A federal judge has ordered a one-month delay in the Enron-related May retrial of a former Merrill Lynch executive.

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. agreed to delay Robert S. Furst's retrial to June 1 to accommodate plea negotiations. Prosecutors and defense attorneys told Werlein during a hearing Friday that they are close to a deal that would resolve the case.

Furst and two other executives were convicted in 2004 of helping push through Enron's sham sale to Merrill Lynch of three power barges moored off the Nigerian coast in 1999. The deal was struck to make the Enron energy division's earnings appear larger.

But an appeals court threw out their fraud and conspiracy convictions in 2006 after finding fault with the prosecution's legal theory.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to get involved in a dispute over how to prevent invasive Asian carp from making their way into the Great Lakes.

The justices turned down a new request from Michigan to consider ordering closure of Chicago-area shipping locks to prevent the fish from threatening the Great Lakes. The locks could provide a pathway to Lake Michigan for the unwanted carp.

The court had previously declined twice to order the locks closed on an emergency basis while it considered whether to hear the case. This time, the court rejected a proposal by Michigan and six other states to use a long-standing case involving water diversion from Lake Michigan as a vehicle for seeking to permanently sever a man-made linkage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

Michigan has led the legal fight to close the locks, arguing that the ravenous carp, weighing up to 100 pounds, could decimate the lakes' $7 billion fishing industry by starving out competitors such as salmon and walleye.

A federal appeals court has handed the government a victory by temporarily blocking a judge's finding that Congress shouldn't have halted federal funding to the activist group ACORN.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued the order Wednesday, a day after the government lawyer argued the stay of the ruling was necessary.

The government had argued that it was necessary to block the ruling to ensure that federal agencies were not required to commit funds that have not been appropriated by Congress.

A lawyer for ACORN says it may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court because the cutoff of funds is crippling ACORN and jeopardizing housing for poor people.

The Supreme Court Wednesday made it easier for consumers to sue debt collectors for sending erroneous collection notices.

The high court, in a 7-2 opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that debt collectors can't shield themselves from such lawsuits by arguing that they made a legal error when sending a collection notice.

"We have long recognized the common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally," Justice Sotomayor wrote in a 30-page opinion.

At issue were the actions of an Ohio law firm that initiated foreclosure proceedings on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

The homeowner, Karen Jerman, disputed that the debt existed. Countrywide later acknowledged that Ms. Jerman had in fact paid the debt, and the law firm withdrew the foreclosure lawsuit.

Ms. Jerman then sued the law firm, arguing that it violated federal debt-collection law by stating in its foreclosure suit that Ms. Jerman's alleged debt would be assumed to be valid unless she contested in writing.

A lower court agreed with Ms. Jerman that the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but ruled that the law firm was shielded from liability because the violation wasn't intentional and was the result of a bona fide legal error.

Justice Sotomayor and the court disagreed, ruling that Congress hadn't explicitly provided a mistake-of-law defense to debt collectors.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented, saying the court's ruling could allow abusive litigation by plaintiffs' lawyers.

In a case that pits nondiscrimination policies against freedom of religion, the Supreme Court is grappling with whether universities and colleges can deny official recognition to Christian student groups that refuse to let non-Christians and gays join.

The high court was to hear arguments Monday from the Christian Legal Society at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The Christian group said its constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association were violated when it was denied recognition as a student group by the San Francisco-based school.

The group has made this argument at several universities around the nation with mixed results. The high court's decision could set a national standard for universities and colleges to follow when Christian and other groups that want to exclude certain people apply for money and recognition from the school.

Hastings said it turned the Christian Legal Society down because all recognized campus groups, which are eligible for financing and other benefits, may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons.

The Ohio Supreme Court overturned a gag order that prevented the Toledo media from reporting on one defendant's trial until the jury was impaneled on a second defendant's trial.

Jayme Schwenkmeyer and her boyfriend, David Knepley, were charged with child endangering and manslaughter in the death of Schwenkmeyer's child.

Henry County Court Judge Keith Muehlfeld ordered separate trials and imposed a gag order on the media from reporting on Schwenkmeyer's trial until the jury was seated for Knepley's trial, which began one week later.
Muehlfeld said he took this action to prevent the tainting of the jury pool in Knepley's trial.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a per-curiam decision, granted the Toledo Blade a writ of prohibition to override the gag order.

"Judge Muehlfeld's analysis proceeded from the erroneous premise that a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial should be accorded priority over the media's constitutional rights of free speech and press," the justices wrote.

"The judge did not rely on any evidence that a continuance might minimize any prejudicial pretrial publicity resulting from press reports about the Schwenkmeyer trial," they added, lifting the gag order.