A federal appeals court ordered Wanda Glenn's benefits reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law imposes a special standard of care on insurers requiring full and fair review of claim denials. Breyer noted that MetLife had emphasized a medical report that favored denial, de-emphasized other reports suggesting benefits should be granted and failed to provide MetLife's vocational and medical experts with all relevant evidence.

Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court is using the wrong standard in dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Scalia said there must be evidence that a conflict improperly motivated a denial of benefits. In the MetLife case, there was no such evidence, Scalia said. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy also dissented.

MetLife administered a disability plan for Sears, where Glenn worked for 14 years. The insurance company paid benefits for two years but in 2002 said her condition had improved and refused to continue the benefit payments. MetLife saved $180,000 by denying Glenn disability benefits until retirement, her lawyers said in court filings.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Glenn's benefits reinstated in September 2006, ruling that MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and made a decision that was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. MetLife argued that the standard used by the 6th Circuit would encourage participants with dubious claims to file suit, which in turn would raise the costs of benefit plans to both companies and employers.

Charles Dean Hood initially won a reprieve just over an hour before he could have been put to death Tuesday when a state district judge withdrew his execution warrant. But an appeals court reinstated the warrant, saying the judge didn't have permission to spare Hood from lethal injection.

The warrant is scheduled to expire at midnight. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied three other appeals, likely clearing the way for Hood's execution.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma has executed its first death row inmate since last August.

The Liberty Council had asked a state appeals court to block same-sex weddings until voters could decide the issue on the November ballot.

The three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal refused the request in a brief ruling issued Tuesday as gay marriages began in full swing around the state.

Earlier the appeals court had ruled against allowing gay marriages but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision last month. In its latest ruling the appeals court says the high court has made it clear that same-sex marriage should be allowed.

The proceeding lasted only a few minutes. Drew and her lawyer declined to comment to reporters waiting outside the courtroom.

Drew, of suburban St. Louis, Mo., is accused of helping to create a MySpace account that appeared to belong to a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. The boy did not exist.

Drew's daughter had been a friend of 13-year-old neighbor Megan Meier and the fake account was used to send cruel messages to the girl, including one stating the world would be better off without her. Megan hanged herself in 2006.

Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Meier.

The charges were filed in California where MySpace is based. MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News Corp.

Drew's case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge George Wu and her trial scheduled for July 29. A status conference was scheduled for June 26. U.S. attorney's spokesman Thom Mrozek said Drew would be allowed to return home pending trial.

Each of the four counts against Drew carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The lawsuit was filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in 2002. Iqbal, since deported from the United States, says Ashcroft, Mueller and others implemented a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs and race.

A federal appeals said the lawsuit could proceed, but the Bush administration says the high-ranking officials should not have to answer for the allegedly discriminatory acts of subordinates.

The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.

The case involved two seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One allows people to avoid being deported by agreeing to leave the country voluntarily. The advantage to that course is that the wait to get back to the United States is shorter.

The other provision allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to make their case to immigration officials. To do that, however, they must remain in the country.