Without comment, the justices refused to step into the dispute, giving the owners and operators of countless sports fantasy companies the opportunity to operate without having to pay to be licensed by baseball.

Jeff Thomas, a Kenosha, Wis.-based operator of two fantasy sports Web sites and president of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, said the decision was a victory for free speech and "marks potentially the single biggest day in the history of the fantasy sports history."

In fantasy sports, participants act as owners or managers of a sports team, and track how the players they have perform statistically. The statistical performance is converted into points, which are compiled and totaled.

After deciding to outsource his legal representation, Beshear tasked his general counsel, Ellen Hesen, with spearheading the bidding process that included "several" firms.

He dismissed a notion that hiring his former employer could give a perception that he played favorites.

"If there is, there is," he said. "I wanted to get who I considered to be the best lawyers to represent me on such an important issue."

Williams, a Republican from Burkesville, filed the suit last month because he said Beshear improperly vetoed a bill outlining how road funds could be spent.

Steve Robertson, chairman of the Kentucky Republican Party, said Beshear's hiring his former firm looks as if he's helping out his friends and former bosses.

"Beshear's mantra during the campaign was 'taking care of our own,' and it's clear that he's at least making good on that promise," Robertson said.

Beshear told reporters that Stites & Harbison emerged as the top choice "because of their experience and their expertise."

The Seoul High Court upheld a sentence last year in which it suspended the three-year prison term handed Chung by a lower court.

The latest ruling the 70-year old executive can avoid time in jail as long as he breaks no laws for five years.

Presiding judge Kil Ki-bong said Chung used most of the embezzled funds for his company and "did not seek personal profits" as a reason for suspending the prison term. The judge said Chung's promise to donate personal assets to society was also a mitigating point. Chung has promised to donate 1 trillion won ($985 million) worth of assets to charity in an apparent attempt to seek leniency from the court.

The Seoul High Court was forced to issue a new sentence because prosecutors appealed one aspect of its earlier decision: that Chung deliver lectures and write newspaper articles on lawful business management for the community service portion of his sentence.

In Tuesday's ruling, the high court ordered Chung to do 300 hours of community service in the form of environmental protection and other activities instead of the lecturing and writing.

In two decisions — one a 5-4 split, the other unanimous — the justices found that money laundering charges apply only to profits of an illegal gambling ring and cannot be used when the only evidence of a possible crime is when someone hides large amounts of cash in his car when heading for the border.

The government brings money laundering cases against more than 1,300 people annually and the justices appeared to agree with defense lawyers who said government prosecutors have been stretching the bounds of the law. The Justice Department drew little sympathy from Justice Antonin Scalia.

"The government exaggerates the difficulties" of enforcing a narrowed interpretation of money laundering, Scalia wrote in the gambling case involving an illegal lottery. Scalia drew the support of three other justices. The deciding fifth vote came in a separate opinion from a member of the liberal wing of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens declined to go as far as Scalia did in rejecting the government's position.

Weiss pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy charge in April as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Prosecutors had asked for a 33-month sentence. Weiss and his attorneys had sought a reduced sentence, citing his age and contributions inside and outside courtrooms.

Authorities said the law firm made about $250 million over two decades by filing legal actions on behalf of professional plaintiffs who received $11.3 million in kickbacks.

The firm dominated the industry in securities class-action lawsuits, which involve shareholders who claim they suffered losses because executives misled them about a company's financial condition.

The kickback scheme allowed attorneys at the firm then known as Milberg Weiss to be among the first to file litigation and secure the lucrative position as lead plaintiffs' counsel, according to court documents.

The lawsuits targeted companies such as AT&T Inc., Lucent, WorldCom, Microsoft Corp. and Prudential Insurance.

A seven-year investigation has resulted in guilty pleas by three of Weiss' former partners.

Two defendants remain in the case -- the firm itself, now known as Milberg LLP, and attorney Paul T. Selzer. Trials for those defendants are scheduled in August.

Judge Walter called the kickback scheme "extremely serious" because attorneys such as Weiss had not disclosed to judges handling class-action cases that the lead plaintiffs were paid for their involvement.

In a unanimous decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a money laundering case cannot be proven merely by showing that funds were concealed while being transported.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said that money laundering refers to profits of an illegal operation, not gross receipts. The court's interpretation is a narrow one opposed by law enforcement agencies.

Scalia said the narrow definition will not unduly burden authorities, who must show only that a single instance of unlawful activity was profitable.

In the cases of Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz, a federal judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said that paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don't qualify as money laundering. Those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity, the appeals court ruled in a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said that the court's ruling would frustrate congressional intent and "maim" a law that was enacted as an important defense against organized criminal enterprises.