The article, "Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights," was published in the Yale Law Journal in 1979, when it appeared that Puerto Rico might pursue statehood. Sotomayor was an editor of the Ivy League publication before receiving her law degree from Yale that year.

Sotomayor notes that other states didn't maintain rights to sea floors before joining the union. But she argued for a new historical analysis of the equal footing doctrine that prevents states from receiving powers other states do not have.

"The island's dearth of land-based resources and its ongoing economic stagnation and poverty, coupled with the possibility of offshore oil and mineral wealth, will create political pressures for Puerto Rico to demand exclusive rights to exploit its surrounding seabed in an area ranging from nine to 200 miles into the sea," Sotomayor wrote.

"The American experience with colonialism in the early half of this century has left the United States with responsibility for several small, economically poor dependencies," Sotomayor wrote. "Some of these, like Puerto Rico, may seek statehood unless they are accorded a greater measure of self-government. Accommodations between the federal government and an incoming state such as Puerto Rico, involving, inter alia, rights to the seabed, could help the new state to overcome its economic problems."

Sotomayor wrote that Supreme Court decisions about the equal footing doctrine "retain their precedential value," but argued that the court never explicitly decided whether the doctrine prevents Congress from granting disproportionate seabed rights to an incoming state.

President Barack Obama noted Tuesday as he introduced Sotomayor as his nominee that her parents had moved from Puerto Rico during World War II.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said higher trading revenues at big banks helped the industry earn a $7.6 billion profit in the January-March period, compared with a record loss of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter. The profit was 61 percent below the $19.3 billion earned in the year-ago period and followed the first quarterly loss in 18 years.

U.S. banks and thrifts set aside $60.9 billion in the first quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $36.2 billion a year earlier.

The number of troubled banks jumped to 305, the highest number since 1994 during the savings and loan crisis, from 252 in the fourth quarter, according to the FDIC.

Thirty-six federally-insured institutions already have failed and been shut down by regulators this year, extending a wave of collapses that began in 2008. This year's tally compares with 25 in all of 2008 and three in 2007.

The failures sliced the amount in the deposit insurance fund to $13 billion in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1993. That compares with $17.3 billion a year earlier.

"Troubled loans continue to accumulate" and the costs to banks from soured loans "are weighing heavily on the industry's performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some positives."

The decision from the Court of Appeals in Washington upholds a Federal Communications Commission ruling that banned the exclusive agreements as anticompetitive.

The deals involved a provider exchanging a valuable service like wiring a multiunit building for cable in exchange for the exclusive right to provide service to all the residents.

The commission said cable operators could no longer enter into such deals and existing ones could not be enforced.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and a pair of affiliated real estate groups sued, saying the FCC did not justify the change in policy, consider the retroactive effects or have the authority to regulate the deals. But the appeals court sided with the FCC and said it acted well within the bounds of the law.

A spokesman for the cable association had no immediate comment on the ruling.

The high court agreed Tuesday to review Merck's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-action securities lawsuit.

Investors had charged Merck with providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. District judge dismissed the November 2003 lawsuit, ruling that all the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of limitation.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the Supreme Court.

Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death. That day alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion.

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter (GAYR'-hahrtz-ry-tur) is accused of kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter during a supervised visit in Boston last July. He and the girl were found six days later in Baltimore.

Gerhartsreiter also is charged with providing a false name to police. His lawyers had argued it would be unfair for jurors to hear him called Gerhartsreiter, because he has not been convicted of providing the false name.

Superior Court Judge Frank Gaziano said Tuesday he would call him Gerhartsreiter to introduce the case, then refer to him as "the defendant" during the trial.

Jury selection is to begin Tuesday.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present.

The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion Tuesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned, has created no significant reliance interests and (as we have described) is ultimately unworkable."

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said their decision will have a "minimal" effects on criminal defendants. "Because of the protections created by this court in Miranda and related cases, there is little if any chance that a defendant will be badgered into waiving his right to have counsel present during interrogation," Scalia said.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."