In a 6-3 decision, the justices said that Anup Engquist must be a member of a class targeted for discrimination in order to bring a claim.

The case revolves around an 8-year-old Supreme Court decision. In that case in 2000, the justices ruled that a person may assert an equal protection claim as a "class of one" rather than on the usual grounds of racial discrimination against an entire group.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the "class of one" theory does not apply in the public employment context, where the government has greater leeway in dealings with its employees.

Born in India, Engquist worked at a laboratory operated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. She says that after she complained about a colleague who allegedly harassed her, the man and a superior eliminated her position. A jury subsequently ruled in Engquist's favor.

Nine federal appeals courts have ruled that public employee claims similar to Engquist's can go forward.

The case before the court involved alleged contract fraud by a former unit of General Motors Corp. At issue was whether the False Claims Act covers any fraudulent claim paid for by government funds, or only fraudulent claims directly submitted to a government official.

Justice Samuel Alito charted a middle path, saying the law can be used if fraudulent statements are ultimately intended to get the government to pay claims.

The whistleblower law does not apply in situations in which a subcontractor does not intend the government to rely on a fraudulent claim as a condition of payment.

A lower appeals court had ruled that the whistleblower suits could proceed, because the False Claims Act covers claims made to other parties, "so long as the claim will be paid with government funds."

The court sent the case back to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to apply the standard it laid out Monday.

The unanimous decision Monday was helpful to customers of Intel Corp. and is the latest step by the justices to scale back the power of patent-holders.

The case revolves around a long-time Supreme Court doctrine that says the sale of an invention exhausts the patent-holder's right to control how the purchaser uses it.

In 1992, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., that hears patent cases from around the country began eroding the doctrine, ruling that patent-holders could attach post-sale conditions to patented products.

Justice Clarence Thomas reined in the appeals court, saying that "for over 150 years the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion" and that it applies in this case.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a South Korean company, LG Electronics Inc., licensed some of its patents to Intel Corp.

LG then sued some of Intel's customers for patent infringement, saying they owed royalties to LG because the customers combined Intel's microprocessors and chipsets with non-Intel products.

Patent laws can carry triple-damage awards when a court finds willful infringement.

The Intel customers are computer system manufacturers that include Taiwan-based Quanta Computer Inc. System manufacturers sell to industry brandnames such as Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., International Business Machines Corp. and Gateway Inc.

The Bush administration supported Intel's customers. It cited inconvenience, annoyance and inefficiency of multiple royalty payments being passed down the chain of distribution with no obvious stopping point.

Friday's decision is a victory for Janet Jenkins, who entered a civil union with Lisa Miller in Vermont in 2000. Two years later, Miller gave birth to a daughter conceived through artificial insemination. The women later split up, and their civil union was dissolved.

A Vermont judge awarded custody of their 5-year-old daughter to Miller, with regular visitation for Jenkins.

Miller and the child now live in Winchester, Virginia. Jenkins has been fighting for child visitation rights, but Miller has contested those efforts.

Settlements with three law firms and lawyers in Upstate, Long Island and Westchester ending improper employment arrangements with school districts and a Central New York Board of Cooperative Educational Services have been announced by the Attorney General’s office.The settlements also rescind all public benefits wrongfully received and require the law firms and lawyers to pay the state a total $235,000.

At the same time, top state lawmakers in the Senate and Assembly joined with the Attorney General in announcing plans to introduce legislation that would finally end the abuses of the public pension system.The settlements come as part of Cuomo’s statewide investigation into the public pension systems and are with the Central New York firm of Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett and Reitz P.C., the New York City firm of Aiello and Cannick and Long Island attorney Gilbert Henoch.

“Systemic abuse in the public pension and benefits systems has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “We will continue to examine school districts and BOCES throughout the state to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted by providing pensions to lawyers who are not state employees or other unwarranted perks and benefits.  It may have been common practice for decades but it ends now, and I am working with leaders in the Senate and Assembly to pass legislation shutting down the abuses for good.”

The Virginia Supreme Court rejected Lisa Miller's claim that a lower court improperly ignored a Virginia law and a state constitutional amendment that prohibit same-sex unions and the recognition of such arrangements from other states.

The ruling was a victory for Janet Jenkins, who has been fighting for visitation rights since the dissolution of the civil union she and Miller obtained in Vermont in 2000. In 2002, Miller gave birth to the daughter, Isabella, who now is at the center of a legal battle closely watched by national conservative and gay rights groups.

Miller renounced homosexuality and moved back to Virginia with the child after the couple split, and she has fought Jenkins' visitation efforts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law aimed at preventing parents from crossing state lines to evade a custody ruling requires Virginia to enforce Vermont's order.