This is Ellison's latest effort to make his mark on voting rights issues.

Last month, the freshman congressman introduced legislation that would ban the ID requirement in federal elections.

Ellison filed the brief with the support of all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois.

In the brief, Ellison argues that the tax violates the 24th Amendment's ban on poll or other taxes to vote.

In recent years, sustainability officers have been hired by corporations and universities, foundations and government agencies to manage their relationships with the environment on many levels - ecological, social, economic, policy and political, and governmental.

But law firms? No.

Until now.

The international law firm Nixon Peabody LLP today announced the appointment of a chief sustainability officer. Carolyn Kaplan, an attorney in the firm's energy and environmental practice, will serve in the new role.

Nixon Peabody is the first in the legal industry to establish such a position, although many of the firm's clients and global industries have done so as part of corporate commitments to sustainability.

"This new position reflects our commitment to implement sustainable principles at every opportunity in our firm. We are supporting the commitment to sustainable practices that our clients are adopting and implementing," said Harry P. Trueheart III, chairman and managing partner of Nixon Peabody.

"I'm proud to serve in this new role at Nixon Peabody," said Kaplan. "In addition to improving our own performance, I believe we can assist our clients to achieve their business goals while attaining the best environmental result."

In her new role, Kaplan will work closely with Nixon Peabody's operations director to further reduce the firm's carbon footprint and implement internal green initiatives, as well as to look for opportunities to partner with clients and potential clients on joint sustainability activities.

While serving as chief sustainability officer, Kaplan will continue her legal practice in energy, environmental and land use law. Kaplan also co-chairs the firm's Renewable Energy Team and has assisted clients on a variety of renewable energy projects, including the siting of land-based and offshore wind facilities.

Nixon Peabody has been fostering sustainable business practices. Earlier this year, the firm announced the opening of its first green office in San Francisco which is a model of sustainable design, green building techniques, and a healthy work environment.

The office has been certified by the U.S. Green Building Council under the program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, making Nixon Peabody the first law firm in the United States to be LEED certified in the category of Commercial Interiors.

In the coming months, other Nixon Peabody offices will also pursue LEED-certification.

All of the firm's offices are implementing sustainability programs, adopting waste minimization practices, switching to eco-friendly building materials and cleaning products, and identifying other ways to reduce the firm's carbon footprint.

With 700 attorneys collaborating across 25 major practice areas in 17 office locations, Nixon Peabody is one of the largest law firms in the United States and is recognized by American Lawyer Media as a "Global 100" firm.

Nixon Peabody has been recognized by FORTUNE magazine as one of its "100 Best Companies To Work For" in 2007 for the second consecutive year. The firm has also been named to the Human Rights Campaign's 2007 "Best Places To Work For GLBT Equality" list.

It didn't: Ross was let go eight days into his tenure because his employer, Ragingwire Inc., said federal law makes marijuana illegal no matter the use.

On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court is due to hear Ross' case, the latest example of the intensifying clash between federal and local authorities over marijuana use.

Ross, 45, contends that Ragingwire discriminated against him because of a back injury and violated the state's fair-employment law by punishing him for legally smoking marijuana at home.

He says he and others using medical marijuana should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.

Eleven other states, including Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state have adopted similar laws and many are now grappling with the same sticky workplace issue of employee use of medicinal marijuana.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which is representing Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it first began tracking the issue in 2005.

"It's an extremely widespread problem," said Joe Elford, the group's chief lawyer.

Several national medical organizations and disability rights advocates have filed friend-of-the-court papers urging the Supreme Court to rule in Ross' favor.

Ross, who lives in Sacramento, said he permanently injured his back in 1983 while serving as a U.S. Air Force mechanic. He said it wasn't until 1999 that he found true pain relief with marijuana.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is conducted.

"I think I'm standing up for everybody else," Ross said. "My motivation is that I don't like to lose and that medical marijuana is effective."

So far, though, Ross has been losing.

Two lower courts have sided with Ragingwire's decision to fire Ross because federal law holds that marijuana is illegal in all guises and a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from criminal prosecution.

Ragingwire marketing chief Doug Adams declined to comment on the case.

Ragingwire, a small telecommunications company in Sacramento, has been joined in the Supreme Court by powerful corporate interests such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc., who said companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

"History abounds with cases of employers found liable," the Sacramento-based foundation wrote, "because their employees were driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment or otherwise performing tasks made more dangerous by their being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

In the Department of Revenue of Kentucky vs. Davis, the court must decide if Kentucky can give tax breaks on interest from municipal bonds sold within its borders, while taxing interest earned on bonds sold in other states.

Justice David Souter disagreed with a characterization by Eric Brunstad, a lawyer for George and Catherine Davis -- Kentucky residents who hold out-of-state bonds -- that municipal bonds, like other securities, were traded like commodities.

"Yes, but it's not taxing an out-of-state commodity in the sense of a commodity which is manufactured or produced out-of-state," Souter said.

Still, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the tax breaks go against the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"All states want to protect their residents and make it look like they're doing something for their residents. And that's exactly the purpose of commerce clause prohibition against explicit discrimination, which is what this is," he said.

The justices also plumbed the strength of the municipal bond market. Justice Souter noted it was "enormous" and the Supreme Court did not know what would happen if it were interrupted.

The justices appeared to support the pandering provision of a 2003 federal law that makes it a crime to promote, distribute or solicit material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains child pornography.

They were hearing arguments in a case brought by the Bush administration urging them to uphold the law, after a U.S. appeals court struck down that provision on the grounds the government cannot suppress lawful free speech.

Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement argued that the law does not illegally infringe on free-speech or other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

He said the law does not inhibit legitimate creative expression, and drew a distinction between mainstream movies and illegal child pornography.

"If you're taking a movie like 'Traffic' or 'American Beauty', which is not child pornography, and you're simply truthfully promoting it, you have nothing to worry about with this statute," Clement told the justices.

"Traffic" has a scene with the high-school daughter of the nation's drug czar appearing to have sex with a drug dealer; "Lolita" portrayed a middle-aged man's obsession with a young girl; "Titanic" depicted a love affair by a young couple on a doomed ship; and "American Beauty" involved a 42-year-old man's attraction to his daughter's best friend.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked the attorney who is challenging the law about the government's distinction between legitimate films and illegal child pornography.