The Supreme Court won't decide who really owns the initials "SC" when it comes to college sports: the University of Southern California or the University of South Carolina.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from South Carolina, which wanted to trademark a baseball cap logo with the initials "SC."

The Trojans already have a trademark on a version of "SC" and say the Gamecocks' symbol looks too much like theirs. The California school says it has sold tens of millions of dollars of apparel with "SC" on it, while South Carolina only wanted to start using those initials on baseball caps in 1997.

Courts have rejected South Carolina's trademark.

The case is University of South Carolina v. University of Southern California, 09-1270.

A federal appeals court has declined to fast-track a challenge against a Minnesota law requiring disclosure of corporate political spending.

In an order Monday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to expedite the case, and it scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 11 in St. Louis, well after the election.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and a travel company are trying to overturn the law on free-speech grounds.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank last month refused to block the state law.

The groups have also asked the 8th Circuit for an injunction to suspend enforcement of the disclosure law while their appeal is considered. The appeals court took that request under advisement.

The execution of a convicted rapist-murderer in California has been called off after rulings in state and federal courts, officials said Wednesday.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation removed Albert Greenwood Brown's execution from its calendar on Wednesday, a few hours after the California Supreme Court denied the state's request to proceed with the scheduled execution on Thursday night.

The state filed the request early Wednesday, after a federal court judge blocked Brown's execution Tuesday night. The execution would have been California's first since 2006, when challenges to the constitutionality of lethal injection forced the state to revise its measures.

One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.

"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.

Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.

The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.

Chief Justice John Roberts has sold his shares of Pfizer Inc., a move that allows him to participate in two pending Supreme Court cases involving the pharmaceutical maker.

Federal law requires judges to sit out cases if they own even a single share of stock in any of the parties to a lawsuit. In the past, Roberts has not taken part in cases involving Pfizer because he owned less than $15,000 of the company's stock, according to his latest report of personal finances, which covered 2009.

But when the court announced Tuesday that it had accepted an appeal from several drug makers, including Pfizer, in a dispute over prices charged public hospitals, there was no indication that Roberts would step down from hearing the case.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed that the chief justice sold his Pfizer shares in August.

As a result, he also will sit with his colleagues when they hear arguments Oct. 12 in another case involving childhood vaccines. Roberts played no role when the court decided in March to hear the case.

Arberg offered no explanation for Roberts' decision to sell the stock now, but it appears likely that Justice Elena Kagan's need to sit out the two cases played a role in Roberts' timing.

Kagan, who joined the court in August, owns no stock in Pfizer, but was involved in the two cases at some point during her time at the Justice Department as President Barack Obama's solicitor general.

The Supreme Court is getting involved in an unusual freedom of information dispute over whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from releasing documents about them.

The court on Tuesday agreed to a request from the Obama administration to take up a case involving claims made by telecommunications giant AT&T to keep secret the information gathered by the Federal Communications Commission during an investigation.

The administration wants the high court to rule that corporations may not claim a personal privacy exception contained in the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The exception may be used only by individuals, the administration said in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the newest justice who served in the Justice Department until last month.

Kagan will not take part in the case, which will be argued early next year.

AT&T wants the FCC to keep secret all the information it gathered from the company during an investigation into its participation in the federal E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries get Internet access.

The FCC had released some of the information under an open records request, but withheld some, citing FOIA exemptions that cover trade secrets and humans' right to privacy.