The tobacco industry is trying to head off a wave of state-based challenges regarding the light cigarettes, even as it is appealing a federal judge's order to stop marketing cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild" because they mislead consumers.

The issue before the justices is whether state laws against unfair marketing practices may be used in suits against the tobacco companies or whether federal law bars such lawsuits. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act says states can't impose any requirements on the advertising or promotion of cigarettes.

A federal judge initially threw out a suit filed by three Maine residents against Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary that alleged the advertising of light cigarettes was unfair and deceptive.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reinstated the suit.

The Maine plaintiffs said they smoked Marlboro Lights, made by Philip Morris, for at least 15 years. They claim the company marketed the cigarettes as "light" and having "lowered tar and nicotine" despite knowing that those statements were false, in violation of Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company has research, the plaintiffs say, that shows it knew that smokers of the light cigarettes took deeper puffs and used other techniques to ensure they received as much nicotine as they would have gotten from regular cigarettes.

Philip Morris said the lawsuit was properly dismissed by the federal judge and called on the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between appeals courts over these sorts of lawsuits. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans last year dismissed a similar suit.

In the government's landmark case against tobacco companies, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said the companies "distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting."

That case is on appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A separate federal lawsuit filed by smokers is pending in New York. The class-action suit alleges tobacco companies violated federal racketeering laws by promoting light cigarettes as lower-risk alternatives to regular cigarettes even though their internal documents showed they knew the risks were about the same. The class may consist of as many as 60 million people, lawyers say.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is considering whether the lawsuit can proceed as a class action or whether smokers must file suit individually.

The basics of the claims against the companies are similar in all the lawsuits: The companies knew that smokers may compensate for the lower tar and nicotine yields by taking deeper puffs, holding the smoke in their lungs longer or smoking more cigarettes.

The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed a brief in support of its chief rival, saying the financial stakes in the case are enormous.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also backing Altria, said the appeals court ruling could extend well beyond cigarette labels to product liability lawsuits against many industries.

But in the three-paragraph statement, Maynard said "it has now become an issue of public perception and public confidence in the courts."

Maynard helped form a 3-2 majority in November that overturned a multimillion-dollar judgment against Richmond, Va.-based Massey that another company, Harman Mining, and its president, Hugh Caperton, had won in a contract dispute. Caperton had asked Maynard to step down from the case before the high court reconsiders that ruling. With interest, the damages are worth $76.3 million.

Bruce Stanley, a lawyer for Caperton, declined to comment Friday until after discussing the development with his client.

A Massey spokesman did not immediately respond to a message requesting comment.

The photos of Maynard and Massey Energy chief Don Blankenship together in Monaco in 2006 were included in a revised court motion filed Monday.

Both men have said they were on separate vacations, and that each paid his own way. Maynard has also said his friendship with Blankenship has not affected his impartiality on the court.

In one picture, the men are sitting side-by-side, smiling over empty glasses at a cafe along the Riviera as the Mediterranean sun sets behind them. In others, they are posing by the seaside. Ten other photos were filed under seal, and depict the men with two female companions, the motion said.

The court must now appoint a replacement, likely a circuit judge or retired jurist, to sit in Maynard's place.

Harman Mining is also challenging the impartiality of another justice, Brent Benjamin, arguing he should step down because Blankenship spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign attacking another justice on the court that helped to boost Benjamin into office in 2004.

That recusal petition was filed late Thursday. Benjamin has not yet responded, court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy said Friday.

State court rules require judicial officers to disqualify themselves from proceedings if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or if they have "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer."

Caperton contends that he and his company were driven into bankruptcy by unfair and deceptive dealings by Massey, the country's fourth-largest coal producer. A Boone County jury awarded Harman and Caperton $50 million in damages, which later swelled to $76.3 million with interest.

In the 3-2 ruling in November, though, three justices including Maynard and Benjamin agreed that whatever its merits, the case should not have been pursued in West Virginia courts.

On Thursday, a settlement was announced in Washington in which Massey agreed to pay a $20 million fine over allegations it routinely polluted hundreds of streams and waterways in West Virginia and Kentucky with sediment-filled waste water and coal slurry.

Under the agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Massey also will invest millions of dollars for pollution control improvements at its 44 mines and coal facilities in the two states and in Virginia, the EPA and Justice Department said.

The tax agency said Thursday that in the 2007 budget year it audited one out of every 11 with incomes of $1 million or more. Among those with incomes of $100,000 or less, 99 out of every 100 escaped further IRS scrutiny.

Still, the IRS said its auditing rates were generally up for people of all income levels. The rates were 9.25 percent for those with incomes of more than $1 million, up from 6.3 percent in 2006; 2.87 percent for those with incomes above $200,000, up from 2.57 percent; and 0.93 percent for those earning under $100,000, compared to 0.89 percent the previous year.

