The California Supreme  Court upheld a state law on Monday allowing illegal immigrants who attend high school in California for three years and graduate to pay lower in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities.

The unanimous ruling reverses a lower-court decision siding with opponents of the law who said it unfairly favors illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens who live outside California and are charged much higher out-of-state tuition rates.

The measure, passed by the state legislature in 2001, was challenged in court on behalf of students who are U.S. citizens and claimed they were illegally denied the in-state tuition break carved out for undocumented students.

Nine other states have adopted similar tuition laws, and legal challenges are pending in two of them -- Nebraska and Texas, lawyers for both sides in the California case said.

Kris Kobach, attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which brought the California suit, said Monday's decision was "flawed in numerous ways" and vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kobach, whose group estimates more than 25,000 illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition each year under California's statute, said there was a good chance his side would prevail if the nation's high court agreed to hear the case.

India's Supreme Court ordered Vodafone to deposit 25 billion rupees ($554 million) within three weeks on its contested $2.5 billion tax bill, a company spokesman said Monday.

The British telecoms company said it also would arrange a guarantee with an Indian bank for the remaining 85 billion rupees ($1.9 billion) within eight weeks, as ordered by the court.

The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a verdict in the case, which is being closely watched by foreign companies fearful that it could set a precedent that might make them liable for retroactive changes under Indian tax law. The next hearing is set for Feb. 24.

The tax relates to Vodafone's acquisition of the Indian telecom assets of Hong Kong's Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd.

Vodafone, whose joint venture with India's Essar group is one of India's largest mobile operators, maintains that it does not owe tax on the $11 billion transaction because it took place between two foreign entities.

In May 2007, Vodafone International Holdings BV — a Dutch subsidiary of the British telecom giant — acquired a 67 percent stake in CGP Investments Ltd., a Cayman Islands company which held the Indian telecom assets of Hutchison.

The Dutch government has stepped in to try to resolve the case out of court under the terms of a government-to-government tax treaty, Vodafone said, after earlier efforts by British officials to lobby New Delhi.

Discount retailer Loehmann's is filing for bankruptcy after its Dubai government-linked owner failed to reach a debt-extension deal with creditors.

Loehmann's says the Chapter 11 filing Monday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York is "pre-negotiated," meaning it could play out faster than a traditional bankruptcy filing.

Dubai's Istithmar World investment unit bought New York-based Loehmann's for $300 million in 2006. The 89-year-old retailer sells designer brands at discount prices in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

Istithmar is a subsidiary of troubled state conglomerate Dubai World.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a potential GOP presidential candidate, stepped up his attack Thursday on President Barack Obama's federal health care law with a court filing challenging its cost to states.

Pawlenty and Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri, both Republicans leaving office soon, joined in the federal court filing in Pensacola, Fla.

A judge there ruled last month that parts of a lawsuit filed by 20 other states challenging the health care overhaul can go to trial. The two governors' filing seeks permission to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the lawsuit.

The filing, written by a Washington lawyer from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the governors are safeguarding their citizens from "federal abuse of the spending power." They argue the law places liabilities on states through a Medicaid expansion.

"Although the Act indicates that the federal government will initially pay for some Medicaid expansions, the states are advised that they will pay for 10 percent of some unspecified costs in four years, and there is no indication that the states will not pay more in succeeding periods," the governors' document said.

Pawlenty has been vocal in his opposition to the law. He has said he would make repealing it a focal point of a run for president in 2012 if he wages a campaign. Pawlenty has ordered state agencies to avoid discretionary grants related to the health law.

Two business groups claim that Wisconsin enacted an unconstitutional law that prohibits employers from "conducting mandatory meetings with employees to communicate the employer's opinion about the advantages or disadvantages of joining or supporting a union." The 15-page complaint does not mention any advantages to joining a union.

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce sued Gov. Jim Doyle and Department of Workforce Development Secretary Roberta Gassman in Federal Court.

Gov. Doyle signed Senate Bill 585 into law in May. The law prohibits employers - and unions and hiring and licensing agencies - from discriminating against anyone for "declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious or political matters."

The business groups claim SB 585 violates the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act and the National Labor Relations Act by failing to allow employers to communicate with their employees. And they say the state exceeded its jurisdiction.