U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered last week that the answers provided on the forms, which are intended to root out bias in selecting a jury, should be off limits to the public. There are more than 60 questions on the forms including potential jurors' opinion of Bonds and whether they've followed the issue of steroid use in professional sports.

The forms also include a potential juror's name, age, gender, level of education, job, criminal record and any ethical, religious or political views that would influence the juror's decision making, as well as other personal information.

The Associated Press, ESPN, Hearst Corp., The New York Times Co., ABC-subsidiary KGO, KNTV Television Inc., NBC subsidiary KNBC-TV, The Los Angeles Times, the Medianews Group and Sports Illustrated publisher Time Inc. filed court papers seeking public access to the forms.

Media company lawyers argued that the questionnaires should be considered part of the jury-selection process, which is required to be done in open court. The lawyers noted that neither Bonds' lawyers nor federal prosecutors have asked the judge to seal the documents.

"Here, there is no valid basis for keeping the public in the dark about the answers provided by prospective and trial jurors," the papers stated.

The home run king's trial begins Monday, when potential jurors throughout the Bay Area are summoned to the federal courthouse in San Francisco to fill out the forms. The slugger's lawyers, prosecutors and the judge will question them in person about their answers beginning on Tuesday.

Supreme Court justices take two oaths before assuming the bench. In recent years, several justices took one of the oaths at the White House with the president in attendance.

Stevens, who is the oldest sitting justice, called that "inappropriate symbolism." Justices are supposed to be independent of politics and the White House.

He says that is why he refuses to attend Supreme Court ceremonies at the White House. He called on future nominees and future presidents to end the modern practice of having taking one of oaths done at the White House.

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.