South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that an ethics investigation into Gov. Mark Sanford's travel must be made public, clearing the way for lawmakers considering impeachment to review a report on the probe.

Sanford's lawyers had tried keep a report on a criminal investigation by the State Ethics Commission from being released to the House of Representatives as leaders there decide whether to move forward with impeachment efforts.

The commission's investigation was launched after Sanford returned from a five-day rendezvous with an Argentine lover in June that prompted investigations by The Associated Press into his travel practices. The AP found Sanford used state airplanes for personal and political purposes; used pricey commercial travel despite a state low-cost travel requirement; and didn't report private plane trips given by friends and donors.

Sanford's spokesman and lawyers, as well as Ethics Commission Director Herb Hayden, did not immediately respond to questions.

The governor said shortly after the investigation began that he would waive confidentiality rights, but his lawyers later argued he only intended to allow the scope of the investigation to be released. Attorneys wanted Sanford to have a chance to respond to the report before lawmakers saw it.

Attorneys for John Allen Muhammad released a May 2008 letter on Wednesday in which the mastermind of the deadly 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area proclaims his innocence.

The rambling, handwritten letter was made available because of requests for a statement from Muhammad, his attorneys wrote on the Web page of their law firm. The letter was filed in federal court in connection with Muhammad's unsuccessful attempt to block his execution, the attorneys said.

Muhammad, 48, is scheduled to die by injection on Nov. 10 at a Virginia prison.

In the letter dated May 8, 2008, and rife with misspellings, Muhammad writes of discussions with a new team of attorneys and of assurances that "exculpatory evidence" that he claims was withheld from his trial "will prove my innocent and what really happen ...."

The letter adds: "So all you police and prosecutors can stand-down-'rushing' to murder this innocent black man for something he nor his son (Lee) had nothing to do with ...."

Lee Boyd Malvo was Muhammad's teenage accomplice, who is serving a life sentence. Muhammad fostered a father-son relationship with Malvo but the two were not related.

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments challenging a key section of a law aimed at protecting children from sexual predators.

Jessica's Law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

It mandates that all those paroled after Nov. 8, 2006 — when the law took effect — must comply or face more jail time.

The case to be heard Tuesday claims the requirement violates the constitutional rights of sex offenders.

Four registered sex offenders have sued the state, arguing the law makes it impossible to find a place to live.

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday set two new execution dates even as the state continues to rework its procedures for putting condemned inmates to death by injection.

The execution dates are the first in four and a half months set by the court, which had been scheduling executions about once a month.

The death penalty is temporarily on hold in Ohio while the state develops the new policies. The update follows a botched execution on Sept. 15 that was halted after two hours when executioners couldn't find a usable vein on inmate Rommel Broom.

The court's decision Wednesday set a May 13 execution date for Michael Beuke, 47, convicted of the 1983 murder of Robert Craig, a man he met while hitchhiking on Interstate 275 in southwest Ohio.

Beuke shot Craig twice in the head and once in the chest, dumped his body in the bushes and stole his car.

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a judge's ruling that allowed prosecutors to charge a reputed Ku Klux Klansman with kidnapping more than 40 years after two black men were abducted and killed in rural Mississippi.

The justices rejected a plea from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether too much time had elapsed for the case against James Ford Seale to go forward.

The action leaves in place a lower court ruling that the statute of limitations had not expired for a federal kidnapping charge against Seale in the 1964 disappearance of two 19-year-old friends.

Seale was convicted in 2007 of abducting the men. Authorities said they were beaten, weighted down and thrown, possibly still alive, into a Mississippi River backwater.

Disagreeing with their colleagues, Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia said the high court should have agreed to hear the case because it raises an important issue that potentially affects similar prosecutions. The court did not otherwise elaborate on its order.

The request by the New Orleans-based appeals court indicated that the decision could affect roughly two dozen other investigations into Civil Rights Era crimes. But Chief Judge Edith H. Jones and five other dissenters cast doubt on that number.

In 1964, when the men disappeared, kidnapping was punishable by death under federal law. But in the 1970s, Supreme Court decisions and acts of Congress changed the maximum sentence for kidnapping to life in prison. Capital crimes have no deadline for prosecution, but lesser crimes must be prosecuted within five years.

The Supreme Court turned away another appeal to stop the release of documents generated for sexual abuse lawsuits against priests in a Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Diocese of Bridgeport, which has been fighting for years to prevent the release of the documents. Last month, the justices refused to grant a delay at least while they considered the diocese's full appeal.

The order Monday was issued without comment.

The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and the Hartford Courant have asked to see the documents. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against the six priests should be unsealed.

The documents include depositions, affidavits and motions.

The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001.

The diocese says the First Amendment prohibits civil authorities from intruding into internal church decisions about priest assignments.