But the just-enacted health care overhaul law contains a provision that changed the federal False Claims Act in a way that would appear to allow new, similar lawsuits to go forward.

The court voted 7-2 to hold that a technical, though important aspect, of the federal whistleblower law applies to local governments. One section of the law prohibits whistleblower lawsuits when public disclosure of the alleged fraud occurs through a court hearing, a news report or congressional or administrative audit.

In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court ruled that the language on administrative audits refers to a report prepared by any government, not just a federal government document. The question had divided federal appeals courts.

Justice Sotomayor dissented, saying her colleagues "misread the statutory text" to limit whistleblower claims. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the dissenting opinion.

But, in any event, the health care legislation signed by President Barack Obama last week changed the false claims law so that it now refers specifically to federal reports. Stevens noted the change in a footnote to his opinion, but said it did not affect pending lawsuits.

Robert Pritchard Sr., of Fairchance, got 63 votes for a district judge post in southwestern Pennsylvania in the May 2009 primary. He got zero votes in two of 19 precincts. The incumbent got 2,900 votes and another challenger got 957.

Pritchard says people could have voted illegally because the county allegedly hasn't properly purged 25,000 dead or unregistered voters from its rolls. County attorneys say that had nothing to do with Pritchard's lopsided loss.

Two state appeals courts previously rejected his appeal.

The court heard argument in a challenge from Australian investors who want to sue the Melbourne-based National Australia Bank for securities fraud in U.S. federal court. The investors say they should have access to American courts because the claim of fraud relies on the actions of a bank-owned mortgage servicing company in Florida.

But none of the justices appeared to accept the investors' argument.

"Australian plaintiffs, Australian defendants, shares purchased in Australia. It has Australia written all over it," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "Isn't the most appropriate choice the law of Australia rather than the law of United States?"

The court could use the case to clarify whether and when disputes over international dealings can be resolved in American courts, which often are more generous to plaintiffs than foreign courts.

Business interests and the governments of Australia, France and Great Britain are urging the court rule in favor of the bank.

As lawsuits over Toyota acceleration problems multiply nationwide, more than 150 attorneys gathered Wednesday to sharpen their legal skills on the eve of a major federal court hearing on whether dozens of cases will be consolidated before a single judge.

The main topic at the conference, organized by legal publisher HarrisMartin, was today's scheduled hearing before a panel of federal judges in San Diego who will choose whether to combine more than 100 Toyota lawsuits and where to send them.

Lawyers for people suing Toyota and the company itself have suggested 19 jurisdictions, according to court documents. But the panel is not required to pick from that list.

"You have consumers that have been affected in every state," said Howard Bushman, a Miami attorney whose recent cases included a $24 million settlement for AIDS patients who paid for a drug they didn't need.

Toyota has been hit with an avalanche of lawsuits that could cost it billions of dollars after its recall of 8 million vehicles worldwide, including about 6 million in the U.S., over sudden unexpected acceleration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has linked 52 deaths to the accelerator problems, which Toyota has blamed on floor mats that can snag accelerator pedals or on pedals that sometimes stick.

The state was the first to legalize medicinal marijuana use, with voters passing it in 1996. Since then, 14 states have followed California's lead, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end failed marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "We really can't overstate the significance of Californians being the first to have the opportunity to end this public policy disaster."

California is not alone in the push to expand legal use of marijuana. Legislators in Rhode Island, another state hit hard by the economic downturn, are considering a plan to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less by anyone 18 or older.

A proposal to legalize the sale and use of marijuana in Washington was recently defeated in that state's legislature, though lawmakers there did expand the pool of medical professionals that could prescribe the drug for medicinal use.

And a group in Nevada is pushing an initiative that marks the state's fourth attempt in a decade to legalize the drug.

The California secretary of state's office certified the initiative for the general election ballot Wednesday after it was determined that supporters had gathered enough valid signatures.

Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, accused of insider trading along with several associates, won a suspension of a court order to hand over wiretap evidence to U.S. market regulators, pending appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York ordered a stay in favor of Rajaratnam and co-defendant Danielle Chiesi on Wednesday after a lower court order in February compelled them to disclose wiretap evidence gathered in the criminal case.

Lawyers for Sri Lanka-born U.S. citizen Rajaratnam and former New Castle Funds LLC trader Chiesi are seeking to suppress 18,000 recordings in what U.S. prosecutors describe as the biggest hedge fund insider trading case in the United States.

A trial on civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was set to start in August before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff.

Rajaratnam's lawyers argued before a three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday that the use of the recordings in the SEC case ignored "the plain text" of the wiretap statute and privacy concerns.