A federal appeals court on Wednesday granted a new hearing to a 40-year-old man who claimed the Atlanta Police Department rejected his job application because he has HIV.

The ruling was a victory for gay rights advocates and the health groups who had closely watched the case, which was brought in 2010 by a man using the pseudonym Richard Roe.

Among other findings, the three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in the ruling that the city lulled Roe into believing he didn't need to prove his HIV was "non-serious." It ordered the judge who dismissed the lawsuit to take another look at that issue and others prompted by the lawsuit.

The ruling was no surprise, as the panel expressed skepticism about the city's arguments during oral arguments last week, and one judge suggested the court had little choice but to send the case back to the federal judge.

Members of one of the last major Occupy encampments are making a last-minute court effort to stave off eviction from public land in Washington.

A federal judge is hearing arguments Tuesday on a request to bar the National Park Service from enforcing a ban on camping that would affect the Occupy DC sites.

The ban went into effect at noon Monday at the two Occupy encampments at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. But protesters still remain there.

A separate request seeks to prevent the police from destroying tents and other belongings of the protesters.

The hearing takes place in U.S. District Court before Judge James Boasberg.

An Ohio investment group's lawsuit seeking to collect $100 million on three-decade-old Venezuelan promissory notes is headed back to a federal judge for further deliberations.

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case was a setback for Venezuela, which argued that federal law protects it from U.S. lawsuits because it is a foreign state.

The high court declined on Monday to accept Venezuela's appeal of a 2010 federal appeals court decision that said the suit filed by Skye Ventures of Columbus could go forward in the U.S.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said a lower court must determine whether the case should be tried in Venezuela, which will be the next step.

Skye seeks payment on the notes from a defunct government-sponsored bank.

In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear it wouldn't be their final word on increasingly advanced high-tech surveillance of Americans.

Indicating they will be monitoring the growing use of such technology, five justices said they could see constitutional and privacy problems with police using many kinds of electronic surveillance for long-term tracking of citizens' movements without warrants.

While the justices differed on legal rationales, their unanimous outcome was an unusual setback for government and police agencies grown accustomed to being given leeway in investigations in post-Sept. 11 America, including by the Supreme Court. The views of at least the five justices raised the possibility of new hurdles down the road for police who want to use high-tech surveillance of suspects, including various types of GPS technology.

An appeals court says it cannot reduce a $20 million restitution order against the public relations consultant who partnered with lobbyist Jack Abramoff to bilk Indian tribes out of millions in inflated fees.

Michael Scanlon is serving a 20-month sentence after pleading guilty in part to defrauding the tribes of their right to "honest services." Abramoff persuaded tribes that hired him for lobbying to pay inflated fees for Scanlon's public relations services, and the two secretly split the profits.

The Supreme Court weakened the honest services law last year and Scanlon argued the $20 million he's been ordered to repay his victims should be lowered to reflect that ruling.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled Friday that courts cannot modify plea agreements.

The Supreme Court is keeping telemarketers and other businesses on the hook for nuisance phone calls, letting those annoyed by the disruptions sue in federal as well as state courts.

The high court's decision Wednesday involves a lawsuit claiming a debt collector harassed a man with repeated recorded calls.

Marcus Mims of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said he kept getting the calls from Arrow Financial Services LLC, which was trying to collect a student loan debt for Sallie Mae. He sued for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, passed by Congress to ban invasive telemarketing practices.

Mims' lawsuit was thrown out by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Congress did not explicitly give permission for federal lawsuits in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, although the law does say people can file in state courts. Other federal courts ruled differently and let lawsuits move forward.

The high court said in a unanimous opinion that federal lawsuits are allowed under the law.

Fourteen people have been arrested at the Supreme Court for protesting the resumption of the use of the death penalty in the United States.

Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg announced the arrests soon after the high court began hearing oral arguments on Tuesday. Those who were arrested will likely be charged with illegally demonstrating at the Supreme Court. Such activities are banned on the court's plaza looking out toward the U.S. Capitol.

The protests are timed to mark the year of the 35th anniversary of the execution of Gary Gilmore, who protesters said was the first person executed under the Supreme Court's upholding of the death penalty in 1976.

Protesters say there have been 1,277 more executions since then, with at least three more scheduled for this month.