Gerberding's recommendations follow an ongoing investigation of US citizen Andrew Speaker who traveled from Italy back into the United States by the way of the Czech Republic and Canada despite being instructed to cancel all his flight plans following a diagnosis of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB). Speaker also testified at the hearing by phone. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the CDC had requested that the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detain the patient upon his re-entry into the US, but according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a Border Patrol agent ignored the flag and allowed Speaker to reenter the US. He remains in quarantine under the authority of the Denver County health officials.

"Today's decision is an important victory not only for Atlantic Yards but for Brooklyn as well. This decision means we are one step closer to creating over 2,200 units of affordable housing, thousands of construction and office jobs and bringing the Nets to Brooklyn," said Bruce Ratner, president and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies.

Their suit’s chances, say project opponents, are best if the case remains in federal court. That is why they say they will appeal the ruling issued today by Judge Nicholas Garaufis to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

“Part of the reason we have a better chance to win [there] is because the federal courts are much more familiar with constitutional issues and are less susceptible to political pressures,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Matthew Brinckerhoff days before the ruling.

A federal magistrate judge had recommended in February that the case belonged in state court. Judge Garaufis disagreed, but dismissed the case on its merits.

Another suit by opponents, challenging the process by which the state reviewed and approved the development, remains pending. But the eminent domain lawsuit was considered the greater threat to the project.

The crux of Mr. Brinckerhoff’s argument was that the condemnations do not have a primarily public purpose, as required by New York’s eminent domain law.

"It instead opted to use statutory language that pushed almost every boundary that the Supreme Court has imposed for these types of laws," the judges said.

Previous attempts by Michigan lawmakers to stop the procedure were struck down by federal courts in 1997 and 2001.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, with the majority opinion carefully distinguishing the controversial procedure from a more common abortion method used in the second trimester of pregnancy. The latter was unaffected by the ruling.

The appeals panel affirmed a Detroit district judge's opinion that the 2004 Legal Birth Definition Act in Michigan places an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the law - unlike the federal ban and the law in Ohio - overreached and would have banned pre-viable abortions, including the most common method of second-trimester abortion. The appeals court agreed.

"The Michigan statute contains no similar exception or clear definitions that would avoid sweeping up protected abortion procedures within its prohibition," the court wrote.

The Michigan Legislature approved the abortion law in June 2004. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate - both of which were controlled by Republicans at the time - after Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed it.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Friday announced draft legislation to combat violent crime that would increase penalties, extend the statute of limitations for prosecution, and create separate statutory prohibitions against violent crime by illegal immigrants. The proposed Violent Crime and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007, brought forward just days after FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs John Miller said that a forthcoming FBI report would detail a nationwide increase in murders, robberies and other violent crimes for a second straight year, also seeks to restore the binding nature of sentencing guidelines, which the US Supreme Court found to be merely advisory in US v. Booker. The legislation would also expand federal narcotics law, sexual predator law, and anti-terrorism law.

Gonzales also announced the expansion of violent crime task forces into four new cities: Mesa, AZ; Orlando, FL; San Bernardino, CA; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. In a statement made at the ATF Headquarters, Gonzales said that the four cities were chosen because they asked for help following an "unacceptable increase in homicides or other violent crimes" [statement text]. The addition of the four cities means that 29 US cities are now covered in the Violent Crime Impact Team program. Friday's proposals do not increase funding for individual communities' own law enforcement groups.

What makes the potential departure of Mr. Lerach particularly shocking is that it would come just as he is engaged in his most high-profile case to date: the shareholder lawsuit against the Wall Street banks that acted as advisers to Enron before it collapsed into bankruptcy in 2001.

While Mr. Lerach has recovered $7.3 billion for shareholders, a federal appeals panel recently ruled that the lawsuit against the remaining defendant banks could not go forward. Since then, Mr. Lerach has been leading a campaign to have the case reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, publicly pressuring and lobbying the Securities and Exchange Commission and its chairman, Christopher Cox, to support his efforts by filing a friend of the court brief in the case.

Still, people who have been briefed on the criminal investigation suggested that Mr. Lerach’s lawyer, John W. Keker, might be trying to make federal prosecutors an offer: Mr. Lerach would resign from the firm in exchange for the firm’s not being indicted.

Calls to Mr. Keker were not returned. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is leading the investigation into illegal payments to plaintiffs, also declined to comment.

When reached on his cellphone Wednesday evening, Mr. Lerach declined to comment on his status at the firm. “I can’t say anything,” he said. Calls made later to his cellphone were not returned, and several calls made to a spokesman for the firm were not returned.

Going quietly into the night would also be a reversal in style for Mr. Lerach.

Boisterous and with a penchant for grandstanding, Mr. Lerach has a long history of being both feared and loathed inside the boardrooms of corporations and insurance companies.