Overall, the IRS looked at 1,384,563 returns in fiscal 2007, 1.03 percent of the total individual returns of 134.4 million in the previous calendar year. The audit rate was up 7 percent from the previous year.

There were 31,382 audits of those with $1 million incomes, up 84 percent from the 17,015 audited in 2006.

On the business side, the IRS said the audit focus was on partnerships and mid-market corporations, those with assets between $10 million and $50 million.

The returns of 59,516 businesses were audited in 2007, 0.66 percent of the total and compared to 52,223 in 2006. About one out of six large corporations with assets of $10 million and higher was audited, 9,644 out of 57,357, were audited, down slightly from the previous year.

The tax agency said its enforcement budget in 2007 was largely unchanged from 2006, so it had to focus on areas of growth and potential risk.

It said enforcement revenues in fiscal 2007, from collections and appeals activities, were $59.2 billion, up from $48.7 billion the previous year.

The IRS also noted that 57 percent of individual tax filers filed electronically last year, up from 54 percent in 2006.

In fact, some lawyers who represent investors argue the high court decision involving cable company Charter Communications and two of its suppliers, made a clear distinction that justifies hearing the Enron case.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that shareholders cannot sue third parties in securities fraud cases, unless investors relied on their statements or representations when making investment decisions.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, on behalf of Charter shareholders, had accused the two suppliers of scheming to inflate company revenues in 2000.

Lawyers for investors point to sections of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, which they say makes a distinction between third parties involved in the goods and services arena and those involved in the investment sector.

"He repeatedly made that distinction. That distinction distinguishes Enron from Stoneridge," said Pamela Gilbert, a consultant for the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial bar association.

"Stoneridge involves a customer relationship. In Enron, the major wrongdoers are the investment banks involved in the financial transactions," Gilbert said.

Justice David Medina was indicted in the June fire at the couple's home in the Houston suburb of Spring that also damaged a neighbor's house, Medina's attorney Terry Yates told KHOU-TV. It caused a total of nearly $1 million in damage.

It was the second fire at the home in 10 years, and both blazes started in the garage.

Francisca Medina, the judge's wife, was charged with arson, the station reported.

Medina, 49, is a former district judge in Harris County, which contains Houston, and was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Rick Perry in 2004.

The Harris County prosecutor told the station he will move to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

Circuit Judge John B. Hagler of Cleveland, Tenn., resigned last month after the local prosecutor, an investigator and the Chattanooga Times Free Press asked him about the tape he had recorded years earlier.

The newspaper, The Associated Press and other news organizations had asked that the tape be released, but Hamilton County Chancery Court Judge Frank Brown ruled Thursday that it is not a public record and should be returned to Hagler.

"Private documents do not become public just because someone provides them to a law enforcement official," the judge said in the ruling.

Hagler's attorney, Roger Jenne, said that while Hagler was "extremely grateful" for the ruling, investigators should "get back and investigate what is really behind" the leak of the tape's existence.

Chattanooga police investigated the tape in 2005, after a secretary who had just been fired by Hagler turned it over. She said she found the recording of the judge's voice on a tape that also contained legal dictation.

Few details of the tape's content have been made public, but police testified during a court hearing that it was disturbing and sounded like someone being tortured.

They said they initially thought the tape might be linked to the unsolved 1997 shooting death of an Episcopal priest, the Rev. Charles Martin "Marty" Davis, 35, in Chattanooga. But Brown said in the decision Thursday that there was no apparent link.

Brown disagreed with Chattanooga police who said the tape was needed in their records as exculpatory evidence in the Davis killing. He said it was no more related to the Davis case than "books written about Charles Manson."

About two years after the investigation ended, the tape made its way to the prosecutor in Hagler's district, District Attorney Steve Bebb. After the Times Free Press learned about the recording from an unidentified source in December, Hagler confirmed it and resigned.

Bebb said in December that the tape "would disturb any human being who heard it," and that he sent a copy to the state Court of the Judiciary, which handles complaints against judges. The court, however, has no jurisdiction because Hagler resigned, a court spokeswoman said.

Hagler, who had been a circuit judge in Cleveland since 1990, has said that he did nothing wrong but that the recording had caused great embarrassment to friends, relatives and the courts. He strongly suggested the leak was committed by someone with a grudge against him, perhaps someone he ruled against.

In a statement issued last month, he said describing the recording as "graphic fantasies" was "accurate and sufficient ... and all any decent person would want to hear of it."

Brown said the newspaper and Chattanooga officials who had previously agreed to release the recording would have 30 days to contest it. The Times Free Press has not decided whether to do so, said its publisher and executive editor, Tom Griscom.

Jenne said there is a question as to whether someone "leaked this information in retaliation for decisions he has made in the past."

"Find out who the culprit is," he said

Jenne said release of the tape by anyone other than the parties in the case would bring a "pretty significant lawsuit."