An appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that likely would have led to greater disclosure of who is paying for certain election ads.

In March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous.

But Tuesday's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sent the case back to Jackson, with instructions to refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration.

At issue are electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate voting for or against a candidate running for federal office. In 2007, the FEC ruled that only contributors whose donations were "made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications" had to be identified; those who gave unrestricted money did not have to be identified. The FEC regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups — like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA — on pre-election ads.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., sued the FEC over the regulation, which he called a "loophole" that made the disclosure requirements meaningless. He won a summary judgment from Jackson, who was appointed by Obama. The judge ruled that "Congress spoke plainly" in passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law — and did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement.

The Supreme Court says a farming family has to pay tax on the bankruptcy sale of their farm.

The high court on Monday voted 5-4 for the IRS in its fight with Lynwood and Brenda Hall over their bankruptcy sale of their 320-acre farm in Willcox, Ariz.

The Halls were forced to sell their family farm for $960,000 to settle their bankruptcy debts. That sale brought about capital gains taxes of $26,000.The Halls wanted the taxes treated as part of the bankruptcy, paying part of it and having the court discharge the rest.

The IRS objected to that plan, saying all of the taxes must be paid and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with the tax agency.

The high court agreed with that decision.

The Supreme Court has taken no action on Virginia's call for speedy review of the health care law.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is asking the court to resolve questions about the law quickly, without the usual consideration by federal appellate judges and over the objection of the Obama administration.

The case was among those that were scheduled to be discussed in the justices' private conference on Friday, but there was no announcement about the case when the court convened on Monday.

The silence could mean, among other things, that one justice asked for more time to think about the case or to write a short opinion that would accompany an order.

The justices meet again on Friday to discuss pending cases.