For decades, until Mr. Lerach broke off to start his own firm in 2004, he and his former partner, Melvyn I. Weiss, tackled what they saw as rampant corporate malfeasance, securing rich settlements for shareholders and earning themselves and their firms hundreds of millions of dollars in fees in the process.

But nearly seven years ago, federal prosecutors began examining some of the tactics that had made the firm so powerful. As a result, the New York law firm Milberg Weiss & Bershad and two partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman, were indicted last year, accused of making more than $11 million in secret payments to individuals who served as plaintiffs in more than 150 lawsuits that earned the firm more than $216 million in fees.

Although they were the main targets of the investigation, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Lerach were not indicted, and the government’s case in recent months appeared to have stagnated. Yesterday, lawyers for Mr. Schulman filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him. Some attributed the renewed momentum in the investigation to talks between Mr. Bershad, who is on a leave of absence from the firm, and prosecutors that might result in a guilty plea for his role in what prosecutors have described as a scheme to pay illegal kickbacks to class-action clients, according to another person briefed on the investigation.

It is unclear whether Mr. Bershad will ultimately cooperate with the government in exchange for a lighter sentence.

His lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to comment. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles also declined to comment.

Prosecutors and former partners have said that he handled and kept track of the payments to clients. Concern that Mr. Bershad may try to provide information to prosecutors that could strengthen their case against Milberg Weiss prompted at least two of its partners, Ariana J. Tadler and Brad N. Friedman, to meet with prosecutors in Los Angeles in an attempt to reach a deal that does not require the firm to acknowledge any wrongdoing, according to the person briefed on the case.

Calls to Ms. Tadler and Mr. Friedman were not returned.

Milberg Weiss said in a statement: “We have heard reports that David J. Bershad apparently plans to plead guilty to some of the charges that have been asserted against him. We believed his prior statements to us that he had done nothing wrong and committed no crime. We intend to take steps necessary to protect the interests of our clients and of the many uninvolved firm lawyers and staff who have demonstrated their dedication to the firm in carrying out the important work we do on behalf of investors and consumers.”

Mr. Weiss’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said: “Mr. Weiss has not been charged with any criminal conduct whatsoever. He fully intends to continue practicing law and will continue to offer his clients the same extraordinary legal representation that he has provided for the past 40 years while at the same time continuing the wonderful philanthropic work that he has been devoted to for his entire life.”

While it would be unusual for the government to accept a deal in which Mr. Lerach retired from his firm, it was certainly not impossible, lawyers said.

“I have been involved in many cases where we have had nonstandard results. So is it possible? The answer is yes,” said Sean O’Shea, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who is not involved in Mr. Lerach’s case.

The government’s investigation into the tactics of the plaintiffs’ lawyers began in the late 1990s when a Beverly Hills ophthalmologist, Steven G. Cooperman, who had been convicted of art insurance fraud charges, offered to provide evidence against Milberg Weiss in exchange for a reduced sentence about his role as a frequent plaintiff in shareholder lawsuits filed by the firm.

Over the next few years, prosecutors combed through decades of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses.

According to the charges, the scheme involving the paid plaintiffs worked like this: Plaintiffs would buy securities anticipating that they would decline in value, hence positioning themselves to be named plaintiffs in the class actions. After the court in a lawsuit awarded lawyers’ fees, the firm and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman gave cash directly to the plaintiffs or to intermediary lawyers. The firm then falsely accounted for the payments as referral fees or professional fees, the indictment said.

Under New York law, it is illegal for a lawyer to promise or give anything to induce a person to bring a lawsuit or to reward a person for having done so, the indictment said.

The 20-count indictment against Milberg Weiss and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman accused them of conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Lawyers for the firm, Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman have denied the charges.

The indictment, however, has hurt Milberg Weiss’s business. The firm has lost several institutional clients, its position in large cases, and had several major lawyers depart the firm.

US immigration courts are inconsistent in granting asylum to applicants, according to a new study by three law professors to be published in the Stanford Law Review. The professors found that factors that contributed to the outcome of applications for asylum include the location of the court, the background of the judge, and the nationality of the applicant.

For example, a person who has fled China has a 76 percent chance of winning their asylum case in the Orlando immigration court, but only a 7 percent chance in Atlanta. The New York Times Thursday quoted co-author Philip G. Schrag of Georgetown University Law Center as saying he found the results "very disturbing" especially because often "these decisions can mean life or death" for the applicant, and the study suggests that the random assignment to a particular judge may be outcome determinative.

In February, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF) reported that the practice of expedited removal is causing the claims of some legitimate asylum seekers to be ignored. The latest draft legislation on immigration reform does little to change the asylum process, although it could begin the road to citizenship for up to 12 million illegal immigrants in the US.