This expansion of employee rights stands in sharp contrast to a series of pro-business rulings limiting the rights of workers that were made last year by the Supreme Court.

Tuesday's decisions do not amount to a sharp change in the law. Most civil rights laws already protect employees against being punished for complaining of bias based on their race, religion, gender, national origin or age.

However, in both cases the court read an older law broadly to give employees more rights to sue for discrimination.

That closely watched ruling, which made it easier for inmates to get new hearings on DNA evidence that emerges after their trials, and the fallout from it have left House in limbo while a prosecutor methodically battles every effort from the courts to have him retried.

Federal judges have done as the high court ordered: They reviewed his murder case and concluded new evidence raises reasonable doubt about his guilt. Not allowed to overturn the conviction, they took the extraordinary step of giving Tennessee a six-month deadline to bring House to trial or release him.

And still House, 46, is locked up in a Nashville prison.

An appeals court ruled in his favor this month, but that ruling also reset the 180-day countdown at zero.

U.S. District Judge Harry S. Mattice Jr. has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to consider terms and conditions of House's release, but prosecutors are taking their time in setting a date for a new trial.

"The Supreme Court has said, 'You just got the wrong person.' You would think ... that there would be some respect for that situation," said U.S. Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt, who has heard portions of House's case and believes he isn't guilty of murder.

District Attorney Paul Phillips said he plans to retry House with old evidence from the first trial and some new evidence he wouldn't describe. He promises he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. House is guilty or we would not be re-prosecuting him."

For House's mother, it's hard not to think the state is delaying on purpose.

"What I really think, and I'm not the only one, is they just want him to linger in there until he dies. Then it will all go away, they think," Joyce House said recently at her white ranch-style home in Crossville, a town of about 10,000 some 100 miles east of Nashville.

Phillips denied prosecutors are intentionally putting off the case and noted the inmate's doctor testified House could live for decades with his illness.

"They just don't want to admit they made a mistake," Joyce House said. "They're not the only state that's ever made a mistake."

A report examines 123 terrorist cases from the past 15 years, and the study's two principal authors say that the courts were able to produce just, reliable results while protecting national security.

The report comes at a time when the Bush administration's system of military commissions remains mired in delays.

Whether the case is the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 or the East African embassy bombings in 1998, judges, juries, defense attorneys and prosecutors are able to get the job done correctly, they say.

Although the justice system is far from perfect, it has proved to be adaptable and has successfully handled a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions, said New York lawyers Richard Zabel and James Benjamin of the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

In two employment cases, one involving race and the other, age, the court took an expansive view of workers' rights and avoided the narrow, ideology-based decisions that marked its previous term.

The justices read parts of an 1860s civil rights act and the main anti-age bias law to include the right to sue over reprisals even though neither provision expressly prohibits retaliation.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court in a case involving a black employee at a Cracker Barrel restaurant who was fired, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered.

The idea that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, known as section 1981, "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well-embedded in the law," Breyer said in the 7-2 ruling.

Federer improved to 16-3 on clay in 2008 by beating Sam Querrey of the United States 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 Monday in the first round of the French Open, where he is trying to become only the sixth man to complete a career Grand Slam.

"I've played well all clay-court season long," said the top-ranked Federer, who is 27-7 overall this year. "Didn't have many hiccups really, and I have plenty of matches. That was my goal as well."

Federer came into the French Open with only one title this year, which he won on clay. His seven losses are more than he had for the entire season in 2004, '05 and '06.

On Tuesday, the start of play was delayed by rain for 2 hours, 50 minutes. Rafael Nadal was scheduled to begin his quest for a fourth straight French Open title against Thomaz Bellucci of Brazil. Nikolay Davydenko, Lleyton Hewitt and 2003 champion Juan Carlos Ferrero were also to play.

Maria Sharapova and Amelie Mauresmo were to play in the women's tournament.

Federer was broken once early in the first set Monday, but he managed to win five times on Querrey's serve.

The justices have no comment on their action, in response to Ryan's claim that he and his fellow defendant, businessman Larry Warner did not receive a fair trial.

Their lawyers argued that the trial judge replaced two jurors with alternates after deliberations in the case had already begun.

Ryan, 74, is serving a 6 1/2 year sentence in federal prison.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier upheld the convictions.