At issue in the case is how the General Assembly passed the law and whether it was constitutional.

North Carolina law requires votes on separate days for laws that lead to higher taxes or borrow against the state's credit.

Attorneys for the state have argued that the lottery law does neither and that both chambers' votes were legal. (In April 2005, the House approved the lottery bill by a vote of 61-59. In August of the same year, the Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for the measure to pass 25-24.)

The bigger question, however, for appeals court judges Tuesday was what happens if the lottery, which recently reached the $1 billion sales mark, is ruled unconstitutional -- specifically, what would happen to all the money already rewarded.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, said they were only seeking to change the future of the lottery law and wasn't interested in lottery winnings since the lottery launched in March 2006.

"We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed," Justice David Souter wrote for the court majority.

At issue is a class action lawsuit against Bell Atlantic, which contends that lack of competition for local telephone service and "parallel conduct" of the regional Bells were evidence of an antitrust conspiracy.

More than a decade after the court-ordered breakup of AT&T into seven regional Bells, Congress passed a landmark legislation in 1996 designed to foster competition among carriers. It required regional Bells such as Verizon to make their networks available to rivals in exchange for gaining access to the lucrative long-distance voice and data markets.

The case was dismissed by a district court judge, who said the plaintiffs could not sue based only on a "bare-bones" allegation of conspiracy.

But that decision was reversed by a federal appeals court in New York, which ruled the case should not be dismissed unless the charges were implausible.

The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division has sided with the telephone companies, arguing that "parallel action and inaction" alone was not enough to provide a basis for an antitrust lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion agreed, ruling that an allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy is not enough. There must be enough facts to suggest an agreement was made, Souter said.

Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks was transferred to a maximum security prison near his hometown of Adelaide South Australia Sunday to serve the remainder of his nine-month prison sentence. In March, a US military commission at Guantanamo Bay recommended sentencing Hicks to seven years in prison, but all but nine months of that were effectively suspended by a military judge under the terms of a plea agreement kept secret from the panel of military officers during its deliberations.

Hicks has spent more than five years in US custody since being captured in Afghanistan. Under the plea agreement, Hicks was required to state that he "has never been illegally treated" while being held as an enemy combatant by the United States and that his detention was lawful pursuant to the laws of armed conflict. Hicks is also prohibited from having contact with the media for a period of one year, is to not take any legal action against the United States for his treatment during his 5 year detention, and is required to turn over any profits from an eventual sale of his story to the Australian government.

At that point, all of the judges will have been appointed by President Bush except for one judge picked by Democrat President Bill Clinton and one picked by President Bush's father, the first President Bush.

Switching to part-time service are Lewis Babcock of Denver and Walker Miller of Greeley.

Babcock is a native of Rocky Ford and was a state district court judge in Otero, Bent and Crowley counties from 1978 to 1983. Babcock was picked in 1988 for the court by former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

Miller was picked in 1996 by Clinton over Pueblo District Judge Dennis Maes, who wanted the job.

Judgeships on the U.S. District Court are coveted and prestigious. The judges, paid $161,000, are entitled to hold their jobs as long as they want.

Persons significantly involved in the matter say a deal between the president and the Senate is needed. A deal would make it more likely that nominees by the lame-duck president of one party will be confirmed by the Senate controlled by another party.

Otherwise, the court will be two judges short, creating a backlog of cases and slower-than-usual disposition of them.

If the two replacement judges are not confirmed before President Bush leaves office in January 2009, it is likely to be late in 2009, at the earliest, that the vacancies, which will occur early in 2008, would be filled.

Court veterans say a significant slow-down in handling cases, detrimental to persons with cases in the court, are likely if the court becomes two judges short.

The majority Senate Democrats, hoping their party's candidate will be elected president in November, could block confirmation of Bush's choices.

The state's two U.S. senators, Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar, could play a key role in getting a deal to make it more likely that replacements will be in place promptly.

Allard's chief of staff, Sean Conway, said Friday that the senators met last month with Babcock, chief judge for the past seven years, and Edward Nottingham, who becomes chief judge on June 8 for a seven-year term, to discuss the need for promptly filling the expected vacancies.

Conway said the two senators plan to work together to try to get replacement judges in office as soon as possible "once the White House makes nominations based on our recommendations and with bipartisan support."

Conway said the two senators have "a very good working relationship," but have not yet decided on what process they will use to make recommendations to the president. In the past, senators have appointed bipartisan committees to offer suggested judgeship candidates to them before deciding whom to recommend to the president.

Salazar and his staff did not make themselves available for comment.

Bush in recent years picked Marcia Kreiger of suburban Denver, Robert Blackburn, who lived in Las Animas, and Phillip Figa of suburban Denver for the court. When those three were confirmed by the Senate it was controlled by Republicans and the president was not a lame-duck, so the potential was much less for political fighting over who would become judges.

Figa is seriously ill with a brain tumor, but has been working part time while undergoing extended treatment. He hopes to return to handling a fuller caseload when his health permits.

If he is unable to do that, his position could become open.

The first President Bush picked Nottingham, then of Grand Junction, in 1989. The other judge among the seven, Wiley Daniel of Denver, was picked in 1995 by Clinton.

In addition to the seven full-time judges, known in federal court parlance as "active" judges, the court now has three part-time judges, known as senior judges. There will be five part-time judges when Miller moves to that status in March and Babcock in April.

The three pleaded guilty in February to conspiracy involving submission of $716,677 in false debris hauling tickets.

Kitto submitted the tickets, while Robertson signed them, in most instances at her home, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Miller collected and submitted the slips for reimbursement.

Prosecutors said Kitto admitted he tried to conceal the conspiracy by depositing the money in a bank account opened under an employee's name.

Miller paid Robertson for signing the slip and also offered her extra "hush money," prosecutors said.

Meanwhile, W.C. Blackmon of Canton pleaded guilty Friday in federal court in Jackson to filing a false FEMA claim for Katrina disaster assistance funds.

U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton said FEMA mailed $14,470 to an address in Biloxi, based on a false statement from Blackmon claiming hurricane damage to items there.

Blackmon will be sentenced July 27. He faces a maximum five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Srivastava told medics that Wilson doused her with gasoline and set her on fire during an argument at the couple's home on the Southside of Indianapolis, according to police.

Wilson, who was treated for burns to his forearms and hands, initially told firefighters he and Srivastava had been burned when he tried to light a propane grill, but police said Wilson's grill still had its plastic cover on it.

"Things are not always as they seem," said Wilson's attorney, Marvin Coffey.

"We're not disputing the fact that she had gasoline on her; we're disputing the fact that she died of that, and it is a terrible, tragic thing," he said. "Now the question remains, was it an intentional act?"

Wilson's trial was scheduled for July 30. If convicted, he could face 45 to 65 years in prison.