That is the top recommendation in "Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America's Misdemeanor Courts," a report released Tuesday by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Researchers with the Defender Initiative at the Seattle University School of Law reviewed statistics and visited misdemeanor courts in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington state.

They reported that cases per public defender ranged from 360 a year in Benton County, Wash., and 380 in Seattle, both set limits, to 2,403 in Chicago, 2,502 in Utah and 18,720 in New Orleans.

The National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice recommends a maximum of 400 cases a year per defender.

John Wesley Hall Jr., a lawyer from Little Rock, Ark., and president of the association, said he looked forward to presenting the findings to the House Judiciary Committee in a congressional hearing June 4.

America's Cup champion Alinghi of Switzerland is being ordered to tell a New York court why it should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with an order that its one-on-one showdown against American crew BMW Oracle Racing be held in February.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, acting on a request by San Francisco's Golden Gate Yacht Club, scheduled a hearing for May 14.

This is the latest twist in a bitter fight between billionaires that has delayed a conventional, multichallenger America's Cup and led to a rare showdown between Alinghi and BMW Oracle Racing.

Alinghi has said it is preparing to hold the best-of-three series for the oldest trophy in international sports beginning in May 2010.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that a lower court judge wrongly tossed out the lawsuit after the government asserted the case was a "state secret" that would harm national security if allowed to go forward.

The trial court judge dismissed the case before the prisoners could present evidence allegedly showing that the company's participation in the program was illegal. The Bush administration and then the Obama administration argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out before the government turns over any evidence because the nature of the legal action is itself a classified matter.

The federal government inserted itself into the lawsuit on the company's side because it said feared top-secret information would be disclosed.

The appeals court, however, said the five prisoners suing San Jose-based Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. can try to prove their case without using top-secret information that legitimately needs protection from disclosure.

Mattel sued MGA in 2004, alleging that Bratz designer Carter Bryant developed the concept for the pouty-lipped doll while working for Mattel.

After a four-year legal dispute, a jury last year awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract.

After the verdict, Mattel sought to block MGA from ever making the Bratz dolls, and Larson ordered the company in December to end its sales in early 2009.

MGA argued that retailers would not order the toys unless the court could guarantee they would remain in stores through most of this year. MGA got a reprieve in January when Larson ruled that the dolls could remain in stores for the rest of the year.

He left open the possibility that Mattel or a court-appointed receiver could ultimately market the dolls this year.

A hearing is scheduled for May 18 to discuss whether the receivership should be made permanent.

The court will hear arguments Tuesday in an Oregon case in which a local school district contends that students should at least give public special education programs a try before seeking reimbursement for private school tuition.

A federal appeals court sided with a high-school student identified in court papers only as T.A. The student enrolled in a $5,200-a-month private program and sought reimbursement from the Forest Grove School District.

The Supreme Court heard a similar case from New York in 2007, but split 4-4 on the outcome.

The case is Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 08-305.

But the court, in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, is refusing to pass judgment on whether the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" policy is in line with First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The justices say a federal appeals court should weigh the constitutionality of the policy.

The decision throws out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court had found in favor of a Fox Television-led challenge to the policy and had returned the case to the FCC to let the agency provide a "reasoned analysis" for its tougher line on indecency.

The commission appealed to the Supreme Court instead.