The Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote Tuesday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos and other depictions of animal cruelty, saying the law infringed on free speech rights.

"We read (the law) to create a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, noting that nowhere in the disputed law was there a requirement that the depicted conduct actually be "cruel."

The text of the law, used to prosecute a Virginia man who had advertised videos of dogfights in an underground magazine, sweepingly covered "any depiction" in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed."

Yet as the justices struck down that prohibition, they specifically said they were not deciding the validity of a law that would target only so-called "crush videos," which typically show women's high heels digging into kittens and other small animals and which had inspired Congress to write the 1999 law in the first place.

Robert Stevens, who had run a business known as "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," appealed his conviction under the law, saying it violated his First Amendment speech rights. He also contended he was trying to provide educational and historical materials about the pit bull breed, not promoting illegal dogfighting.

The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply Monday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

In arguments tinged with questions of religious, racial and sexual discrimination, the court heard from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law as an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.

Hastings, located in San Francisco, turned them down, saying no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with the statement of faith.

With tragedy comes an outpouring of support but an area law firm's way of helping is raising some eyebrows.

Underwood Law Firm wasted no time putting ads in local newspapers a week after the deadly blast killed 29 miners at Massey's Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County.

Attorney Mark Underwood says he stands by his decision; especially because he says benefit packages are often difficult to understand.

"I think it was perfect timing in light of the fact that Massey came out with a benefits package the very next day," Underwood said.

Underwood said his grandfather was killed in an industrial accident years ago. His family understands what happens following the funeral with emotions running high, and the daunting task of legal paperwork.

"The family members that would be considering those benefit packages need to seek some sort of legal counsel whether it's our firm, another firm, a friend or a neighbor that's a lawyer," Underwood said. "They need to go and sit down and talk to a lawyer before they agree to anything with Massey."

But how soon, is too soon? It's a question many people started asking as ads popped up before all the funerals had even been finished.

"The timing of this...was it the right thing to do immediately after the tragedy or before all the funerals had taken place or would it have been better to wait until later?" Patrick Gallagher said.

It's been called a groundbreaking law, but a measure approved in Nebraska last week that changes the rationale for abortion bans probably won't go into effect anytime soon — if ever.

Instead, abortion opponents are hoping it will become the most important case on abortion to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Even they acknowledge the ban on abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy won't see the light of day unless the high court rules that it is constitutional.

Mary Spaulding Balch, legislative director for National Right to Life, said a court injunction will likely prevent the implementation of the law. The measure passed last week by Nebraska's nonpartisan Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to take effect in October.

Lower courts have no precedent to support the law, which bases the new restrictions on the assertion that fetuses feel pain.

In a case that pits nondiscrimination policies against freedom of religion, the Supreme Court is grappling with whether universities and colleges can deny official recognition to Christian student groups that refuse to let non-Christians and gays join.

The high court was to hear arguments Monday from the Christian Legal Society at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The Christian group said its constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association were violated when it was denied recognition as a student group by the San Francisco-based school.

The group has made this argument at several universities around the nation with mixed results. The high court's decision could set a national standard for universities and colleges to follow when Christian and other groups that want to exclude certain people apply for money and recognition from the school.

Hastings said it turned the Christian Legal Society down because all recognized campus groups, which are eligible for financing and other benefits, may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons.

The Shuman Law Firm today announced that it is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors at Ormat Technologies Inc.

The investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading financial statements. These statements eventually resulted in the Company restating its financial results.

On February 24, 2010, Ormat disclosed that the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of the Company, upon recommendation of management and after discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, had concluded that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 required restatement and should no longer be relied upon. The Company restated its results because it improperly capitalized costs incurred in connection with the exploration and development of certain properties that it did not plan to develop. Upon this news, the price of Ormat stock declined more than 12.81% over the three days following the disclosure of this announcement.

If you currently own shares of Ormat and are interested in discussing your rights as an Ormat shareholder, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at 866-974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.