The appeals court concluded that U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler erred in not allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint with additional materials. Chesler had ruled on the grounds that those materials were acquired as a result of a consensual discovery agreement.

The panel said the district judge needs to determine whether the additional materials would affect the lawsuit's merit.

Since it is a shareholder suit, the plaintiffs normally would have been required to first make a demand upon the company's board of directors. But the plaintiffs said such a demand would have been futile at the time they began the lawsuit.

"Of course, we express no opinion about whether the newly acquired facts that are included in the amended complaint will alter this analysis," the 3rd Circuit judges wrote. "The allegations must not simply demonstrate an aloof or negligent board, but nonfeasance that rose to the level of egregiousness or bad faith."

"We look forward to presenting our arguments anew to the district court under the guidance provided by the appellate court today," said Ted Mayer, an attorney for Merck. "Given that today's ruling did not challenge the reasoning of the lower court in previously dismissing the lawsuit, we believe that the outcome should be the same."

A message left with an attorney for the plaintiffs was not immediately returned.

"I have read the (plea) agreement, and I accept responsibility," Crutchfield told U.S. Judge J. Daniel Breen.

Defense attorney William Farmer characterized the money that Crutchfield admitted taking as a "gratuity" rather than a bribe.

"They gave him a gratuity _ thanks for all your help _ long after he had already agreed to support this bill," Farmer said outside court.

Crutchfield and former Sen. Kathryn Bowers, D-Memphis, were the last of the Tennessee Waltz lawmakers still facing trial. The others have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.

Bowers' attorney, William Massey, said she would plead guilty on Monday.

"She brings this one blemish to the courtroom but a lifetime of good work and a positive history in the community," Massey said. "We hope to convince the judge it's not necessary to punish her severely."

If prison time is ordered, he said, "that's what she'll do. She's strong."

Tennessee Waltz indictments were returned in May 2005, charging the five with taking payoffs from a company called E-Cycle Management, which turned out to be a creation of the FBI.

Farmer said that Crutchfield, who has served in the General Assembly for 31 years, plans to resign "in due time," before the Legislature returns to session in January.

Crutchfield still will be eligible for a $42,000 annual pension because his membership in the state's retirement system predated changes in a law designed to strip benefits from convicted lawmakers.

He faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, though federal guidelines for a first-time offender would call for a much lighter sentence. Sentencing was set for Nov. 28.

The indictment against Crutchfield accused him of splitting $12,000 in bribes with a so-called "bagman" and former lobbyist, Charles Love. Love pleaded guilty and was to testify against Crutchfield at trial.

Prosecutors say the Tennessee Waltz investigation is ongoing.

Pushing through a crowd of reporters and photographers outside the Memphis courthouse, Crutchfield refused to talk about Tennessee Waltz.

"I'm ready to go home to Chattanooga right now," he said.

Crutchfield was first elected to the state House in 1956 and served 14 terms in the Senate. He was Senate Democratic leader for six years until losing a caucus vote about five months before the Tennessee Waltz investigation became public.

"It is our hope that this does not obscure what was a record of noteworthy public service. Senator Crutchfield represented the people of his district with distinction for a very long time," Democratic caucus chairman Joe Haynes said in a statement.

In all, 11 people have been indicted on Tennessee Waltz charges, including several officials in Memphis and Chattanooga. Nine of those charged, including Crutchfield, now stand convicted.

A court of appeals had overruled the circuit court in December 2005, saying Tietsworth's case could be amended to include warranty and contract claims. The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the circuit court has no authority to reopen the amended case.

Harley-Davidson (nyse: HOG - news - people ) spokesman Bob Klein said the company would not comment until it had reviewed the decision. Tietsworth's lawyer, Ted Warshafsky, also declined to comment before reading the decision.

Harley-Davidson sent letters in January 2001 to Tietsworth and 140,000 other owners of 1999 and early 2000 models built with the Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines. The company told owners the rear cam bearing in some bikes had failed but would probably not cause engine failure. Harley extended its warranty for the part and made cam repair kits available for $495.

Tietsworth's complaint, which later involved four other owners, said the problem increased riders' safety risks and decreased the value of their Harleys. A circuit court judge threw out the original case, saying Tietsworth and others failed to show actual damages or economic loss, and its decision was eventually upheld by the state Supreme Court.

In 2004, Tietsworth asked a court to amend his original complaint to include contract and warranty claims. Thursday's Supreme Court decision ended that effort.

The Supreme Court also has issued recent rulings that could make it tougher for investors to bring class-action claims against corporations. In one case, the court said that plaintiffs must show convincing evidence that fraud occurred or else a lawsuit can be dismissed at the pre-trial stage.

Fifty-nine federal securities cases requesting class-action status were filed in the first six months of this year, down 42 percent from an average mid-year filing rate of 101 from the 1996-to-2005 period, according to the study by legal research firm Cornerstone Research and Stanford University Law School.

Courts must certify lawsuits as class-actions. Many cases end up getting tossed out by judges before they reach that stage. If class-actions do get certified, the vast majority end up getting settled rather than going to trial.

