Los Angeles County Superior Court officials announced Tuesday they would shut down court operations one day a month and furlough employees to address a projected $90-million shortfall caused by the state's continuing budget crisis.

The county's 600 courtrooms and all court services including traffic matters will be closed the third Wednesday of each month, starting July 15, saving about $18 million annually, court officials said. Chief Justice Ronald George of the California Supreme Court is considering taking the monthly closures statewide, officials said.

If the financial situation does not improve, the courts could eventually lay off as many as 1,300 employees, or a quarter of the workforce, in the next four years, said Charles "Tim" McCoy, presiding judge of the county's court system. Such cuts would lead to total closure of some courthouses and massive cuts in court services, he said.

"The justice system provides public safety. That system needs to be operating five days a week," McCoy said at a news conference. The monthly closure plan, he said, "puts the public at some risk."

McCoy said a handful of courtrooms would remain open on the furlough days to handle emergency matters. He said he anticipated a backlog of cases to build up as a result of the closures.

The justices agreed to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that upheld the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which set up the private sector Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

A conservative activist group called the Free Enterprise Fund and a small Nevada accounting firm appealed to the Supreme Court in arguing that the law violated constitutional requirements on separation of powers because it failed to allow adequate control of the board by the U.S. president.

The board polices the U.S. audit industry, including the Big Four firms that review the books of major corporations: Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche LLP.

A board spokeswoman said: "We remain confident that the PCAOB's structure is constitutional and look forward to our opportunity to demonstrate that in the Supreme Court."

Already, they're combing through the records of potential nominees, although not, as was the case with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, in search of a way to derail confirmation.

Encouraged by the White House, they're trying to anticipate a selection, build the case for approval and be ready to deflect the attacks from conservatives already beginning.

"It's thrilling to be able to promote great judicial candidates," says Nan Aron, president of the Alliance For Justice, looking ahead to a selection by President Barack Obama that may come as early as this week or next.

Added Janet Murguia, the president of the National Council of La Raza, "We're all poised to support and mobilize for an excellent nominee."

Not that the liberal-leaning groups aren't trying to nudge Obama in one direction or another. While there is a general assumption that he will select a woman and a supporter of abortion rights, Latino leaders recently sent a list of more than 80 Hispanic judges to the White House, a not-too-subtle prod to the president.

The former Democratic congressman has argued that prosecutors trampled on his constitutional privileges as a lawmaker. But the high court refused to hear Jefferson's appeal to throw out the indictment against him.

Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on multiple counts, including soliciting bribes and racketeering. Investigators raided Jefferson's home and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in a freezer.

A federal judge has set a June 2 trial date in Alexandria, Va.

Jefferson represented parts of New Orleans in Congress, but lost his re-election last year to Republican Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., rejected Jefferson's claims that a federal grand jury received evidence that violated his constitutional right to legislative immunity.

The justices said they will hear an appeal filed by prosecutors in Pennsylvania after the federal appeals court in Philadelphia upheld a lower court order throwing out the death sentence against Joseph Kindler for killing one-time accomplice David Bernstein in 1982.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Kindler's lawyer was ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial and also found problems with the instructions given to the jury.

State courts had never decided on Kindler's claims. Instead, those courts said Kindler forfeited the right to be heard on those issues because of his escapes.

Bernstein agreed to testify against Kindler about their roles in robbing a store. Kindler beat Bernstein with a baseball bat and an accomplice jabbed him with an electric prod. The two men dumped Bernstein in the Delaware River, but after discovering he was still alive, they managed to fill his lungs with water and tied a cinder block around his neck.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A federal appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

The cases are County of San Bernardino v. California, 08-897 and County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 08-887.