The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed inclined to rule in favor of a former federal air marshal who wants whistleblower protection for leaking information about aviation security plans.

Several of the justices indicated during oral argument that Robert MacLean did not violate the law when he revealed to a reporter government plans to cut back on overnight trips for undercover air marshals despite a potential terror threat.

MacLean said he leaked the information to an MSNBC reporter after supervisors ignored his safety concerns. His revelations in 2003 triggered outrage in Congress and the Department of Homeland Security quickly decided not to make the cutbacks, acknowledging it was a mistake.

But MacLean was fired from the Transportation Security Administration three years later, after the government discovered he was the leaker.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that MacLean should be allowed to present a defense under federal whistleblower laws. The Obama administration argues that whistleblower laws contain a major exception — they do not protect employees who reveal information "prohibited by law."

Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn told the justices that TSA regulations specifically prohibit disclosure of "sensitive security information," including any information relating to air marshal deployments.

But several of the justices pointed out that the Whistleblower Protection Act refers only to other laws, not agency regulations.

"So it is prohibited by regulations, let's not play games," Justice Antonin Scalia told Gershengorn.

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that since no law seemed to ban the kind of information MacLean leaked, the president could simply issue an executive order to keep TSA workers from disclosing that kind of information.

A conservative gadfly lawyer who has made a career of skewering Democratic administrations is taking his battle against the National Security Agency's telephone surveillance program to a federal appeals court.

Activist attorney Larry Klayman won the first round in December, when U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a Republican appointee, ruled that the NSA's surveillance program likely runs afoul of the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. The government appealed.

In court filings in preparation for Tuesday's argument, the Justice Department told three Republican-nominated appeals judges that collecting the phone data is of overriding and compelling importance to the nation's security.

Former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden revealed the phone data collection effort a year and a half ago, triggering a debate over privacy rights and surveillance.

In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit recently heard arguments in an appeal of a judge's opinion that found the surveillance program legal.

The three appeals judges in the Washington case have generally come down on the government's side on national security issues.

Virginia's practice of automatically holding death row inmates in solitary confinement will be reviewed by a federal appeals court in a case that experts say could have repercussions beyond the state's borders.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria ruled last year that around-the-clock isolation of condemned inmates is so onerous that the Virginia Department of Corrections must assess its necessity on a case-by-case basis. Failure to do so, she said, violates the inmates' due process rights.

The state appealed, arguing that the courts should defer to the judgment of prison officials on safety issues. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday.

The lawsuit was filed by Alfredo Prieto, who was on California's death row for raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl when a DNA sample connected him to the 1988 slayings of George Washington University students Rachel Raver and Warren Fulton III in Reston. He also was sentenced to death in Virginia, where he has spent most of the last six years alone in a 71-square-foot cell at the Sussex I State Prison.

Some capital punishment experts say a victory by Prieto could prompt similar lawsuits by death row inmates elsewhere.

"It gives them a road map," said northern Virginia defense attorney Jonathan Sheldon, who noted that the due process claim succeeded where allegations of cruel and unusual punishment have routinely failed. "It's not that common to challenge conditions of confinement on due process grounds."

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern Saturday about the lack of diverse legal and life experience among those who sit on the country's highest court.

Both are Yale University alumni and Thomas noted that all nine Supreme Court justices attended either Yale or Harvard University. He said everyone should be concerned that the nation's highest court has "such a strong Northeastern orientation."

Thomas, Sotomayor and Justice Samuel Alito, also a Yale alumnus, shared the stage Saturday when they were honored at the Connecticut school's alumni weekend. They were awarded the Yale Law School Association Award of Merit at the event. The six other Supreme Court justices all attended Harvard's law school.

"I do think we should be concerned that virtually all of us are from two law schools," Thomas said to an audience of Yale alumni and students. "I'm sure Harvard and Yale are happy, but I think we should be concerned about that. I think we should also be concerned that we have such a strong Northeastern orientation ... But I couldn't say that somebody who's a colleague of mine shouldn't be there."