The Supreme Court seemed unlikely on Tuesday to allow employees at a privately run federal prison to be sued by an inmate in federal court, despite his complaint that their neglect left him with two permanently damaged arms.

Justices heard appeals from lawyers representing employees of the GEO Group, formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections Corp, who work at the privately run Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, Calif. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled inmate Richard Lee Pollard could sue GEO officials for his treatment after he fell and fractured both of his elbows.

Pollard said GEO officials put him in a metal restraint that caused him pain, and refused to provide him with a splint, making his injuries worse and causing permanent impairment. He sued in federal court for money, claiming GEO officials had violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The federal appeals court allowed his lawsuit against the GEO officials to move forward. Courts normally don't allow government employees to be sued in those types of lawsuits, but the high court has authorized some if constitutionally protected rights have been violated by the federal employee and there is no state court remedy.

The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.

Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart "is simply unworkable," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.

The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective "assistance of counsel" because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that "counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that there must not be "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different."

In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim.

The epicenter of the fight over the patchwork of immigration laws in the United States is not Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico and became a common site for boycotts. Nor was it any of the four states that were next to pass their own crackdowns.

No, the case that's likely to be the first sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court comes from the Deep South state of Alabama, where the nation's strictest immigration law has resurrected ugly images from the state's days as the nation's battleground for civil rights a half-century ago.

And Alabama's jump to the forefront says as much about the country's evolving demographics as it does the nation's collective memory of the state's sometimes violent path to desegregation.

With the failure of Congress in recent years to pass comprehensive federal immigration legislation, Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina and Indiana have passed their own. But supporters and opponents alike agree none contained provisions as strict as those passed in Alabama, among them one that required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a ruling that 12-foot-high crosses along Utah highways in honor of dead state troopers violate the Constitution.

The justices voted 8-1 Monday to reject an appeal from Utah and a state troopers' group that wanted the court to throw out the ruling and take a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land.

Since 1998, the private Utah Highway Patrol Association has paid for and erected more than a dozen memorial crosses, most of them on state land. Texas-based American Atheists Inc. and three of its Utah members sued the state in 2005.

The federal appeals court in Denver said the crosses were an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the Utah state government.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a 19-page opinion dissenting from Monday's order. Thomas said the case offered the court the opportunity to clear up confusion over its approach to disputes over the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion.

A Navy ship commander is facing a military court hearing in San Diego Friday on accusations of sexually assaulting two women on his crew.

Cmdr. Jay Wylie will undergo a general court-martial, the military court reserved for the most serious offenses, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Wylie is the former skipper of the Everett, Wash.-based destroyer USS Momsen.

Wylie's attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan, wouldn't say Thursday what kind of plea his client will enter but told the newspaper that Wylie will "take full responsibility for his actions."

According to the Navy, Wylie got drunk on two occasions and sexually assaulted the women.

The first incident alleges that on New Year's Eve, Wylie pinned a junior female officer, tried to kiss her and assaulted her with his hand up her skirt.

A Memphis-based law firm with a large presence in Louisiana will expand into Texas through an acquisition announced today. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC will retain its name as it merges with Houston-based Spain Chambers.

Ranked the 73rd-largest law firm in the country before the merger, the expanded Baker Donelson will include 620 attorneys and advisors working in 17 offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and the District of Columbia.

The merger will help to retain and attract new clients, as large companies doing business across mutliple states look to consolidate their legal service providers, said Roy Cheatwood, managing shareholder of Baker Donelson's Louisiana offices.

"Many of our clients would ask us if we had a Texas presence, because if so, they would be interested in having us as their law firm there," said Cheatwood. "It's no surprise that many New Orleans firms, the firms we consider to be our major competition, have Houston offices."

While the Spain Chambers practice focuses primarily on litigation, energy, construction and the financial sector, Baker Donelson provides legal services to a broader range of industries, including banking, real estate, and health care. The merger will allow Baker Donelson to further expand its offerings, Cheatwood said.