A lawsuit filed by his parents has been dragging through the courts for eight years as attorneys argue the central issue: who must pay damages.

A federal appeals court is still trying to come up with the answer.

Last December, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lower court's order requiring several U.S.-based Islamic groups to pay $156 million to Boim's family — who claim money the groups gave to Palestinian charities ultimately helped fund terrorism.

But now the appeals court is second-guessing itself and revisiting the emotionally charged case, the first filed under a 1991 law allowing American victims of international terrorism to recover triple damages.

During an extraordinary "en banc" hearing before all 10 sitting judges last week, the case came in for a fresh airing. How much longer the case will go on is anyone's guess.

The court unanimously agreed with Jeremy Jaynes' argument that the law violates the free-speech protections of the First Amendment because it does not just restrict commercial e-mails — it restricts other unsolicited messages as well. Most other states also have anti-spam laws, and there is a federal CAN-SPAM Act as well, but those laws apply only to commercial e-mail pitches.

The Virginia law "is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails, including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Justice G. Steven Agee wrote.

Agee wrote that "were the Federalist Papers just being published today via e-mail, that transmission by Publius would violate the statute." Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in essays urging ratification of the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Spencer denied a preliminary injunction sought by The Real Truth About Obama Inc. against the Federal Election Commission. The injunction would have barred the FEC from enforcing its fundraising and advertising regulations against the Richmond-based group, which was formed by anti-abortion activists.

The organization claimed in court papers that its "issue advocacy" amounts to constitutionally protected free speech that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

In a brief order, Spencer said the constitutional claim lacked merit and that an injunction would harm the public. He did not elaborate but said a written explanation of his ruling will be issued later.

James Bopp Jr. of Terre Haute, Ind., attorney for The Real Truth About Obama, said he likely will ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an expedited appeal of Spencer's ruling.

"The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our ability to speak about issues and candidates and do so in a timely way," said Bopp.

The four face charges of trespassing and illegal lodging for taking part in the 21-month protest. The group had aimed to stop the campus from cutting down trees to make way for a new athletic training facility.

But after the campus got a court order allowing the construction, workers cut down most of the trees scheduled for removal.

The protesters climbed down Tuesday after authorities surrounded the remaining tree with scaffolding.

One of the tree-sitters is set to be released after posting bail. The other three remain in custody. The four return to court for a pretrial hearing Monday.

David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.

"We are satisfied that Johnson's expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable," the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.

The ruling means prosecutors cannot introduce the videotapes as evidence in their case against Johnson, who is charged with felony sexual assault for having intercourse with his wife without her consent at least three times in 2005.

Johnson's attorney, Christopher Kelly, said his client would visit his now 54-year-old wife every day, reading her the Bible and moving her arms and legs so her muscles wouldn't atrophy.

The woman's sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. "She believes her sister's husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness," Kelly said.

The couple married in 1988 and had no children, Kelly said.

Kelly said he believed prosecutors would be forced to drop the charges without the evidence on the tapes and thought the appeals court made "a pretty obvious call."

Johnson's wife was admitted to the nursing home after suffering a stroke. Court records say she was unable to speak or sit up, and nursing home staff members fed, cleaned and turned her. Prosecutors say she was comatose.

Johnson visited her frequently and sometimes would close the door to her room so they could have privacy as allowed by the nursing home. But staff members tipped off police, fearing she was in danger because, they suspected, he was having sex with her.

Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.

Charles Dean Hood won a reprieve Tuesday, but not because of the alleged affair.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said it will reconsider its previous dismissal of an appeal by Hood that challenged jury instructions. The court said developments in the law regarding jury nullification instructions made reconsidering its ruling prudent.

At the same time, the court dismissed claims by Hood's attorneys that he was denied a fair trial because of the alleged relationship between retired Judge Verla Sue Holland and former Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell. O'Connell and Holland gave depositions under a court order Hood's attorneys won on Monday.

The reprieve came around the time Hood's lawyers sent Gov. Rick Perry a letter saying that Holland and O'Connell "admitted under oath that they had an intimate sexual relationship for many years."

Attorneys for Holland and O'Connell said they were under court order not to discuss their clients' testimony.

"The intimate sexual relationship between the judge and the district attorney began several years prior to the trial of Mr. Hood," lawyer Greg Wiercioch said in his letter to the governor re-emphasizing his earlier petition for a 30-day reprieve.