WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has declined to revive a defamation lawsuit that former Chicago Bulls star Scottie Pippen filed against several media companies for falsely reporting he had filed for bankruptcy. 
 
 The justices on Monday did not comment in letting stand lower court decisions dismissing the $10 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal Media LLC, CBS Interactive, Inc. and other media outlets. 
 
 Lower courts found that as a public figure, Pippen could not show the reports were published with actual malice. That standard requires Pippen to show the information was published knowing it was false or issued with reckless disregard for the truth. 
 
 Pippen claimed the media companies acted with malice because they refused to correct or remove the erroneous reports from several websites after being alerted to the error. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. 
 
 The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms. 
 
 The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients. 
 
 Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. 
 
 Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. 
 
 In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 
 
 The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount. 
 
 Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you." 
 
 Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun. 
 
 A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 
 
 The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns. 
 
 Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns. 
 
 The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed Argentina a double defeat in its long-running fight with holders of its defaulted bonds, despite the South American country's pleas that its economy could be threatened if it has to pay off the old debt. 
 
 The justices rejected without comment Argentina's appeal of judgments ordering it to pay more than $1.3 billion to hedge funds that hold some of the country's bonds. 
 
 Then, in a 7-1 ruling, the high court said the bond holders could use American courts to force Argentina to reveal where it owns property around the world. The decision should make it easier for them to collect on court judgments. 
 
 The legal fight stems from debt that has been unpaid since the country's 2001 economic crisis. Investors holding more than 92 percent of Argentina's defaulted debt agreed in 2005 and 2010 to write off two-thirds of their pre-crisis value, providing debt relief that enabled the economy to rebound. 
 
 But some of the holdouts sued, including hedge funds led by billionaire Paul Singer's NML Capital Ltd. 
 
 The investors won an unprecedented judgment that would block Argentina's payments to many other bondholders unless it pays cash first to the plaintiffs. 
 
 Argentina asked the Supreme Court to intervene because it said that making the country pay cash in full to investors who didn't accept bond swaps in exchange for defaulted debt could destabilize the global economy by making other voluntary debt restructurings much harder. 
 
 Lawyers for Argentina said that full payment would cut the country's reserves roughly in half. They also said that lower courts which ruled against Argentina were ignoring federal law that generally protects other nations in American courts and could make U.S. assets more vulnerable to lawsuits filed abroad. 
 
 But the court declined to get involved in the case Monday. 
 
 The government of President Cristina Fernandez did not immediately comment on the ruling. Argentina's main stock market index was down more than 5 percent in morning trading. 
 
 Ramiro Castineira, an economist with the Econometrica consulting firm, told The Associated Press in Buenos Aires that the ruling doesn't necessarily mean an automatic default. 
 
 Castineira said, "what remains to be negotiated is the form of payment. The country has sufficient reserves and if it shows a willingness to pay it will get financing, I have no doubts. " 
 
 The next payment of $907 million to holders of the restructured debt is scheduled for June 30, said Daniel Kerner, a Latin America expert at the Eurasia Group consulting firm. 
 
 Fernandez "is focused on reaching the end of her mandate without an economic crisis, and she has good political reason to avoid default. Moreover, a prolonged default would put the strategy of improving ties with foreign investors...at risk. As a result, we expect the government to seek a negotiated solution with holdouts, though it will explore options that allow it to create the appearance that it is not conceding," Kerner said. 
 
 The leader of an anti-poverty group criticized the court's action. 
 
 "I am blown away by the decision. For heavily indebted countries trying to support extremely poor people, this is a devastating blow. These hedge funds are equipped with an instrument that forces struggling economies into submission," said Eric LeCompte, executive director of Jubilee USA Network. 
 
 In the separate ruling, the justices rejected the country's efforts to try to prevent NML and the other investors from learning about Argentina's property around the world. 
 
 The question was a relatively narrow aspect of the debt issue, whether a sovereign nation can be forced to reveal assets around the world so plaintiffs can collect on U.S. court judgments. 
 
 Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, in which he said federal law offers no shield to Argentina. 
 
 In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling would lead to a "sweeping examination of Argentina's worldwide assets." Ginsburg said she would have narrowed lower court orders in favor of the bondholders to exclude diplomatic, military and national security property owned by Argentina. 
 
 Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in either case. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Associated Press writer Almudena Calatrava contributed to this report from Buenos Aires.
– The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that an anti-abortion group can challenge an Ohio law that bars people from making false statements about political candidates during a campaign. The high court said the Susan B. Anthony List does not have to wait until it is prosecuted under the law to claim its First Amendment rights have been infringed. The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the law, but the decision raises serious doubts about whether the law—and similar measures in more than a dozen other states—can survive. The case began during the 2010 election when the group planned to put up billboards ads accusing then-Rep. Steve Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he supported President Barack Obama's new health care law. Driehaus, a Democrat who opposes abortion, claimed the ads misrepresented the true facts and therefore violated the false speech law. In other high court news today: A divided court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration, by upholding the federal ban on "straw" gun purchases. The justices ruled 5-4 that a man could not buy a gun for a relative in Pennsylvania, even though that relative was legally allowed to own guns. Anthony Kennedy joined the court's liberals, who argued in their decision that allowing straw purchasing would make it too easy to evade the various restrictions on gun ownership. The court handed Argentina a double defeat in its long-running fight with holders of its defaulted bonds, rejecting without comment its appeal of judgments ordering it to pay more than $1.3 billion to hedge funds that hold some of the country's bonds. The justices ignored the South American country's pleas that its economy could be threatened if it has to pay off the old debt. The court also dealt a blow to Scottie Pippen, refusing to revive his defamation suit against NBC Universal and other media outlets that had reported that he filed for bankruptcy.