Federal prosecutors in Kansas who couldn't obtain a gag order against a strident patient activist later launched a secret grand jury investigation and issued subpoenas against the woman and her advocacy group — moves some argue are nothing more than government retaliation against an outspoken critic.

Siobhan Reynolds has taken her fight to quash the subpoenas and publicize the proceedings against her to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to take up her request to unseal the case Friday.

"Here the Assistant U.S. Attorney sought the subpoenas in question after the district court denied the government's motion to gag. This sequence of facts strongly suggests that the government has issued these subpoenas in direct retaliation for (Reynolds') political advocacy," the libertarian groups Institute of Justice and Reason Foundation argued in a brief filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the sealed amicus brief after it was anonymously uploaded to the public document-sharing website Scribd last month. Institute of Justice attorney Paul Sherman denied his organization posted the document but confirmed its contents.

Reynolds' subpoena challenge has been sealed in federal district court in Kansas and the appeals court. The 49-year-old Santa Fe, N.M., woman has acknowledged she is a target of a grand jury investigation into a possible conspiracy to obstruct justice. But because grand jury investigations are confidential, there was little public record showing her related subpoena challenge even existed until the Supreme Court agreed last month to release a redacted version of her appeal.

The Supreme Court expressed doubts Tuesday about the constitutionality of a California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.

During an hour-long oral argument, several justices suggested the law violated free-speech protections of the First Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia said California's logic in banning videogame sales to minors could also apply to a ban on the sale of violent movies or books to children.

"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Justice Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are you going to ban them, too?"

"What about films? What about comic books?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Why are videogames special?"

The court also questioned how the state could determine when violence in videogames was excessive.

The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as Activision Blizzard Inc.'s "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.

The southwestern US state of Arizona executed a prisoner for a 1989 murder late Tuesday, after the US Supreme Court ruled the state can use a non-approved drug for the lethal injection amid a US shortage.

Jeffrey Landrigan was pronounced dead in the state prison in Florence at 10:26 pm Tuesday, KVOA News 4 in Tucson, Arizona reported. A KVOA reporter witnessed the execution.

In a 5-4 ruling late Tuesday, the US high court said a lower court wrongfully blocked Landrigan's execution after officials refused to reveal where they got the necessary drugs and as questions remained about their safety.

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe," the Supreme Court said.

"There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect."

A federal appeals court that blocked the execution had earlier confirmed the drug came from an unidentified foreign manufacturer not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Arizona Attorney General's office has said the drug substitute came from a manufacturer in Britain.

The University of Michigan's student government president has dropped a request for a personal protection order against a state lawyer who attacked him on an anti-gay blog.

An official at the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Ann Arbor says 21-year-old Chris Armstrong's lawyer filed a motion to drop the matter Monday, hours before a court hearing was scheduled.

Armstrong had requested the order earlier this month against assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell. He claimed the 30-year-old prosecutor harassed him over a five-month period.

Shirvell started a blog in April that criticized Armstrong as a racist with a "radical homosexual agenda." Shirvell remains on personal leave from his job.

An Atlanta attorney has admitted to stealing more than $500,000 from his law firm.

Michael Shaw, 37, of Mableton, is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 5 by U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt. Shaw faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison for the scheme.

According to federal authorities, Shaw performed “investigative services,” but submitted invoices totaling $90,000 in the name of an investigator who worked at the same law firm. He also performed title-examination services and submitted invoices totaling $425,000 in the name of a fake vendor, according to federal authorities.

“As a lawyer, Shaw had a duty to act with his clients’ best interests in mind,” U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said in a news release. “Instead, he used his position at the law firm to enrich himself at their expense. In the end, he lost his license to practice law and now faces federal prison.”

Shaw was fired after the misconduct was discovered in 2009, according to authorities. The Georgia State Bar has also disbarred Shaw.

A class action that an attorney claimed might bankrupt Missouri has been settled for $90,000. U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey gave final approval last week to the settlement between Missouri drivers and The Source for Public Data and Shadowsoft.

Plaintiffs claimed The Source for Public Data and Shadowsoft illegally obtained a database from the Missouri Department of Motor Vehicles, with confidential information about Missouri drivers, and sold it to third parties, violating the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Ten employees of the Missouri Department of Motor Vehicles were named as defendants. The state itself could not be sued.

The settlement "requires the return of all personal information that is in the possession of Shadowsoft and Source for Public Data. It prevents further reselling of such information and greatly reduces the risk of identity theft and the illegal use of such information from Missouri drivers," court papers state.