The contrasting views emerged in arguments over a federal court order forcing the nation's largest state prison system to cut its inmate population by some 40,000 to fix longtime problems with inadequate medical and mental health care.

The justices seemed divided along ideological lines, with conservatives appearing sympathetic to California's arguments and liberals sharply questioning its position. Conservatives have a slight majority on the court.

The court took the case under advisement after the arguments and is expected to issue a ruling by June.

The case involves two-class action lawsuits filed in federal court by inmates who challenged the health care conditions in California state prisons in 1990 and 2001. A trial began in 2008 and a three-judge federal panel ruled against the state last year.

Improving conditions in California's prisons has become a major legal, political and budget issue in view of the state's budget crisis and high unemployment.

Carter Phillips, the attorney representing the state, said the lower court had violated federal law by failing to give sufficient weight to the potential adverse on public safety of cutting the prison population.

"I guarantee you that there is going to be more crime and people are going to die on the streets of California," he said.

California's 33 adult prisons were designed to hold about 80,000 inmates but currently hold about 145,000. The state has lowered its prison population through changes in parole and sentencing policies and by transferring inmates to private prisons in other states.

A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens.

Gary Fielder filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver last week, more than a month after he, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend underwent a TSA pat-down in San Diego.

Fielder's lawsuit claimed the pat-downs were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.

Nationally, at least two other lawsuits have been filed over the TSA's new procedures.

"I'm not asking for any money. I just want to walk to a plane without being touched," Fielder said Tuesday. "They're probably thinking that next time, I'll just submit to the scanner. No, I won't go through that. I'm not going to be photographed nude."

TSA officials last month began phasing in full-body scanners at airports, ahead of the busy holiday travel season. Those who opt out of the scanners, which some travelers oppose over concerns of radiation and graphic images, undergo new pat-down procedures that include more of a hand-sliding motion.

In a statement, TSA officials declined to comment on Fielder's lawsuit, citing pending litigation. The lawsuit named Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano, TSA administrator John Pistole, and the TSA.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Tiffany's in its ongoing suit against eBay, effectively closing the case in favor of the online auction house.

The original suit, filed in 2004 and heard in 2007, claimed that eBay was not doing enough to police its auctions for counterfeit goods.

Tiffany claimed that it purchased its own goods in random eBay auctions, and that 73 percent of the purchases were of counterfeit goods. eBay, meanwhile, had claimed that its Verified Rights Owners program satisfied the company's obligation to sell legitimate merchandise.

In 2008, eBay won the initial ruling, but Tiffany's appealed the case to an appellate court. After the court upheld the eBay decision again, Tiffany's only other recourse was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"It is true that eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did, and that is in part why we conclude that eBay did not infringe Tiffany's mark," the appeals court opinion said. "But eBay did affirmatively advertise the goods sold through its site as Tiffany merchandise."

The Supreme Court denied the petition on Monday, appending a note that Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the petition.

A former street preacher on trial for kidnapping and assaulting Elizabeth Smart suffered an apparent seizure in the courtroom Tuesday and was rushed to a hospital.

The judge adjourned the case for the day after defendant Brian David Mitchell was removed on a stretcher and put in an ambulance.

Paramedics took Mitchell to a hospital, but neither court officials nor defense attorneys would identify it. His condition could not immediately be determined.

However, court officials said later in the day the trial would resume Wednesday.

The incident occurred as the jury was about to be called into the courtroom for another day of testimony.

Mitchell was sitting between two of his defense attorneys when he stopped his daily hymn singing and slumped over slightly in his chair. He cried out — a long, loud moan — as his body twisted to the left.

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a Texas teenager who got in trouble for illegal downloading of music—a potential blow to students who might claim to be “innocent infringers” of copyright laws after downloading music without paying and bogging down campus networks.

Whitney Harper of Texas acknowledged she used file-sharing programs to download and share three dozen songs, claiming she didn’t know the program she used was taking songs from the internet illegally.

She also said the money she owes the recording industry should be reduced because, as a 16-year-old, she didn’t know that what she did amounted to copyright infringement.

The state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that possession of more than 8 pounds of marijuana is a serious enough charge to warrant forcing medication on a defendant so he is competent to stand trial.

The high court's 7-0 ruling came in the case of 30-year-old Christopher Seekins of Torrington, who authorities say has been ruled incompetent to stand trial because he refuses to take psychotropic medication for bipolar disorder. Justices upheld a lower court judge's order to medicate Seekins against his will.

State law says a defendant can be involuntarily medicated if the crime is serious enough and there is an overriding law enforcement interest in determining whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Seekins argued that possessing marijuana isn't a serious crime.

Seekins' lawyer, Richard Marquette, declined to comment on the ruling Friday through an employee at his Hamden law firm.

Seekins also made headlines in 2005 when he painted large pictures of marijuana leaves on his Winsted home with the word "hemp" beneath them after being charged with growing marijuana, saying it was in support of legalizing the drug. He later agreed in a plea bargain to remove or cover up the paintings, which caused a ruckus in town because they were visible from busy Main Street.

Justice Richard Palmer, a former prosecutor, wrote in the Supreme Court's ruling that the basis for determining whether a crime is serious is the severity of the sentence it potentially carries. Palmer noted that Seekins faces a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison if convicted of just three of the many charges he faces.