The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Pfizer Inc. that sought to thwart a securities lawsuit alleging the drugmaker misrepresented the safety profile of the blockbuster pain drug Celebrex.

The plaintiffs alleged that Pfizer's Pharmacia unit deliberately withheld the full results of a medical study that showed no safety advantage to using Celebrex over less expensive anti-inflammatory drugs.

Pfizer argued that investors missed a two-year statute of limitations to bring the lawsuit. The investors said there was no evidence of a possible fraud until the Washington Post published an article about missing Celebrex data in August 2001, meaning their April 2003 lawsuit was within two years of that development.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled last year that the lawsuit was not filed too late. The Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment.

The high court's denial of Pfizer's appeal comes a week after the justices ruled unanimously that investors didn't wait too long to file securities lawsuits alleging that Merck & Co. misrepresented the safety of painkiller drug Vioxx. Pfizer's appeal had been on hold pending the outcome of the Merck case.

The Supreme Court says the family of a now-deceased immigrant who was denied medical care for cancer while in custody cannot sue federal medical officials for damages.

Salvadoran immigrant Francisco Castaneda was denied a biopsy for a painful penis lesion while in prison in California, despite outside specialists' recommendations. He was later diagnosed with penile cancer, had his penis amputated and died.

Castaneda's family sued the U.S. Public Health Service personnel who denied the biopsy. But the government says the law gives its medical personnel absolute immunity against lawsuits.

Federal courts have refused to throw out the lawsuit. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the government's position is correct. She wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

Former U.S. Attorney David R. Dugas will remain in Baton Rouge to head a New Orleans-based law firm’s nationwide energy practice, officials announced Tuesday.

Dugas, who resigned his federal post last week, will join McGlinchey Stafford on May 1, the law firm said in a press release.

In addition to chairing the firm’s energy practice, Dugas will serve as co-chair of McGlinchey Stafford’s governmental investigations team.

“We are honored to have David join our team and are excited to offer his distinguished level of expertise to our clients,” Rudy Aguilar, the law firm’s managing member, said in a written statement.

Dugas was a private-practice attorney who focused on oil-and-gas litigation as well as environmental issues prior to serving more than eight years as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana.

The 1978 graduate of LSU’s Paul M. Hebert Law Center was appointed to his federal post by former President George W. Bush.

In addition to New Orleans and Baton Rouge, McGlinchey Stafford has offices in Dallas, Houston, Cleveland, Monroe, Jackson, Miss., and Albany, N.Y.

A federal jury has begun deliberating for a second day in the trial of a former Tennessee college student accused of hacking Sarah Palin's e-mail account when she was a vice presidential candidate.

The panel worked in Knoxville for six hours Tuesday, then asked District Court Judge Thomas Phillips for a definition of "access to the computer." He told jurors that's their decision.

The defense claims 22-year-old David Kernell had no criminal intent in gaining access to Palin's e-mail account while prosecutors say he was trying to derail her 2008 campaign.

Kernell is charged with identity theft, wire fraud, unauthorized access to a computer and obstruction of justice. If convicted on all charges, he faces a maximum possible prison sentence of 50 years.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.