The justices did not comment Monday on their order denying the appeal of The New York Law Publishing Company. It had sought access to a case that involved a woman who claimed her employer fired her because she had an abortion.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld a trial judge's decision to seal the case. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe in limited court filings that have been made public, has since settled the case with her employer. That may have affected the high court's decision.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 29 media organizations asked the justices to take the case.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who joined all 11 of the state's district attorneys in opposing the ballot question, said Wednesday she was working to determine exactly what it will require the legal system to do.

"Question 2's passage not only authorizes the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, but also establishes a parallel civil regulatory structure that does not currently exist," Coakley said in a written statement. "At this time, we are reviewing all of the implications of the new law and whether further clarification or guidance is needed."

Massachusetts becomes the 12th state in the country to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The measure passed Tuesday with 65 percent of voters supporting it and 35 percent opposed.

Under the state constitution, a ballot question approved by voters becomes law 30 days after an election.

The courts have defined the end of an election as the date on which the Governor's Council certifies voting results. That typically happens during the last week of November or the first week of December.

Until the new law takes effect, marijuana possession will still be considered a crime, Coakley warned.

Possession of small amounts of marijuana in the state is now punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine.

U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison made the comment after a nearly two-hour hearing in which attorneys for both sides reiterated arguments they had already briefed in court filings over the last few months.

The issues before Ellison are whether or not he should throw out the lawsuit and if he doesn't, whether it should stay in Texas.

"I really have been agonizing over these claims," Ellison said.

Clemens sued Brian McNamee in January after the pitcher's former trainer told baseball investigator and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell that the seven-time Cy Young Award winner used steroids and human growth hormone.

Clemens' attorney, Joe Roden, said his client had agreed to drop one claim against McNamee, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because it was covered in other parts of the lawsuit.

A 354-game winner, Clemens is under investigation by the FBI after denying McNamee's claims while under oath during a deposition and public testimony before a congressional committee.

The dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission is the court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years.

At issue is the FCC's policy, adopted in 2004, that even a one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then.

The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children at home, suggested that the commission's policy is reasonable. The use of either word, Roberts said, "is associated with sexual or excretory activity. That's what gives it its force."

Justice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy, doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image.

Levine, once a professional guitar player and pianist, now plays with one hand and sings. "It's about getting my glow back," she said recently as she was awaiting a hearing Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Wyeth is appealing a $6.7 million verdict in her favor.

The outcome of Levine's case could have major ramifications for drug makers and consumers. The court is expected to decide whether people can sue under state law — or are pre-empted from doing so — for harm caused by a drug approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Maureen Stevens' husband, Robert, was a photo editor who was exposed to anthrax mailed to the Boca Raton office of American Media Inc., a supermarket tabloid publisher, in 2001. He was the first of five people killed and 17 others sickened in a series of similar attacks.

Justices ruled 4-1 that the defendants had a duty under Florida law to protect the public against the unauthorized release of lethal materials. It's an important, although preliminary, victory for the widow whose $50 million federal lawsuit also alleges the government and Battelle Memorial Institute, a private laboratory in Columbus, Ohio, were the source of the anthrax.

"We have no way of knowing whether Stevens will ultimately be able to prove a case against the defendants," Justice Harry Lee Anstead wrote in the majority opinion. "However, we concluded that Stevens' allegations are sufficient to open the courthouse doors."