In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
The word "about-face" (Paragraph 3) most probably means

A.loss of good will
B.increase of hostility
C.change of attitude
D.enhancement of dignity

In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on federal power over the states.So before states rush to permit,regulate,and tax sports betting,they may want to first weigh the original reasons behind the now-defunct ban.The big reason given back then by Congress was to maintain sports as a public display of talent,effort,and teamwork-the very opposite of a belief in chance.The integrity of athletes lies in their ability to master the circumstances of a game.In sports,unforeseen circumstances are not considered luck but rather a challenge to test the skills of athletes.Sports should not be sullied by the false hopes of quick riches by gamblers pining for a"lucky break."Like society itself,sports rely on each person's desire to understand the causality of evenrs and make the best of them.Athletes know they cannot put faith in so-called fortune.Nor should governments.If states now boost sports betting by legatizing it,what message are they sending about athletics-in fact,about any physical or mental endeavor?According to Bill Bradley,a former NBA star and the then-senator who sponsored the 1992 law,placing bets on players makes them no better than roulette chips.Sports have a dignity thai defies those who want to see games turning on a twist of fate.Mr.Bradley also gives a second reason for governments not to push betting on sports.Should gambling be allowed on Little League games or middle-school athletics?Even New Jersey,which led the case against the 1992 act,did not want betting on its local teams.Up to now,most major professional sports leagues were opposed to lifting the federal ban.They feared athletes might throw a game or simply rig a play at the request of gambling agencies,as is often the case in many parts of the world.If games were seen as gamed,fans might flee.Now after this ruling,however,leagues might be tempted by the possibility they could get what is misnamed an"integrity fee,"or a percentage of gambling revenues from each game.States,too,appear tempted to gain tax revenue from sports gambling-although they should first look at how little Nevada has actually gainecl from sports betting in comparison to other types of gambling.The uncertainties of legalized,regulated sports gambling in the United States are very high.But one certainty remains:Sports must remain pure in their purpose as a contest of what athletes give in a game,not what betting can take from them.
After the new ruling,major professional sports leagues would probably

A.keep fighting against sports betting.
B.want to profit from sports betting.
C.get stricter with sports integrity.
D.try harder to please their fans.

The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently.The court cannot_1_its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law_2_justices behave like politicians.Yet,in several instances,justices acted in ways that_3_the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia,for example,appeared at political events.That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be_4_as impartial judgments.Part of the problem is that the justices are not_5_by an ethics code.At the very least,the court should make itself_6_to the code of conduct that_7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.This and other similar cases_8_the question of whether there is still a_9_between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law_10_having authority apart from politics.They gave justices permanent positions_11_they would be free to_12_those in power and have no need to_13_political support.Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely_14_.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social_15_like liberty and property.When the court deals with social policy decisions,the law it_16_is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily_17_as unjust.The justices must_18_doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves_19_to the code of conduct.That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and,_20_,convincing as law.

A.dismissed
B.released
C.ranked
D.distorted

Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?

A.Its ruling complies with the court decisions.
B.It involves a very big business transaction.
C.It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.
D.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

On a five to three vote,the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to“establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy,joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals,ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately“occupied the field”and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as“a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect,the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government,and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status,it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes,no state should be allowed to do so either.Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

A.violated the Constitution.
B.undermined the states’interests.
C.supported the federal statute.
D.stood in favor of the states.

On a five to three vote,the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to“establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy,joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals,ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately“occupied the field”and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as“a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect,the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government,and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status,it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes,no state should be allowed to do so either.Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?

A.Federal officers’duty to withhold immigrants’information.
B.States’independence from federal immigration law.
C.States’legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
D.Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.