The Supreme Court is considering whether sentencing a juvenile to life in prison with no chance of parole is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly if the crime is less serious than homicide.

The cases being heard Monday involve two Florida convicts. Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman when he was 13. Terrance Graham was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17.

Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.

Lawyers for Graham and Sullivan argue that it is a bad idea to render a final judgment about people so young.

The U.S. Supreme Court is taking a close look at a question individual investors have long asked about their mutual funds, but the courts have largely ignored: Why am I getting charged twice as much as big institutional clients?

Sure enough, the money-management services that different classes of fund clients get aren't the same. Institutions like pension funds and foundations may not need toll-free customer hotlines. They don't require as many of the prospectuses and other fund reports that individuals often throw away, even though they're printed and mailed at great expense. Individuals move relatively paltry sums in and out of a fund, piling up higher transaction costs than big clients.

Still, the investments a fund makes are often the same for both groups, and the returns similar — though individuals' higher fees take a bigger bite from their results, regardless of whether markets are up or down.

So it can be galling for an individual to pay an expense ratio of, say, 1 percent of cash invested as an annual fee, versus 0.5 percent for an institutional client enjoying what is in effect a bulk rate.

Courts have been reluctant to consider such disparities, and have rarely sided with investors. Instead, the comparisons that courts have allowed focus on whether a fund's fees are so far out of line from what similar competing funds charge as to be unreasonable.

Hidden data embedded in electronic public records must be disclosed under Arizona's public records law, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that attracted interest from media and government organizations.

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision overturned lower courts' rulings and is one of the first decisions by a state appellate court on whether a public records law applies to so-called "metadata" — data about data.

Metadata can show how and when a document was created or revised and by whom. The information isn't visible when a document is printed on paper nor does it appear on screen in normal settings.

"It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness underlying the public records law, to conclude that public entities can withhold information embedded in an electronic document, such as the date of creation, while they would be required to produce the same information if it were written manually on a paper public records," Justice Scott Bales wrote.

A Washington state appellate court ruled last year that metadata in e-mail received by a city's deputy mayor was a public record under Washington's public records law.

An appeals court has upheld the conviction of British lawyer David Mills for accepting a bribe to lie in court to protect Silvio Berlusconi.

The decision Tuesday is a potential embarrassment for the Italian premier, whose trial in the same corruption case is expected to restart soon following an Italian high court's ruling that a law granting immunity to Italy's highest public officials is unconstitutional.

A lower court found Mills guilty of corruption in May and sentenced him to 4 1/2 years.

The judges ruled that Mills received $600,000 to give false testimony in two 1990s trials to shield Berlusconi and his Fininvest holding company from charges relating to the purchase of U.S. film rights.

Two U.S. Supreme Court justices are taking theatrics out of the courtroom — and into to a more suitable venue.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia will have nonspeaking roles Saturday night in a production by the Washington National Opera. They'll be dressed in black-tie attire and remain on stage for nearly 90 minutes during the opening performance of "Ariadne auf Naxos" (are-EE-AHD-nay off NACKS-ohs).

The opera depicts a serious opera company and a comedic troupe performing at the same time during a dinner party. The justices will play party guests.

Event organizers say Ginsburg and Scalia are opera lovers and have appeared in previous productions.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling that he can be held personally responsible for wrongfully detaining people as material witnesses after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen, sued Ashcroft and other federal officials after he was arrested and jailed as a material witness in a terrorism case against another man.

Al-Kidd was never called to testify at the trial and said the government violated people's civil rights by using the material witness statute to preventively detain people.

Only the portion of the lawsuit against Ashcroft is on appeal. The rest of the case is pending in U.S. District Court in Boise.

Ashcroft appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court said the former attorney general could be held personally responsible if al-Kidd proves Ashcroft created a policy of detaining people with suspected terrorist ties without probable cause.