The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a Texas death row inmate should have access to evidence for DNA testing that he says could clear him of three murders.

The justices said Monday they will use the case of Hank Skinner to decide whether prison inmates may use a federal civil rights law to do DNA testing that was not performed prior to their conviction.

Federal appeals courts around the country have decided the issue differently. The high court previously blocked Skinner's execution while it considered his appeal.

Skinner, 47, faced lethal injection for the bludgeoning and strangling of his girlfriend, Twila Jean Busby, 40, and the stabbing of her two adult sons. The slayings occurred at their home in the Texas Panhandle town of Pampa on New Year's Eve in 1993.

He was arrested about three hours after the bodies were found. Police found him in a closet at the trailer home of a woman he knew. He was splattered with the blood of at least two of the victims.

The Supreme Court says it will consider ending a lawsuit that challenges Arizona's tax breaks for donations for private school scholarships.

The court on Monday said it will hear an appeal filed by the state and supporters of the 13-year-old program that provides dollar-for-dollar income tax breaks for donations to school tuition organizations.

Some Arizona taxpayers challenged the program as unconstitutional because religious organizations award most of the scholarships and require children to enroll in religious schools. The suit says the program amounts to an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.

The federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld school voucher programs. Supporters of the Arizona aid program say it is no different from the Cleveland program upheld in 2002 because in both cases, government does not direct any money to religious schools.

A suburban mother once at the center of a national abduction hoax stole more than $700,000 from clients and colleagues at the law office where she worked and posed as her boss before fleeing to Disney World, a grand jury charged Thursday.

Bonnie Sweeten was accused in a 23-count indictment of offenses including fraud, money laundering and identity theft between 2005 and 2009.

Sweeten, a paralegal and office manager from Feasterville, diverted money from clients' legal settlements and other accounts to spend on clothing, jewelry, tanning salons, gym usage, electronics and mortgage payments, prosecutors said. She also fabricated and forged documents including a court order, a driver's license, a passport and mortgage paperwork, an indictment said.

A telephone message left with an attorney for Sweeten was not immediately returned Thursday.

Sweeten, 39, is serving a nine- to 23-month sentence at the Bucks County prison after pleading guilty to identity theft and filing a false police report in connection with last year's hoax.

Sweeten abandoned her car in Philadelphia and called 911 to say she and her daughter had been kidnapped, but she actually fled to Orlando, Fla., and Disney World.

Napa-based law firm Dickenson Peatman and Fogarty said it will add three more attorneys to its Santa Rosa office to “serve the evolving needs of the North Bay community.”

Rounding out the Santa Rosa hires are Susan Teel, who joins as a senior counsel for the firm’s wealth management group, specializing in estate planning, trust administration, probate and tax matters; Delphine Adams, who will be a senior counsel in the litigation group, with emphasis in real estate matters; and Jennifer Phillips, who will join as a associate in the labor and employment and litigation groups, also specializing in real estate as well as labor.

Gregory Walsh will take on the role of a director at the firm’s labor and employment group.

At the same time, five attorneys are leaving the firm: Brandon Blevans, who joined Blevans & Blevans in Napa, and Michael Holman, Kevin Teague, Cathy Roche and Rob Anglin, who formed their own firm in Napa under their names.

A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that he will keep the suspensions of two Minnesota Vikings on hold if they follow through on their plan to file an appeal in their closely watched fight against the NFL's anti-drug policy.

An attorney for defensive tackles Kevin Williams and Pat Williams said he planned to file that appeal later Friday.

"As a matter of fairness and as a matter of law, we are convinced the NFL cannot and will not be allowed to suspend Kevin and Pat," attorney Peter Ginsberg said.

The NFL first tried to suspend the Williamses, who are not related, in 2008 after they tested positive for a banned diuretic that was in the StarCaps weight-loss supplement they were taking. The ingredient, bumetanide, can mask the presence of steroids. The Williamses were not accused of taking steroids and said they didn't know the diuretic was in the supplement.

The players sued the NFL in state court, saying it violated state labor law. Their four-game suspensions have been on hold while the case has been playing out in state and federal courts. The Williamses were allowed to play and they helped the Vikings reach the NFC title game in January.

Hennepin County District Court Judge Gary Larson ruled earlier this month that the NFL broke state law when it failed to notify the two players of their test results within the mandated three days. He said an NFL official played "a game of 'gotcha'" with them, but he also ruled the NFL could suspend the players because neither was harmed by the notification delay.

Elena Kagan, a Supreme Court nominee without judicial experience, has suggested in writings and speeches over a quarter-century that when judges make decisions, they must take account of their values and experience and consider politics and policy, rather than act as robotic umpires.

Not since 1972 has a president picked someone for the high court who hasn't been a judge. So what the 50-year-old Kagan has said about judging might be the best indicator of the kind of justice she would be.

Republicans have said that because Kagan hasn't left a trail of judicial opinions, they will pore over her records as a Clinton White House aide and academic for any clues. Her speeches and papers from her time as dean of the Harvard Law School and, before that as a law professor and graduate student, are certain to get close attention at her confirmation hearing in late June.

Her words stand in contrast to the more technical view of judging voiced by Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing five years ago. Roberts said he considered himself an umpire merely calling balls and strikes.

Kagan apparently has never directly addressed Roberts' comments. Republicans have held his description of the job as a model of judicial restraint and used it to criticize President Barack Obama for what they call his support of judicial activism — judges imposing their own views on the law.