The motion, filed late Thursday, argued that the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

"This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions."

It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

The nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor had refused to take the money designated for the state over the next two years, facing down protesters and legislators who passed a budget requiring him to. While other Republican governors had taken issue with requesting money from the $787 billion federal stimulus package, Sanford was the first to defend in court his desire to reject the money.

But he said Thursday he will not appeal the Supreme Court ruling and plans to sign paperwork to request the money Monday.

Educators quickly hailed the court decision. They had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.

"Finally. It took way too long. It was so unnecessary and took so long to do what 49 other states figured out how to do a long time ago, but finally is better than not at all. It will allow districts to immediately begin to reconstitute programs and fill positions they didn't think they could fill," state Education Superintendent Jim Rex said.

While Sanford raised the issue, it was Casey Edwards, a Chapin High School student graduating Friday, who brought it to the state's highest court. She beamed as she told reporters she "was very excited that our schools and our teachers and our education system will be getting the funds that are so desperately needed here in South Carolina."

The rule was issued in the waning days of the Bush administration, angering immigrants rights groups that immediately sought to persuade the incoming Democratic administration to discard it.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder did just that, saying he is vacating the order issued by predecessor Michael Mukasey which said that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.

Holder said he is also instructing the Justice Department to begin working on a new rule.

Charles Kuck, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the move "the beginning of the restoration of due process in the immigration system."

Kuck said that Holder's decision "recognizes we can't treat immigrants any differently than ourselves if we expect to receive the same benefits the Constitution provides."

Mukasey had issued a 33-page decision in January saying the Constitution does not entitle someone facing deportation to have a case reopened based upon shoddy work by a lawyer. Mukasey also said, however, that Justice Department officials have the discretion to reopen such cases if they choose.

Immigrant rights groups had criticized the Mukasey decision, saying such immigrants subject to deportation are particularly susceptible to sham lawyers claiming to do legal work on their behalf.

Holder said in a statement that Mukasey's decision had not allowed for enough public comment on the issue.

Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg argued before the high court Monday that counties were inconsistent in the way they decided whether absentee ballots were filled out correctly.

Franken's attorney gets a chance to present his side after Friedberg finishes.

Coleman wants justices to instruct a trial court to open 4,400 rejected absentee ballots.

Franken, potentially a critical 60th Senate vote for Democrats, hopes the court sweeps aside the appeal and is demanding that he get the election certificate required to take office.

There's no telling when Minnesota's highest court will act.

The questions included: "Do law firms do a disservice by hiring minority students who the firms know do not have the necessary credentials and will then fire in three to four years? Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a Puerto Rican? Was I culturally deprived?" according to a December 1978 Washington Post article about the incident.

The day after the dinner, Sotomayor challenged the partner about the questions during her formal interview. The partner said he meant no harm and invited her to Washington for further job interviews. Sotomayor declined and filed a discrimination complaint with Yale, putting the firm, then known as Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, at risk of being banned from recruiting at Yale.

The incident sparked a campus controversy in which minority and women's groups backed Sotomayor. A student-faculty tribunal investigated and found the questions violated the university's rules against discrimination. It rejected the firm's first letter of apology as too weak before accepting its second letter.

The episode "prevented us from recruiting her, which we wanted to do. It also probably prevented us from recruiting other students," the Post quoted a senior partner in the firm, Ramsay Potts, as saying at the time.

Sotomayor joined the New York City prosecutor's office after receiving her law degree.

The appeals court in Washington ruled that the White House Office of Administration is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act, allowing the White House to keep secret documents about an e-mail system that has been plagued with problems.

During its first term, the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when it switched to a new system, resulting in millions of messages that could not be found. The Bush White House discovered the problem in 2005 and rejected a proposed solution.

A group known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued to get documents about the office's electronic record-keeping, including reports analyzing system problems, plans to find the missing e-mails and create an improved system and records of any retained messages.

In response to court orders in the case, the White House disclosed that it has located nearly 3,500 pages of documents about problems with its e-mail system. But the Bush administration argued in this case for the first time that the office's records are not subject to public disclosure, even though it had responded to hundreds of other FOIA requests in the past decade and even included instructions on its Web site for filing them.