Israel's Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing this week on the appeal of a Palestinian prisoner waging an unprecedented hunger strike that has stretched for more than two months, court officials and his lawyers said Monday.

Khader Adnan, a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group, is demanding he be released immediately. He has not been charged with a crime and does not know what he is suspected of doing.

The case of the 33-year-old Adnan has attracted widespread attention among Palestinians, with large crowds holding regular protests in his support.

The life-threatening gamble has also drawn broader attention toward Israel's policy of "administrative detention," under which Palestinians can be held without charge for months, and even years, at a time.

Both the European Union and the United Nations have said they are following the case closely and urged Israel to give Adnan an open trial.

Adnan was arrested on Dec. 17 and later sentenced to four months of administrative detention. He launched the strike a day after his arrest, protesting his administrative detention and claiming he was beaten and humiliated in captivity.

Eight months after Utah's immigration enforcement law was put on hold by a federal judge, attorneys on both sides will have an opportunity on Friday to argue the constitutionality of the measure.

The law created by House Bill 497 would have allowed police to check the citizenship of anybody they arrest. It was initially blocked last May by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups, 14 hours after it went into effect. At the time, Waddoups pointed at similarities to a contentious Arizona law that is bound for the U.S. Supreme Court and said there was sufficient evidence that at least some parts of the Utah law would be found unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center sued a week before the law went into effect to stop the implementation of House Bill 497, saying it could lead to racial profiling. The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit in November, claiming the measure usurped federal authority.

Lawyers for the Utah attorney general's office have maintained the law is constitutional because it doesn't allow police to check the citizenship of everyone they encounter. They argue lawmakers worked to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of the Arizona law and passed a significantly different bill.

The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.

"I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy.

Obama sought to quell fierce election-year outrage on Friday by abandoning his stand that religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities must pay for birth control. Instead, he said insurance would step in to provide the coverage.

The administration's initial position had outraged evangelicals and Catholic bishops and emboldened many Republicans who charged that it amounted to an assault on religion by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill against their consciences.

Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.

The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8 backers plan to appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court. Marriages would likely stay on hold while that process plays out.

The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8 sponsors had legal authority to challenge the trial court ruling after California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.

Utah's Supreme Court is deciding whether a sperm donor contract is proof that a man wanted to be a father, even after his death.

The question stems from a dispute between Gayle Burns and the Social Security Administration, which denied survivor benefits to the son Burns conceived after her husband died from cancer.

Oral arguments are set Tuesday in Salt Lake City.

Michael Burns had contracted with medical providers to preserve his sperm before he died of cancer in 2001. Gayle Burns became pregnant in 2003.

Social Security denied a 2005 benefits petition, saying federal law doesn't allow for payments to posthumously-conceived children.

Gayle Burns challenged the ruling in Utah's federal court.

A federal judge asked Utah's Supreme Court to address the issue first.

Georgia's top court struck down a state law that restricted assisted suicides, siding on Monday with four members of a suicide group who said the law violated their free speech rights.

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous ruling found that the law violates the free speech clauses of the U.S. and Georgia constitution. It means that four members of the Final Exit Network who were charged in February 2009 with helping a 58-year-old cancer-stricken man die won't have to stand trial, defense attorneys said.

Georgia law doesn't expressly forbid assisted suicide. But lawmakers in 1994 adopted a law that bans people from publicly advertising suicide, hoping to prevent assisted suicide from the likes of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the late physician who sparked the national right-to-die debate.

The law makes it a felony for anyone who "publicly advertises, offers or holds himself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose."

The court's opinion, written by Justice Hugh Thompson, found that lawmakers could have imposed a ban on all assisted suicides with no restriction of free speech, or sought to prohibit all offers to assist in suicide that were followed by the act. But lawmakers decided to do neither, he said.