel might not make the ballot. And it's possible Emanuel garnered sympathy from voters.

Don Rose, a longtime analyst of Chicago politics, said the legal saga would bring Emanuel "even greater sympathy" and could lift him to victory.

An appeals court revived a class-action lawsuit Thursday for 160 residents of a Northern California town who claim an industrial plant's pollution severely sickened them.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a trial judge was wrong to dismiss the case on grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.

About 100 residents of Willits filed a lawsuit in 1999 claiming chemical disposals from Remco Hydraulics Inc. brought exposure to chromium and caused a wide-range of illnesses, from cancer to mental disorders.

The lawsuit ultimately included more than 1,000 residents, many of whom settled with the company, which closed the plant and filed for bankruptcy in 1995.

A suburban Denver pot grower who tried to use state medical marijuana law in his defense is due to be sentenced in federal court.

Christopher Bartkowicz is scheduled to appear in court Friday. Judge Phillip Brimer must decide whether to accept the five-year prison term that's part of a plea deal Bartkowicz reached with prosecutors or impose a sentence of his own.

Bartkowicz pleaded guilty to three drug charges after federal drug agents raided his Highlands Ranch home last February and seized hundreds of pot plants growing in his basement.

The raid came after a Denver TV station promoted a story in which Bartkowicz bragged about how much money he would make growing pot under Colorado's medical marijuana law.

Slapping a teenager or taking money from her paycheck to pay family bills is hardly admirable, but doesn't constitute child neglect or abuse, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

In a 7-0 decision, the court found the state Division of Youth and Family Services lacked sufficient evidence to remove a teenager from her father and stepmother's home in 2008, and dropped the abuse and neglect judgment against her stepmother.

"The parental decisions made within this family unit may not have been exemplars of stellar parenting, but they did not rise to the level of Title Nine violations," wrote Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, referring to New Jersey's child abuse laws.

The girl was removed from the home after her grandfather reported the parents for taking her earnings from her part-time job and "slapping her around." A DYFS worker also found the home was without heat and authorized an emergency removal.

The father told a DYFS representative that his wife had slapped his daughter once two years earlier, and that part of his daughter's earnings went to the cable bill. The couple said their central heating was broken, and they were using space heaters. The family members were not named the decision.