The state is arguing that it has the authority to dispose of the land, representing more than a quarter of the Hawaiian Islands. But the state's own Office of Hawaiian Affairs argues that the lands must be held until claims of native Hawaiians have been resolved.

The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed that the claims had to be resolved.

Some legal analysts say a ruling against the state of Hawaii could set a precedent for other native populations to make claims to lands they once inhabited.

In a ruling announced Wednesday, a New York judge says trustees managing Helmsley's estate can distribute her funds to a broad range of charities.

Helmsley died in August 2007. She left instructions in one of the documents relating to her charitable trust that money be donated to help care for dogs, as well as other charities.

Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge Troy Webber ruled that trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust have sole discretion for which charities should get the Helmsley fortune.

Trust spokesman Howard Rubenstein says the trustees will announce the first grants from the foundation next month.

Ginsburg is recovering from surgery for pancreatic cancer, her second major bout with cancer. She returned to the court on Monday.

A loud cheer went up in the House chamber when Ginsburg was seen entering.

Also in attendance were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Three other justices — Antonin Scalia, David Souter and John Paul Stevens — were absent.

While technically not a State of the Union address, Obama's speech in essence serves as the more formal talk to Congress this year. Breyer has not missed one since 2001, while Roberts and Alito have been to every one since they joined the court in 2005 and 2006.

Justices typically have said little about why they do or don't attend the speech. One exception is Scalia, who hasn't gone in at least 10 years. He has said the speech has become increasingly partisan, a problem for a group that studiously refrains from applauding even remotely political statements.

The court reversed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based appeals court had ruled the telecom company was setting its wholesale prices so high that an Internet service provider could not compete with the low prices AT&T charged in the retail market.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, LinkLine Communications Inc., buys access to AT&T's transmission lines. Linkline then competes with AT&T in selling high-speed Internet access.

"Under these circumstances, AT&T was not required to offer this service at the wholesale prices the plaintiff would have preferred," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter concurred only with the judgment.

The ruling does not end the case. The justices sent the case back to a trial judge, who can decide whether AT&T was charging too little for its product in hopes of running its competitors out of business.

The case is Pacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications Inc., 07-512.

The court found all three guilty of forced marriage, marking the first time the charge has been handed down in an international tribunal.

Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon, two top leaders of the Revolutionary United Front, were found guilty on 16 of 18 counts. They include sexual slavery, forced marriage, amputation, murder and the enlistment of child soldiers.

Augustine Gbao, a battlefield commander, was found guilty on 14 of the 18 counts.

The convictions mark the end of the Special Court that was set up after the country's disastrous civil war. The rebels were infamous for amputating the arms of victims, as dramatized in the film "Blood Diamond."

In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Pleasant Grove City, Utah, rejected the group's marker, prompting a federal lawsuit that argued that a city can't allow some private donations of displays in its public park and reject others. The federal appeals court in Denver agreed.

In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito distinguished the Summum's case from efforts to prevent groups from speaking in public parks, which ordinarily would violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.

Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.

Because monuments in public parks help define a city's identity, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments," he said.