Police say Michael Gagnon was driving drunk and in the wrong direction Dec. 30 when his pickup truck hit a minivan filled with eight people returning from a Christmas trip.

Police say Gagnon's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit.

Gagnon has pleaded no contest. He was found guilty Friday of aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault and faces up to 50 years in prison.

The suit by 635 plaintiffs aimed to stop the deepening of the harbor in Yokosuka, site of the U.S. naval base where the nuclear-powered USS George Washington is to be deployed, replacing the aging diesel-powered USS Kitty Hawk.

The carrier has sparked protests among Yokosuka residents who fear it poses a health danger. Many in Japan, the only country to be attacked by nuclear weapons, are also sensitive about any military use of nuclear technology.

Yoshie Ueki, a spokeswoman for the Yokohama District Court, said the court turned down the suit. She did not provide any further information about the case.

The plaintiffs had argued the harbor work, which began last year, would spread pollution, kill fish and damage the livelihoods of fishermen. They also argued the warship would threaten people in surrounding areas with possible radiation leakage should an accident occur.

But presiding Judge Tsuyoshi Ono rejected their claims, saying the harbor work posed no danger to nearby residents, according to Kyodo News agency.

The deployment of the USS George Washington marks the first time a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered vessel will be permanently based in Japan. The move is part of the U.S. military's effort to modernize its forces in East Asia — an area of potential flash points with North Korea or China.

Nuclear-powered warships have visited Japanese ports hundreds of times since 1964, and the United States has provided firm commitments to Tokyo regarding their safe use of Japanese harbors.

The United States has about 50,000 troops stationed in Japan under a mutual security pact.

The House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from President Bush's closest advisers about the firing of federal prosecutors.

When the White House refused, the Democrat-led committee went to court. Lawyers called the president's actions the most expansive view of presidential authority since Watergate.

Late Friday night, the Bush administration responded with court documents of its own, similarly steeped in history. Lawyers called the lawsuit unprecedented. Citing George Washington and Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, they said these types of clashes get resolved without going to court.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

The idea the Congress can't order the president or his advisers to do something is a principle known as executive privilege. That privilege isn't spelled out in the Constitution and courts are rarely asked to decide exactly what it means. And when they have been asked, judges have tried to avoid getting too specific.

"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.

That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.

Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.

Congress wants to know whether the Bush administration fired several U.S. attorney for political reasons. That controversy contributed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning last year.

The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and demanded documents from President Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten.

A federal appeals court wrestled with those kinds of questions Thursday when it considered placing restrictions on patent protections for business practices. The case under review is being closely watched by financial services and software companies.

The number of patents on tax preparation strategies, investment techniques and other business methods has surged since 1998, when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the door to such claims.

That increase has led to widespread criticism that many of the patents, including one about how to teach golf lessons, are frivolous and spur excessive litigation.

The Federal Circuit said in February that it would reconsider its decade-old decision in a case that many patent experts say is one of the most important in years. Depending on how broadly the court rules, the case could make it harder for investment banks and software companies to patent their products.

U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper threw out the lawsuit March 21 after determining the family missed a state deadline for bringing a claim against the city and two former police officers. The lawsuit was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, then moved to federal court.

The family appealed, and the judge reversed her decision after finding federal claims in the case can proceed, according to court papers obtained Thursday.

Cooper gave the family 20 days to file a new lawsuit and drop the state claims.

B.I.G., whose real name was Christopher Wallace, was gunned down March 9, 1997, while leaving a party at a Los Angeles museum. The 24-year-old performer's killing remains unsolved.

Two wrongful death lawsuits were filed against the city on behalf of the rapper's widow, mother and two children.

The first lawsuit, filed in 2002, alleges wrongful death and civil rights violations. It ended in a mistrial in 2005. The case remains active, with the judge allowing the family to amend the lawsuit because of newly discovered evidence.

Cooper's recent ruling involved the secondary lawsuit, which contends that rogue police officers conspired to kill Wallace and that the Police Department covered up their involvement.