A military defense lawyer said Monday that he has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the upcoming war crimes trial of the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

The trial is scheduled to begin Aug. 10 for Omar Khadr and it would be the first at the U.S. Navy base under President Barack Obama's administration.

Khadr, son of a slain al-Qaida financier, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan and faces a maximum life sentence if convicted. The Toronto-born inmate was 15 when he was captured in 2002.

His attorney, Army Lt. Col. Jon Jackson, argues that the offshore system for prosecuting terror suspects is unconstitutional. Among other concerns, he said it is unfair because it is reserved only for non-U.S. citizens.

"The military commissions provide young Omar, a Canadian citizen, only second class justice. This kind of discrimination is something we cannot stand for as a country," Jackson said.

Jackson said he filed the emergency petition with the high court Monday because a federal appeals court in Washington had not acted on a request he filed four months ago.

Several environmental groups have asked a federal appeals court to disqualify a judge from a lawsuit over the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman overturned the temporary drilling ban in June and refused last month to withdraw from the case.

In a court filing Thursday, environmental groups supporting the moratorium asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Feldman from the case because of his investments in several oil and gas companies. Feldman says he learned he owned Exxon Mobil stock a day before he ruled and sold it several hours before he issued the decision.

Last month, a 5th Circuit panel rejected the government's bid to restore its six-month ban on issuing new permits for deep-water drilling and suspension of 33 existing drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.

California's high court on Monday upheld the state's 14-year-old law barring preferential treatment of women and minorities in public school admissions, government hiring and contracting.

In a 6-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected arguments from the city of San Francisco and Attorney General Jerry Brown that the law, known as Proposition 209, violates federal equality protections.

Opponents of the ban say it creates barriers for minorities and women that don't exist for other groups, such as veterans seeking preference.

The ruling written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar came in response to lawsuits filed by white contractors challenging San Francisco's affirmative action program, which was suspended in 2003.

"As the court recognized, Proposition 209 is a civil rights measure that protects everyone, regardless of background," said Sharon Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the contractors. "Under Proposition 209, no one can be victimized by unfair government policies that discriminate or grant preferences based on sex or skin color."

If San Francisco wants to resurrect the program, the Supreme Court said it must show compelling evidence the city "purposefully or intentionally discriminated against" minority and women contractors and that such a law was the only way to fix the problem.