In a 5-4 decision Thursday written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons.

Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.

Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation.

A statewide court rule letting judges regulate the appearance of witnesses — such as asking them to remove face coverings — was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.

Justices heard last month from a Muslim woman who sued because her small claims case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil.

Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnnah Muhammad he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. The 45-year-old from Detroit kept her niqab on during the 2006 hearing.

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that women wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not their husband or close relative.

After Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association got behind a court rule giving judges "reasonable" control over the appearance of parties and witnesses to observe their demeanor and ensure they can be accurately identified.

The two justices who voted against the rule Wednesday said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.

Muhammad originally went to court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

The Detroit area is home to one of the country's largest Muslim populations. Legal observers have said the veil flap is a cutting-edge issue that will arise elsewhere in the United States.

The convictions stand against the so-called "Cuban Five," who maintain they did not receive a fair trial because of strong anti-Castro sentiment in Miami. The men have been lionized as heroes in Cuba. Exile groups say they were justly punished.

The five — Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino (aka Luis Medina), Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and Fernando Gonzalez (aka Ruben Campa) — were convicted in 2001 of being unregistered foreign agents. Three also were found guilty of conspiracy to obtain military secrets from the U.S. Southern Command headquarters.

Hernandez was convicted of murder conspiracy in the deaths of four pilots, members of the Miami-based Brothers to the Rescue organization, who were shot down by Cuban fighter jets in 1996 off the island's coast. The group sought to identify and help migrants leaving Cuba by sea. The Cuban government maintains the planes violated its airspace to scatter political pamphlets over the island.

The court, in an unanimous decision Monday, turned away Manoj Nijhawan's appeal. Nijhawan, who immigrated to the United States from India in 1985, had been convicted of fraud and money laundering, and stipulated that that the loss exceeded $100 million. The government then started deportation proceedings.

The law says any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony at any time is deportable. A related statute said aggravated felonies include fraud and deceit in which the loss exceeds $10,000.

Nijhawan argued that a jury should have determined the loss before he could be deported. But the court disagreed with his arguments.

"The defendant's own stipulation, produced for sentencing purposes, shows that the conviction involved losses considerably greater than $10,000," Justice Stephen Breyer said in the opinion written for the court.

Black has served nearly 15 months of a 6 1/2-year prison term following his conviction in July 2007.

In early May, the high court agreed to hear an appeal from Black and two other former executives of the Hollinger International media company who were convicted in connection with payments of $5.5 million they received from a Hollinger subsidiary.

In an order released by the court, Justice John Paul Stevens denied Black's request for bail pending his appeal.

The Supreme Court probably won't hear arguments in the case until late this year and a decision is unlikely before late winter.

Black can still ask a federal trial judge for bail. The judge who presided over the trial has already said one of the men, John Boultbee, can be released on bond.

Hollinger once owned the Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily Telegraph of London, the Jerusalem Post and hundreds of community papers across the United States and Canada. All of Hollinger's big papers except the Sun-Times have now been sold and the company that emerged changed its name to Sun-Times Media Group.

The judge's order will require estimates of how forest projects may harm endangered or threatened plants and animals such as the California condor and the gnatcatcher.

"This ruling is a great victory for the rare and endangered species that call the Southern California forests home," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued the federal agencies.

The U.S. Forest Service revised its plans for the Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino forests in 2005, laying out how the land and resources would be overseen for the next decade, including the management of roads, trails and recreation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service provided estimates on the potential impact of these plans on wildlife, but critics said they didn't include required measures to minimize harm to endangered species.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled Monday in San Francisco that the agencies did not follow the species protection law by omitting statements detailing how the forest plans may harm endangered species. The agencies said they planned to do so when specific projects were undertaken.