"This is effectively a national health crisis," said Eldo Bergman, director of the Texas Reading Institute, a Houston company that tutors hundreds of children who are not getting the help they need in public schools. "There's an awful lot of wasted human potential."

The Houston Independent School District is one of the most egregious offenders, with only 256 of its 200,000 students in dyslexia programs this year.

What's more, 70 percent of HISD's identified dyslexic students are concentrated in the district's more affluent west and central regions and 40 percent are white — about five times the percentage of white students districtwide. Although the disability doesn't discriminate, minority students are significantly underrepresented.

"Our numbers are low; we admit it," said Noelia Garza, assistant superintendent for special populations. "We have to make a more concerted effort to get the word out to parents. ... We may need to improve the way we communicate to teachers and administrators the process."

The district plans a $532,000 "dyslexia awareness campaign" in August with brochures, buttons, bookmarks, TV programs, a Web site and additional staff training.

Neighboring districts haven't performed much better. Less than 1 percent of students in the area are enrolled in a state-required dyslexia program, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of data for more than 1 million school children.

"That's terrible," said Geraldine Miller, chairwoman of the State Board of Education, who championed Texas' dyslexia law. "Of all places, Houston ought to be the role model."

"If rigorous rules like the one applied today are thought to be inequitable, Congress may authorize the courts" to adopt more lenient rules, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice David H. Souter wrote: "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way." He faulted the majority for "condoning this bait and switch."

It is the second time in a month that the court split along conservative-liberal lines over an issue of deadlines. In a 5-4 ruling that was seen as a setback for women's rights, the court overturned a pay-discrimination verdict in favor of the lone female supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant because she had not pointed to unfair pay decisions within the time limit of 180 days prior to the filing of her suit.

In the case decided Thursday, Kevin Bowles was convicted of murder in 1999 for taking part in the beating of another man, and his appeals were rejected by the Ohio courts. His initial appeal was rejected by a federal district judge.

His lawyer sought to reopen his appeal, and under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice. The judge granted his motion to reopen the appeal on Feb. 10, 2004, but inexplicably said his notice must be filed by Feb. 27.

Bowles' notice was filed on Feb. 26, the day before the judge's deadline. But this was 16 days after he had granted the motion, or two days beyond the legal deadline.

State prosecutors insisted Bowles' appeal should be thrown out because of the missed deadline. And they argued that the appeals court had no legal authority to hear his case.

The appeals court agreed, and the high court upheld that decision Thursday in Bowles vs. Russell.

"Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature," Thomas said, and therefore cannot be waived by judges for reasons for fairness. "We hold that [Bowles'] untimely notice — even though filed in reliance upon a District Court's order — deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction." He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito.

Souter called the court's handling of the issue "puzzling" and "incoherent."

"Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here," he said, and the court was wrong to add one.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the dissent.

The case involved the city's efforts to collect $16.4 million in unpaid property taxes and interest from India and $2.1 million from Mongolia for their missions at the United Nations.

Under New York law, foreign governments have tax exemptions for the diplomatic mission section of their properties used exclusively for diplomatic offices and for the quarters of certain diplomats.

But the city says the government must pay taxes for the space that houses lower-level employees. The two governments refused to pay the taxes and the city sued. The foreign governments sought to dismiss the lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas concluded in the court's majority opinion that the two foreign governments are not immune from the lawsuits under a 1976 federal law, a decision that allows the cases to go forward.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented. "If Congress had intended the statute to waive sovereign immunity in tax litigation, I think it would have said so," Stevens wrote.

Republicans and business advocates warned that making that change could make business executives liable for actions taken by managers who had left a company long ago.

"At the end of the day, such a loophole conceivably could allow a retiring employee to seek damages against a company now led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of discrimination," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, top Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts.

Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves race, sex, religion or national origin.

Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and she claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The court's five most conservative members said the woman waited too long to complain. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent for the court's four liberal members, urged Congress to amend the law.

Advocates said six months is not enough time to build a case and decide whether a lawsuit is warranted, given how secretive people are about their salaries and companies are about their decisions on raises.

At issue is a suit filed against Philip Morris by two Arkansas women alleging that the company engaged in unfair business practices in marketing its low-tar Cambridge Lights and Marlboro Lights cigarette brands.

Companies facing class-action lawsuits typically prefer to have those cases litigated in federal courts, where they usually fare better than in state courts.

Philip Morris succeeded in having the case moved to federal court, saying it was appropriate because cigarette advertisements had been regulated by a U.S. agency -- the Federal Trade Commission.

The move was subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court in St. Louis. The U.S. Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the appeals court's ruling should be overturned.

The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the ruling in an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer said the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company under the scope of the law that permits removal to federal court.