In a unanimous decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a money laundering case cannot be proven merely by showing that funds were concealed while being transported.

In a 5-4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said that money laundering refers to profits of an illegal operation, not gross receipts. The court's interpretation is a narrow one opposed by law enforcement agencies.

Scalia said the narrow definition will not unduly burden authorities, who must show only that a single instance of unlawful activity was profitable.

In the cases of Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz, a federal judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said that paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don't qualify as money laundering. Those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity, the appeals court ruled in a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said that the court's ruling would frustrate congressional intent and "maim" a law that was enacted as an important defense against organized criminal enterprises.

In a unanimous decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a money laundering case cannot be proven merely by showing that funds were concealed while being transported.

In a separate 5-4 decision, the court said that money laundering refers to profits of an illegal operation, not gross receipts. The court's interpretation is a narrow one opposed by law enforcement agencies.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the narrow definition will not unduly burden authorities, who must show only that a single instance of unlawful activity was profitable.

Providing the crucial tie-breaking vote, Justice John Paul Stevens refused to go as far as Scalia, saying Congress favored a broader interpretation of the law in cases involving the operation of organized crime syndicates.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear the case involving a segment of the $1.5 billion fantasy sports industry in the United States, in which participants manage imaginary teams based on the real-life performances of professional players.

The lawsuit involves C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc., a Missouri company unable to obtain a license from a subsidiary of Major League Baseball to use players' names in C.B.C.'s fantasy baseball games.

The Missouri company sued, saying it did not need a license to continue to sell its fantasy baseball games on its Web site.

The baseball players' union jumped into the case on the league's side, alleging a state law violation of the players' publicity rights — the ability to profit from the commercial use of a person's name.

A federal court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled in favor of the fantasy baseball business, saying that enforcing state law rights would violate C.B.C.'s right of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

The National Football League Players Association supported professional baseball's request that the Supreme Court hear the case.

Class-action law firm Milberg LLP is close to a settlement that could end a federal prosecution of the firm for alleged kickbacks, according to two people familiar with the discussions. The deal would mark the climax of a case that has roiled the American plaintiff's bar.

While a deal could still fall apart, the sides have made progress after weeks of talks that have centered on the payment Milberg will have to make as part of a settlement. Last summer, prosecutors had sought about $50 million in fines and penalties, but the demand mushroomed this year to about $100 million, say people familiar with the negotiations. Recently, Milberg and prosecutors have zeroed in on a payout in the neighborhood of $75 million, these people say.

The government alleged that the firm paid more than $11 million in kickbacks to clients in exchange for their serving as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions. These payouts allowed the firm to quickly file suits and become lead counsel, prosecutors allege, entitling Milberg to a large share of the fees: some $250 million over more than two decades. The firm, which is scheduled to stand trial in August, has denied wrongdoing.

All but one of 26 Swiss cantons (states) rejected the initiative by the nationalistic Swiss People's Party, while in the overall population 63.8 percent voted against it, according to official results.

The initiative was aimed at overturning a Supreme Court ruling that barred the widely denounced practice in some Swiss communities of subjecting citizenship applications to a popular vote.

"The people clearly said: 'We don't want xenophobia and we want direct democracy to respect basic rights,'" Swiss President Pascal Couchepin said on Swiss television SF.

People's Party lawmaker Hans Fehr said he still believed the requirements for Swiss citizenship should be more stringent.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

Separately, an appeals court in New Jersey sharply reduced a verdict in another Vioxx case. The court ruled that the jury should not have been allowed to award punitive damages against Merck or to find that Merck had committed consumer fraud. Only compensatory damages of $4.5 million were permitted, the court said.

The rulings on Thursday leave lawyers for plaintiffs with just three victories, all with relatively small awards, in the nearly 20 Vioxx cases that have reached juries. Mark Lanier, a plaintiffs’ lawyer who was involved in both cases decided Thursday, criticized the decisions and promised appeals. But plaintiffs face an uphill battle.

Bruce Kuhlik, Merck’s general counsel, said the company was pleased with the rulings.

“Our faith in the judges and the fairness of the process has been well placed,” he said.

Thursday’s ruling may further discourage lawyers from pursuing lawsuits against drug makers. Already, plaintiffs’ lawyers are nervously awaiting a Supreme Court ruling in a case that will be heard this fall and could bar most lawsuits against companies for injuries said to be caused by prescription medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration.