The court, in an unanimous decision Monday, turned away Manoj Nijhawan's appeal. Nijhawan, who immigrated to the United States from India in 1985, had been convicted of fraud and money laundering, and stipulated that that the loss exceeded $100 million. The government then started deportation proceedings.

The law says any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony at any time is deportable. A related statute said aggravated felonies include fraud and deceit in which the loss exceeds $10,000.

Nijhawan argued that a jury should have determined the loss before he could be deported. But the court disagreed with his arguments.

"The defendant's own stipulation, produced for sentencing purposes, shows that the conviction involved losses considerably greater than $10,000," Justice Stephen Breyer said in the opinion written for the court.

The motion, filed late Thursday, argued that the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

"This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."

It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

The one-paragraph ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan came after the Obama administration asked the court to keep the pictures secret so it could appeal to the nation's highest court.

The administration last month said the disturbing photographs pose "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The appeals court stayed its order supporting a lower court judge's decision to order release of the photographs until the Supreme Court had a chance to consider the case.

The administration had indicated it was going to release the pictures until President Barack Obama reversed the decision.

To support its arguments, the government filed partially secret statements from two top U.S. generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

In the filings, Odierno, who commands the troops in Iraq, said the 2004 release of photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison "likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq" that year. Petraeus, who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the images could also lead to more violence in Pakistan because it deals with Taliban attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had sought release of 21 pictures, saying the action would make the government more accountable and help bring an end to the abuse of prisoners.

A long-running legal battle between American International Group Inc. and an investment firm led by its former chief executive, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, is due in federal court Monday. Control of more than $4.3 billion is at stake.

At issue are tens of millions of shares Starr International Co. holds in the giant insurer, as well as tens of millions of shares Starr sold in recent years.

Were the insurance giant to prevail, AIG said Thursday that it intends to use any cash it wins to help pay back the debt it owes the federal government, which rescued it from the brink of bankruptcy in September. Any winnings that it gets in stock, currently worth a far smaller amount than the cash Starr has generated from selling other stock, will be used toward employee long-term compensation.

Mr. Greenberg is expected to testify in the trial, before a jury in federal district court in lower Manhattan. Both sides have retained name-brand counsel, David Boies for Starr, and Theodore Wells for AIG. The case could still settle.

For decades when Mr. Greenberg was at AIG's helm, the shares were used to fund a long-term compensation plan for AIG employees. But after he left in 2005, amid an investigation of AIG's accounting, the program ended and Starr, which is privately held, has been using the funds for other purposes, including investments. AIG says it should control the shares.

Black has served nearly 15 months of a 6 1/2-year prison term following his conviction in July 2007.

In early May, the high court agreed to hear an appeal from Black and two other former executives of the Hollinger International media company who were convicted in connection with payments of $5.5 million they received from a Hollinger subsidiary.

In an order released by the court, Justice John Paul Stevens denied Black's request for bail pending his appeal.

The Supreme Court probably won't hear arguments in the case until late this year and a decision is unlikely before late winter.

Black can still ask a federal trial judge for bail. The judge who presided over the trial has already said one of the men, John Boultbee, can be released on bond.

Hollinger once owned the Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily Telegraph of London, the Jerusalem Post and hundreds of community papers across the United States and Canada. All of Hollinger's big papers except the Sun-Times have now been sold and the company that emerged changed its name to Sun-Times Media Group.

The judge's order will require estimates of how forest projects may harm endangered or threatened plants and animals such as the California condor and the gnatcatcher.

"This ruling is a great victory for the rare and endangered species that call the Southern California forests home," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued the federal agencies.

The U.S. Forest Service revised its plans for the Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino forests in 2005, laying out how the land and resources would be overseen for the next decade, including the management of roads, trails and recreation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service provided estimates on the potential impact of these plans on wildlife, but critics said they didn't include required measures to minimize harm to endangered species.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled Monday in San Francisco that the agencies did not follow the species protection law by omitting statements detailing how the forest plans may harm endangered species. The agencies said they planned to do so when specific projects were undertaken.