The North Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could change how the death penalty is administered.

Lawyers for five death row inmates are preparing to argue Monday that an administrative law judge was right to order state officials to revamp North Carolina's protocol for executions in 2007.

The Council of State has to approve changes to death penalty procedures and argues the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to make that order. A Superior Court judge sided with the council.

The inmates' lawyers say the council signed off on changes to capital punishment protocol without hearing from advocates for condemned prisoners.

If the Supreme Court agrees, the case will go back to a lower court for review.

Jack Camp, the former federal judge ensnared in a scandal involving drugs and a stripper, was sentenced Friday to 30 days in prison and 400 hours of community service.

Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he could not give a sentence of only probation because Camp had breached his oath of office.

"He has disgraced his office," Hogan said. "He has denigrated the federal judiciary. He has encouraged disrespect for the rule of law."

Before being sentenced, Camp apologized for what he had done and thanked his family and friends, many of whom filled the courtroom.

"I have embarrassed and humiliated my family as well as myself," Camp said. "I have embarrassed the court I have served on and I am deeply sorry for that. When I look back at the circumstances which brought me here and look at what I did, it makes me sick."

Camp said that at the end of the day, "the only thing I can say is that I'm so very sorry."

As a judge, Camp often meted out harsh sentences and rarely gave breaks to defendants who presented mitigating circumstances to explain their conduct. On Friday, Hogan was asked by Camp's lawyers to grant leniency because of the ex-judge's decades-long battle with a bipolar disorder and brain damage caused by a 2000 biking accident.

The Michigan Supreme Court says it will decide whether to remove a Lansing judge from office.

In late December, Hugh Clarke Jr. was appointed to a vacancy at 54-A District Court by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Attorney General Bill Schuette says the appointment should have expired on Jan. 1.

Clarke replaced Amy Krause, a judge who was re-elected in November before getting a promotion by Granholm to the appeals court.

Clarke's lawyers say he's entitled to stay in office and face election in 2012. The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will hear arguments in May.

A lawyer who is suing the Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission for some Iowa clients has been named to the commission by Gov. Terry Branstad.

In their lawsuit, the clients of William Gustoff (GUHS'-tahf) allege that the makeup of the commission is biased against nonlawyers because they have no say in the selection of half the commission.

The Des Moines Register says that half the commission is lawyers, elected by lawyers; the other half traditionally is made up of nonlawyers appointed by the governor. Gustoff's appointment is a departure, but it is not barred by Iowa law.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the government's broad use of an exemption in the federal Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents from the public, ruling for a Washington state resident who wants Navy maps relating to its main West Coast ammunition dump.

The court, by an 8-1 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that backed the Navy's decision to withhold maps showing the extent of damage expected from an explosion at the ammunition dump near Port Townsend in western Washington.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said maps could not be withheld under a FOIA provision that deals with a federal agency's "personnel rules and practices." Kagan said that part of the law concerns "issues of employee relations and human resources."

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, saying the courts have consistently allowed broad use of the exemption for 30 years. "I would let sleeping dogs lie," Breyer said.

The case before the court revolved around competing ideas of public safety. The government said that releasing the maps could allow someone to identify the precise location of the munitions that are stored at its base on Indian Island.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the government's broad use of an exemption in the federal Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents from the public, ruling for a Washington state resident who wants Navy maps relating to its main West Coast ammunition dump.

The court, by an 8-1 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that backed the Navy's decision to withhold maps showing the extent of damage expected from an explosion at the ammunition dump near Port Townsend in western Washington.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said maps could not be withheld under a FOIA provision that deals with a federal agency's "personnel rules and practices." Kagan said that part of the law concerns "issues of employee relations and human resources."

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, saying the courts have consistently allowed broad use of the exemption for 30 years. "I would let sleeping dogs lie," Breyer said.

The case before the court revolved around competing ideas of public safety. The government said that releasing the maps could allow someone to identify the precise location of the munitions that are stored at its base on Indian Island.

But Glen Milner, a longtime community activist, said that the people who live near the base have valid reasons for wanting to know whether they would be endangered by an explosion. An explosion at the Navy's Port Chicago ammunition depot during World War II killed 320 people.

Milner has raised safety concerns about several area naval facilities. While he could not get the map for the ammunition dump, an official at an area submarine base provided Milner a map showing the probable range of damage from an explosion at that facility.