WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday rebuffed criticism that intelligence was lost by giving a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a U.S. airliner a lawyer and other legal rights.

In a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Holder also said he made the decision to charge the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, with crimes in the regular U.S. court system.

Holder rejected widespread criticism by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress over how the suspect was interviewed by FBI agents for only about an hour before he stopped cooperating and then was read his Miranda rights, providing him a lawyer and full U.S. constitutional legal rights.

Abdulmutallab, 23, was charged with trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day with a bomb hidden in his underwear, drawing further criticism from some lawmakers who said he should face a special military court instead of being tried in civilian court.

WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday rebuffed criticism that intelligence was lost by giving a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a U.S. airliner a lawyer and other legal rights.

In a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Holder also said he made the decision to charge the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, with crimes in the regular U.S. court system.

Holder rejected widespread criticism by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress over how the suspect was interviewed by FBI agents for only about an hour before he stopped cooperating and then was read his Miranda rights, providing him a lawyer and full U.S. constitutional legal rights.

Abdulmutallab, 23, was charged with trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day with a bomb hidden in his underwear, drawing further criticism from some lawmakers who said he should face a special military court instead of being tried in civilian court.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has drawn a rare rebuke from President Barack Obama for its corporate political spending ruling, but the justices are likely to move slowly into the economic arena, with hot-button social issues the main battleground.

The court recently struck down election spending limits, prompting Obama’s criticism in his State of the Union address. But legal experts said it would tread carefully in dealing with the president’s other regulatory and legislative programs.

The dispute took on a personal tone during the speech when Obama told Congress the 5-4 ruling “reversed a century of law” and “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections.”

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, one of six court members in the audience sitting directly in front of Obama, shook his head and appeared to mouth the words, “that is not true.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Javaris Crittenton of the Washington Wizards pleaded guilty on Monday to a misdemeanor gun possession charge for last month’s incident when he argued with teammate Gilbert Arenas and brought an unloaded handgun to the basketball team’s locker room.

Crittenton was sentenced to one year of unsupervised probation and required to perform community service through the NBA’S Haiti project and through a children’s organization in Washington, D.C., the U.S. attorney’s office said.

“The charges filed today against Javaris Crittenton and his subsequent plea represent another disappointing development in what has already been a long and frustrating process for the team, the NBA and, most importantly, our fans,” the Wizards said in a statement.

“Javaris clearly used very bad judgment in this situation and will now face the consequences of his actions.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for the extradition of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to France, where he has been convicted on money laundering charges.

The justices let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that the U.S. government can legally send Noriega to France without violating his rights as a prisoner of war.

Noriega’s attorneys argued that as a prisoner of war, he must be sent back to Panama. Noriega, who finished his U.S. prison sentence for drug trafficking two years ago, has remained in a Florida prison while fighting his extradition.

An army general and one-time CIA informant, Noriega was captured in Panama in January 1990 two weeks after U.S. troops invaded the country. After being brought to Miami to stand trial, he was declared a prisoner of war.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Javaris Crittenton of the Washington Wizards pleaded guilty on Monday to a misdemeanor gun possession charge for last month’s incident when he argued with teammate Gilbert Arenas and brought an unloaded handgun to the basketball team’s locker room.

Crittenton was sentenced to one year of unsupervised probation and required to perform community service through the NBA’S Haiti project and through a children’s organization in Washington, D.C., the U.S. attorney’s office said.

Arenas, 28, who has been suspended from the team, faces a tentative sentencing date of March 26 after pleading guilty on January 15 to felony weapons possession for bringing four guns to the locker room. He faces up to six months in prison under his plea deal.

In late December, Crittenton and Arenas became involved in a heated argument after a card game. Arenas said he was too old to fistfight and threatened to shoot Crittenton in the face, according to court documents.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. government for its opinion on a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co <JPM.N> that says it violated federal law by failing to notify credit card holders before raising interest rates because of late payments or defaults.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, James McCoy, had accused Chase Manhattan Bank of violating the Truth in Lending Act by increasing interest rates retroactively to the beginning of his payment cycle after his account was closed after a late payment to Chase or another creditor.

In its card member agreement, Chase said it disclosed the conditions that McCoy had to comply with to remain eligible for the lower interest rate, as well as the maximum interest rate that could apply if he violated those terms.

The Supreme Court asked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to file a brief expressing the federal government’s views of the case, a process that could take several months.

WASHINGTON, Jan 25 (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. government for its opinion on a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co <JPM.N> that says it violated federal law by failing to notify credit card holders before raising interest rates because of late payments or defaults.

The lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, James McCoy, had accused Chase Manhattan Bank of violating the Truth in Lending Act by increasing interest rates retroactively to the beginning of his payment cycle after his account was closed after a late payment to Chase or another creditor.

In its cardmember agreement, Chase said it disclosed the conditions that McCoy had to comply with to remain eligible for the lower interest rate, as well as the maximum interest rate that could apply if he violated those terms.

The Supreme Court asked Solicitor General Elena Kagan to file a brief expressing the federal government’s views of the case, a process that could take several months.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling backing corporate political spending was a big win for businesses, but the landmark decision does not necessarily portend victories for them in other major cases this term.

The 5-4 ruling on Thursday recognized new free-speech rights for corporations and boldly overturned two major precedents by ending federal and state limits on independent spending by corporations to support or oppose candidates.

While the court’s conservative majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts has often sided with corporations, legal experts said the ruling does not foreshadow how the court will rule in other major forthcoming business cases.

Republicans generally hailed the decision that allows corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress, a decision expected to unleash a flood of corporate money into the U.S. political system.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court’s ruling backing corporate political spending was a big win for businesses, but the landmark decision does not necessarily portend victories for them in other major cases this term.

The 5-4 ruling on Thursday recognized new free-speech rights for corporations and boldly overturned two major precedents by ending federal and state limits on independent spending by corporations to support or oppose candidates.

While the court’s conservative majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts has often sided with corporations, legal experts said the ruling does not foreshadow how the court will rule in other major forthcoming business cases.

Republicans generally hailed the decision that allows corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress, a decision expected to unleash a flood of corporate money into the U.S. political system.