The number of filings this year was up slightly from 53 cases in the same period in 2006, but it still marks the fourth consecutive six-month period with below average filings, the report found.

"We've now had two years worth of extremely low filing activity," said Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford University law professor. "This is starting to look like a permanent shift, not a transitory phenomenon."

In June, the State Department announced that employment visa numbers were available for all people seeking employer-sponsored green cards, except unskilled workers. The announcement meant that as early as this past Monday, Citizenship and Immigration Services would begin accepting applications, which require a lengthy process including certified documents and medical exams.

But an update posted Monday on the State Department Web site said 60,000 such numbers were no longer available because of "the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month," meaning no further applications would be authorized, effective immediately.

The department called the backlog reduction efforts an "unexpected action" and said employment visa numbers would be available Oct. 1.

Ptasinska—who flew from Chicago to Lincoln, Neb., on Monday in hopes of being among the first to submit a green card application—is seeking

a ruling that would keep the application from being rejected, according to her attorney Ira Azulay.
The lawsuit names several government officials and agencies, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of State and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

State Department spokeswoman Leslie Phillips said that the agency does not comment on litigation. Calls to Citizenship and Immigration Services went unanswered.

Immigration groups like the American Immigration Lawyers Foundation claim thousands of people across the country have spent time and money on attorneys and the application.

Spokesman Tim Vettel said the foundation is in the process of preparing a similar lawsuit.

There is no doubt about the unhappiness of liberals with the current court, which now bears Mr. Bush's unmistakable imprint. They were reeling last week as the court finished up its first full term with Mr. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. It was a session marked by a sharp turn to the right in a series of 5-to-4 decisions, from upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion to limiting school districts' ability to use racially conscious criteria to achieve or maintain integration.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail were furious, especially, some said, because of Mr. Roberts' promises of humility and respect for precedent, delivered repeatedly when he sought confirmation from the Senate. "Given what he said to us," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, "my Democratic colleagues and I would never have envisioned the string of decisions that he issued recently."

"He kept stressing modesty, stare decisis, not over-reaching, giving a large amount of weight to precedent, and now he sort of just flicks it off with the back of his hand," said Mr. Schumer, who voted against Mr. Roberts. "People are just shocked."

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and who voted for Mr. Roberts' confirmation, was equally unhappy. "I am extraordinarily disappointed when I find that, in almost a cavalier way, they've thrown aside Brown vs. the Board the Education," Mr. Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press." (That is a characterization that Mr. Roberts, and others, would no doubt dispute.)

But venting only goes so far. People for the American Way, the liberal advocacy group, launched a fund-raising drive this week with an e-mail message sent to 400,000 core activists. "Only you and I stand between the new Supreme Court and the continued chiseling away at the rights and freedoms we Americans hold dear," wrote Norman Lear, one of the founders of the group.

Promising to match every dollar contributed, and to organize around next year's Senate and Presidential campaigns, Mr. Lear concluded, "Together we can take back the court."

Liberals have been warning of the dangers of a Bush court since his 2000 campaign against Al Gore, but it was never an easy issue to drive home, even among people who support much of the progressive agenda, analysts say.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has studied public attitudes toward the court for Planned Parenthood and other groups, said it takes a long time to penetrate the public's consciousness about the importance of the nine justices.

"They don't know much about the court, they don't understand lifetime appointments, they think each president can have an impact," she added.

Mark Mellman, another Democratic pollster, said that in the past, "people had some confidence that the court was not going to change the way the country did business in dramatic ways."

In other words, liberals were often warning about potential dangers to their agenda from a changing Supreme Court. The issue was not a hypothetical for conservatives, who felt devastated, over the years, by decisions from previous courts, most notably Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

Now, some Democrats and their allies say they are hearing hypothetical worries turn to outrage, and not just in the Democratic cloakroom of the Senate. "The right has always been energized on this issue," said Mr. Schumer. "The recent decisions have now energized the left."

Democratic presidential campaigns quickly weighed in, and the issue is expected to be raised in several Senate races. A prime example is Maine, which has a centrist Republican up for re-election next year, Senator Susan Collins, who voted for both Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts.

Carol Andrews, communications director for the Maine Democratic Party, foreshadowed the fight to come, saying Ms. Collins' support for Mr. Alito, in particular, "places her squarely in lockstep with ultraconservatives, and far to the right of the center she claims to inhabit."

Steve Abbott, Ms. Collins's chief of staff, countered that the senator takes her responsibilities to advise and consent very seriously, but has no litmus test for judicial confirmations.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said he believes that public attitudes toward the court are "at a tipping point." He said that the cumulative impact of the court's decisions will make it easier to make the case that "you have a court radically to the right of the American people."

Ms. Lake said she could envision an argument aimed at women in the presidential campaign — "that there's a pattern of decisions out here that are out of touch with women's lives, from pay equity to personal decision-making on abortions," she said. "It could be very powerful."

In the meantime, the activist and fund-raising networks are beginning to hum.