States increasingly are imposing fees on poor criminal defendants who use public defenders even when they can't pay, causing some to go without attorneys, according to two reviews of the nation's largest state criminal justice systems.

A report out Monday by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice found that 13 of the 15 states with the largest prison populations imposed some charge, including application fees, for access to counsel.

"In practice, these fees often discourage individuals from exercising their constitutional right to an attorney, leading to wrongful convictions, over-incarceration and significant burdens on the operation of courts," the Brennan report concludes.

In Michigan, the report says, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association found the "threat" of having to pay the full cost of assigned counsel caused misdemeanor defendants to waive their right to attorneys 95% of the time.

Three states studied — Florida, North Carolina and Virginia — have no provisions for the courts to waive some of the fees if defendants can't pay. In Virginia, defendants may be charged up to $1,235 per count for some felonies, the report says.

A separate report of five state justice systems out Monday by the ACLU produced similar findings.

Both studies say the fees are a little-known source of revenue in the criminal justice system that are steadily rising.

The Supreme Court is starting its new term with a new justice, Elena Kagan, and bad news for hundreds of parties trying to get their cases heard at the nation's highest court.

The justices are expected to start work Monday by denying many of the nearly 2,000 appeals that piled up in recent months. The court also is hearing argument in a bankruptcy dispute and an appeal by criminal defendants seeking shorter prison terms.

During the new term, the court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, "is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, marking his fifth anniversary on the court, and with the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, the court has been more sympathetic to arguments that blur the line between government and religion, as long as one religion is not favored over another.

Justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court sharply questioned the state attorney general's office Thursday, asking what damage could be done if a judge examined evidence that allegedly exonerates an inmate sentenced to death for killing three Cub Scouts in 1993.

"What harm is there in allowing (inmate Damien Echols) to present all evidence?" Special Justice Jeff Priebe asked senior assistant attorney general David Raupp.

Raupp responded: "The harm is to the criminal justice system's interest in finality and the work that gets done in evaluating whether justice can be served."

Echols, 35, has been on Arkansas' death row since he was 20 years old, sentenced to death for the 1993 killings of 8-year-olds Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore. He's maintained his innocence since his arrest and argues that he would be acquitted if retried on the charges.

The state Supreme Court upheld Echols' conviction in 1996, and Echols filed a new appeal after the court granted him permission to test DNA evidence from the crime scene, where the boys were found beaten, nude and hog-tied.

The Supreme Court is getting involved in the longstanding dispute between the Pentagon and two contractors contesting the government's demand for $3 billion over the Navy's ill-fated A-12 Avenger attack plane.

The justices on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal from the Boeing Co. and General Dynamics Corp., the main contractors on a $4.8 billion project that the Pentagon, then headed by Richard Cheney, canceled in 1991.

The government is seeking repayment of $1.35 billion, plus more than $2.5 billion in accumulated interest, arguing that the companies failed to meet the terms of the contract.

The issue before the court involves the state-secrets privilege, which typically arises in national security and terrorism cases. Invoking the privilege, which the Supreme Court ratified in the 1950s, the government tells a court that allowing a case to go forward would force the disclosure of information that could damage national security.

In this case, the parties are arguing over whether the government's claims about national security have prevented the companies from defending their position that they should not have to repay the money. A federal appeals court sided with the government.

Both Boeing and General Dynamics have disputed the Pentagon's claims that they did not live up to the contract.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week found two Oregon statutes ostensibly aimed at preventing the sexual abuse of children to be unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that a “furnishing” statute, (Oregon Revised Statutes § 167.054) (“section 054”), which made it a crime to provide children under the age of 13 with "sexually explicit"material, and a “luring” statute, (§ 167.057) which criminalized providing minors under the age of 18 with "visual, verbal, or narrative descriptions of sexual conduct," to be overly broad and potentially in violation of free speech protections.

While the state of Oregon had argued that the statutes applied only to “hardcore pornography,” the Ninth Circuit found that, as written, the laws could be applied to much more, including books like Judy Blume’s Forever, and Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale. "Although the state argues that the statutes may be construed to narrowly focus on the sharing of hardcore pornography or material that is obscene to minors alone, its position is contradicted by the statutory text," reads the court decision. "In their current form, the statutes sweep up a host of material entitled to constitutional protection, ranging from standard sexual education materials to novels for children and young adults by Judy Blume. Despite the legislature’s laudable goals, we cannot rewrite the statute to conform to constitutional limitations."

A federal appeals court says a group of dairy consumers can proceed with parts of a lawsuit alleging that several national retailers and an organic dairy company falsely labeled the dairy's milk.

Aurora Organic Dairy, based in Boulder, Colo., is the nation's largest provider of store-brand organic milk.

Customers sued Aurora and retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wild Oats Markets Inc., Target Corp. and Costco Wholesale Corp., claiming Aurora's milk was misleadingly labeled. The appeals court blocked their claims that Aurora is not an organic dairy because the certification remains in effect.

But ruling requires the trial court to hear claims that the milk isn't produced in the kinds of farms the labels describe.