Five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are to appear Wednesday and Thursday for pretrial hearings in the Bush administration's special tribunal for terrorism suspects. Their trials have not yet been scheduled.

The suspects could get the death penalty if convicted of charges that include murder.

A judge is expected to hold hearings to explore defense allegations that Mohammed intimidated his co-defendants into refusing military lawyers.

Meanwhile, a judge in Washington is considering a challenge that could disrupt the first scheduled war crimes trial, on July 21, of Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan's lawyers say a recent Supreme Court decision has raised new legal issues that require U.S. District Judge James Robertson to delay the trial. The government says it wants to move forward.

Robertson has scheduled a July 17 hearing in Washington on the issue, just four days before Hamdan is to go on trial in a specially built courtroom on a former airstrip at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

A ruling in favor of the prisoner could also delay the trials for other men held at Guantanamo, and perhaps force the military to devise a whole new way to prosecute alleged terrorists.

The vote, planned for Wednesday, would end almost a year of wrangling between the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and Congress and the White House over the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A major issue was the Bush administration's insistence that the bill shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without court permission after 9/11.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed. They are all pending before a single federal court.

CBS Corp.'s CBS Broadcasting subsidiary, News Corp.'s Fox network and other major network affiliate groups sued EchoStar 10 years ago in South Florida to prevent the Englewood, Co.-based company, which operates the DISH satellite network, from providing distant network signals to customers who can receive local affiliates' broadcasts through regular antennas.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 allowed carriers such as EchoStar to provide secondary transmissions of copyrighted distant network programming to "unserved households," those that could not otherwise receive the signals.

The lawsuit claimed that EchoStar was infringing on network copyrights by providing the signals to "served" households as well.

After a two-week bench trial in 2003, the district court found that EchoStar retransmitted network programs to hundreds of thousands of served homes, which it called "willful or repeated" copyright infringement. That ruling was upheld by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in January 2007.

According to court documents, EchoStar complied with an injunction that went into effect Dec. 1, 2006, by disconnecting distant network channels to about 900,000 customers — at a loss of $25 million a year.

Tuesday's hearing is the first hearing since the Supreme Court ruled last month that detainees can challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts. Officials are expecting hundreds of lawyers and spectators to attend.

Judges will eventually review the government's evidence and decide whether detainees are being lawfully imprisoned. The key issue Tuesday is when that review will begin.

The Justice Department proposes eight weeks to begin filing the evidence. Lawyers for the detainees say it should be faster.

"I'd like to sell anything I have," said Metta. But he won't just yet — not until the city draws up new regulations.

The Supreme Court's decision June 26 rebuffed the strictest gun law in the nation.

The National Rifle Association called it "a great moment in American history." But prospective gun buyers and sellers said they remain on hold, awaiting the response of D.C. officials who are scrambling to draft new handgun regulations that comply with the court ruling.

"There's nothing we can do until we know what they will do," Metta said.

Metta, manager of Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring, Md., said his store fielded about 75 calls from D.C. residents after the ruling. Other gun shops outside the city — which has no shops of its own — also received calls. They, too, were turning prospective buyers away.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Washington's gun ban took effect in 1976 and essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence.

Now, after the state Supreme Court threw out the first-ever jury verdict finding former lead paint companies liable for creating a public nuisance, at least one city says it's rethinking a similar lawsuit against the industry, and one of the lawyers in the Rhode Island case predicted the decision would have a "devastating" effect on national efforts to hold the manufacturers accountable for their products. Still, other lawyers with pending cases say they're not deterred.

"There's no question about it, that the Supreme Court of Rhode Island has stopped any progress nationally to get justice for lead-poisoned kids," said Jack McConnell, a lawyer who represented the state and is involved in other lawsuits over lead paint. "It has a devastating effect on progress nationwide."

The 2006 verdict against Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc. and Millennium Holdings LLC had been the only victory against the industry. It gave advocates hope for future success even though courts around the country have more recently rejected similar suits against the companies.

But the Supreme Court's opinion last week seemed to underscore the difficulty in successfully suing the industry, and other states and communities tracking Rhode Island's case could be less inclined to take up a costly court fight with uncertain prospects of victory.