Condemned killer Kenneth Biros could become the first person in the country put to death with a single dose of an intravenous anesthetic instead of the usual — and faster-acting — three-drug process if his execution proceeds Tuesday.

The execution could propel other states to eventually consider the switch, which proponents say ends arguments over unnecessary suffering during injection. California and Tennessee previously considered then rejected the one-drug approach.

Though the untested method has never been used on an inmate in the United States, one difference is clear: Biros will likely die more slowly than inmates put to death with the three-drug method, which includes a drug that stops the heart.

Lethal injection experts on both sides of the debate over injection say thiopental sodium, which kills by putting people so deeply asleep they stop breathing, will take longer.

How much longer is unclear: Mark Dershwitz, an anesthesiologist who advised Ohio on its switch to the single drug, has written death should occur in under 15 minutes.

Ohio inmates have typically taken about seven minutes to die after the three-drug IV injection, which combines thiopental sodium with the drugs pancuronium bromide — which paralyzes muscles — and potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. Dershwitz also said in a court filing last week that a single dose of thiopental sodium would take longer than the three drugs, though he didn't specify a time.

FairPoint Communications has filed a court motion asking that it not be forced to give Maine customers rebates because of its poor service as the company works through bankruptcy.

The company is objecting to the Maine Public Utilities Commission's regulatory order Monday that it pay rebates in the form of $1.72 a line per month for 12 months — a total of more than $8 million.

In an emergency motion filed Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, FairPoint says the penalties should be stayed while it's going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The North Carolina-based FairPoint has been beset by problems since it bought Verizon's land line and Internet operations in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in 2008.

The Arizona Supreme Court late Wednesday dismissed the League of Arizona Cities and Towns' constitutional challenge to budget law provisions on immigration enforcement and other topics.

The immigration enforcement provisions toughen and expand existing prohibitions on providing services to illegal immigrants. Other challenged provisions deal with development impact fees and building codes.

All were included in a bill approved during a summer special session largely devoted to the state's ongoing budget crisis.

The legislation took effect Nov. 24.

The league argued that enactment of the provisions was unconstitutional because they fell outside budget-related topics listed for special session action and because unrelated legislation was packaged in one bill.

The Supreme Court's brief order said the case, which had been filed directly with the high court, can be started over in a lower court.

The league "did not establish circumstances sufficient to render it proper for the original special action petition to be brought to this court," the order said.

A new case filed in trial court would have to pass through several layers of the state court system before any constitutional questions are resolved. That process would take at least several months and possibly a year or two.

The Supreme Court is weighing whether Florida homeowners must be compensated because a beach-widening project cost them their exclusive access to the Gulf of Mexico.

The justices heard argument Wednesday in a case with potentially widespread implications for coastal communities nationwide that confront beach erosion.

The court is being asked to rule for the first time that a court decision can amount to a taking of property. The Constitution requires governments to pay "just compensation" when they take private property for public use.

Six homeowners in Florida's panhandle are challenging a Florida Supreme Court decision that changed their "beachfront property to beach view property," their lawyer, D. Kent Safriet, told the court.

The Roman Catholic diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., is expected to release thousands of documents connected to sexual abuse lawsuits.

The diocese was ordered by a Waterbury Superior Court judge to release the papers Tuesday.

The files include more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests settled by the diocese in 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the diocese's appeal of a Connecticut Supreme Court decision ordering release of the documents.

Depositions, affidavits and motions are included in the records, which have been under seal. They could shed light on how newly retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the abuse allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop.

The latest property rights battle before the U.S. Supreme Court started where the Gulf of Mexico laps at the crystalline white beaches of this seaside resort.

The justices will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether a nearly seven-mile stretch of beach is public or private after the state of Florida poured more sand on the rapidly eroding shores. The new sand dumped in a project that ended in 2007 was designated public property by the state, angering residents who believe their property extends to the water, no matter how much sand is in between.

Six residents claim in a lawsuit they are due undetermined compensation, contending the state's action was a "taking" of their property.

"They have been trying to take our private beaches and make them public for years now," said Linda Cherry, head of the local Save Our Beaches group that supports the landowners. "In this case, they are taking our property without permission and without compensation. If the government can take our property like this, they can take anyone's property."

It's the first major property rights case to come before the high court since Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the bench. Perhaps the most famous and controversial "takings" case came in 2005, when the justices ruled 5-4 that cities had the right to use eminent domain powers to take property for private development.