The highly charged debate on global warming reached the US Supreme Court Wednesday, prompting the justices to question the impact of auto and truck emissions on the environment, what must happen to rescue the world's coastlines, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency has to help stop the damage.

In the first case of its nature to reach the high court, the justices grilled both James R. Milkey, the top environmental lawyer in the Massachusetts attorney general's office, and Gregory G. Garre , the deputy solicitor general representing the Bush administration, on their views on global warming. The justices also probed the unsettled science of climate change and even weighed foreign policy considerations of the EPA setting limits on carbon dioxide pollution by new motor vehicles.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set the tone for the sharp-edged debate when he interrupted Milkey barely two minutes into the hearing.

"When is the predicted cataclysm?" Scalia asked.

Global warming hasn't reached a cataclysmic phase, Milkey answered, but is in a stage of "ongoing harm," referring to warming temperatures leading to rising sea levels and erosion along Massachusetts' 200 miles of coastline and shores worldwide. Failure to limit greenhouse gases, he said, was like lighting "a fuse to a bomb."

The merger has already been approved without reservation by the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division following an eight-month investigation that concluded that AT&T's proposed acquisition of BellSouth was not likely to "substantially reduce competition" in the US telecom market. In an October letter, the Democratic FCC commissioners said that serious questions remained about whether the merger would serve the public interest, especially against the backdrop of other forms of consolidation and concentration in the telecommunications industry.

The Senate passed the compromise bill, 71-25, in August, limiting offshore expansion to the Gulf of Mexico. The bill passed by the House in June, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, would have ended the offshore drilling moratorium on 85 percent of the coastal waters surrounding the US.

The New York Times has asked US District Judge Claude M. Hilton to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a former Army germ-warfare researcher who was named a "person of interest" by the FBI in its investigations of anthrax mailings shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Hatfill sued the Times for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the newspaper published a story stating that the government's decision not to further pursue Hatfill as a suspect was the result of "poor investigation." The newspaper moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that as a public speaker on bioterror, Hatfill is a public figure and therefore must prove a higher standard of defamation. The "public figure" must prove that the defamatory actions were taken with "actual malice", a standard which the Times motion contends Hatfill has failed to meet.

Hatfill's suit against the Times and columnist Nichols Kristoff was initially dismissed by a trial court, who ruled the columns were an ongoing report about a government investigation, not libel. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, ruling that a jury should decide that issue. In March, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case. Hatfill has also sued the government for related claims.

They also claim that they endured difficulty acclimating to Japanese culture when they were repatriated in the 1970s. According to the lawsuit, the government failed to assist the repatriation process although many of the plaintiffs did not speak Japanese or were shunned by living relatives. In the 1930s, the government transported 320,000 settlers to the Manchuria province to establish a base of operations for Japan's 1937 invasion of China. Many Japanese settlers were left behind after the war, however, and many children were raised by Chinese citizens. The plaintiffs remained displaced until 1975 when the government began locating them.

In 1994, the Japanese government passed legislation providing financial assistance to Japanese nationals who returned to Japan. Last year, an Osaka court rejected similar claims from a different group of plaintiffs, declaring that the government had no obligation to provide compensation.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abandoned plans to decrease the frequency of reporting requirements for the release of toxic chemicals by polluting companies, it was announced Thursday. The changes would have required polluters to report every other year rather than the current mandate of annual submissions. The EPA also asserted, however, that it will push next year for an increase in the amount of pollutants that triggers the requirement for companies to report, essentially exempting about one-third of 23,000 companies from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting established in the 1986 Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act.
Under existing standards, polluters must report any release over 500 pounds, while the proposed change would only require reporting after the release of 5,000 pounds. The EPA's move follows criticism from US Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who staunchly oppose the proposed changes. Lautenberg, who penned the Right to Know law, called the changes a "giveaway to corporate polluters at the cost of everyday Americans' health" and an "irresponsible policy stand."

The chemicals that must be reported under TRI requirements include DDT, mercury, PCBs and other chemicals that do not substantially dissipate. The lower TRI standard would exempt many companies in the mining, utility, oil, rubber, plastics, printing, textile, leather tanning and semiconductor industries.