New York's top court has rejected Dan Rather's bid to reinstate his $70 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against CBS Corp.

Rather's motion was denied without comment Tuesday by the Court of Appeals.

CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs says the network is pleased with the outcome. A call to Rather's lawyer was not immediately returned.

Rather sued CBS and its top executives in 2007, claiming he had been wrongfully removed from his "CBS Evening News" anchor post over a report that examined President George W. Bush's military service.

In September, a five-member Appellate Division panel unanimously concluded there was no breach of contract because CBS still paid Rather his $6 million annual salary after the disputed 2004 broadcast.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in Smith v. Spisak that the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) by extending Mills v. Maryland  to resolve in a habeas petitioner's favor questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the jury instructions in defendant John Spisak, Jr's trial violated Mills by requiring unanimity in the finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors. In reversing the decision below, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:

The Court of Appeals held the sentencing instructions unconstitutional because, in its view, the instructions, taken together with the forms, "required" juror "unanimity as to the presence of a mitigating factor" - contrary to this Court's holding in Mills v. Maryland. Since the parties do not dispute that the Ohio courts "adjudicated" this claim, i.e., they considered and rejected it "on the merits," the law permits a federal court to reach a contrary decision only if the state-court decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Unlike the Court of Appeals, we conclude that Spisak's claim does not satisfy this standard.

California's gay-marriage ban is again being tested as a high-profile federal-court case opened in the state Monday and immediately drew a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court temporarily blocked the Internet broadcast of the trial, the first serious challenge in federal court to a state law against same-sex marriage.

The main issue in the case, being heard in U.S. District Court, is whether a 2008 voter initiative dubbed Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Defenders of Proposition 8 say it validly defined marriage in traditional terms by restricting marriage to people who could have children naturally.

Whatever the outcome in Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom, the case will likely be appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five states currently permit same-sex marriage, either by statute or under their state constitutions.

In exchange, prosecutors agreed to dismiss six other charges during Tuesday's hearing.

The 52-year-old Becker pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault of a child under 16 and child enticement. He faces up to 45 years in prison when he's sentenced March 3.

Defense attorney Patrick Cafferty declined comment until after Becker's sentencing hearing.

Becker was arrested at a shopping center on Jan. 13 in a sting operation after authorities said he was involved in explicit Internet chats with a state agent posing as a 14-year-old girl.

Becker was charged Jan. 15 and resigned as mayor five days later.