An appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's bid to let police enforce a minor section of the state's 2010 immigration law that prohibits the harboring of illegal immigrants.

The harboring ban was in effect from late July 2010 until U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled in September that it was trumped by federal law and barred police from enforcing it. Brewer has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Bolton's ruling.

Brewer's lawyers argue the ban doesn't conflict with federal policies, is aimed at confronting crime and that the law's opponents haven't shown they have legal standing to challenge the prohibition. The governor's attorneys also say there's no evidence that the ban has been enforced against any people or organizations represented by a coalition of civil rights groups that have challenged the law in court.

The coalition has asked the appeals court to uphold Bolton's ruling, saying the state law is trumped by a federal harboring law that leaves no room for state regulation. The coalition also argues that Bolton has repeatedly confirmed that it has standing to challenge the harboring ban.

Another federal appeals court has barred authorities from enforcing similar harboring bans in Alabama and Georgia.

The Supreme Court says there can be no retroactive application of its ruling that lawyers have to tell their clients if pleading guilty to a crime could cause their deportation.

The high court's 7-2 ruling came Wednesday in the case of Roselva Chaidez.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that immigrants have a constitutional right to be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation. Chaidez had already been convicted for mail fraud and was in a deportation proceeding. She then asked the courts to allow her to take advantage of the new ruling.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the 2010 ruling was a new rule, so it doesn't apply to convictions that came before. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

A Florida man's bid to become the first illegal immigrant to obtain a law license in the United States met skepticism Tuesday from most of the state's Supreme Court justices.

Jose Godinez-Samperio came to the U.S. with his parents on visitors' visas when he was 9 years old, but the family never returned to Mexico. He graduated from New College in Florida, earned a law degree from Florida State University and passed the state bar exam last year.

"He's somebody who has done everything he's supposed to do. He complied with every rule," Godinez-Samperio's attorney and former American Bar Association president Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte, said after the hearing.

Godinez-Samperio's case is one of a few across the country. Illegal immigrants in New York and California also want to practice law there.

The Board of Bar Examiners in Florida found no reason to deny the 25-year-old Godinez-Samperio a license but asked the state's high court for guidance, said the board's lawyer, Robert Blythe.

The Supreme Court threw out key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion could go forward on checking the status of suspects who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally.

The court upheld the "show me your papers" requirement that police check suspects' immigration status. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges, and they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges.

The Obama administration had assailed the Arizona law as an unconstitutional intrusion into an area under Washington's control, and the court struck down provisions that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations.

But several lawmakers and civil rights groups said the part of the law left in place by the high court was an invitation to racial profiling.

The court announced that Thursday would be the last day of rulings this term, which means the decision on President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul probably will come that day.

The Arizona decision landed in the middle of a presidential campaign in which Obama has been heavily courting Latino voters and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has been struggling to win Latino support. During a drawn-out primary campaign, Romney and the other GOP candidates mostly embraced a hard line on illegal immigrants, though Romney has lately taken a softer tone.

A federal appeals court says illegal immigrants don't have a right to own firearms under the U.S. Constitution.

Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar of Wyoming pleaded guilty to being an illegal immigrant in possession of firearms after his arrest last year. He was ordered held by immigration authorities at the Natrona County Detention Center in Wyoming.

An attorney for Huitron-Guizar appealed the case, saying illegal immigrants are not excluded from possessing firearms like felons and people who are mentally ill, and should have the same rights as U.S. citizens to buy a gun for hunting and protection.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Monday that illegal immigrants have only limited protection under the Constitution.

Huitron-Guizar's attorney, Ronald Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyo., says he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to apply retroactively its 2010 decision that immigrants have a right to be told that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation.

The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Roselva Chaidez, who was in the process of being deported when the court made that March 2010 decision.

Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.

Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle.

A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that stopped a Dallas suburb's ban on illegal immigrants seeking housing.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Farmers Branch overstepped its authority in 2008 when it passed a law calling on the city's building inspector to check the immigration status of anyone wanting to rent an apartment who wasn't a U.S. citizen.

Under the law, illegal immigrants would have been barred from rental housing, and landlords who knowingly allowed them to stay could have their rental licenses barred.

The appellate court said the city was seeking to exclude illegal immigrants, particularly Latinos, under the guise of policing housing.

"Because the sole purpose and effect of this ordinance is to target the presence of illegal aliens within the City of Farmers Branch and to cause their removal, it contravenes the federal government's exclusive authority over the regulation of immigration and the conditions of residence in this country," the court's opinion stated.

The city had appealed the decision of U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle, who ruled two years ago that the law is unconstitutional after a lawsuit was filed by apartment owners and tenants.

William Brewer, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said he sensed a "strong undercurrent" throughout the appellate court's decision that Farmers Branch was engaged in discrimination. The ruling is particularly meaningful because the 5th Circuit has a reputation for conservatism, he said.