"Today's ruling of the European Court of Justice is good news for the internal market and the free movement of capital," Commission spokesman Oliver Drewes told a briefing in Brussels.

The law's demise could also end decades of cosy ties between management and labor at VW in a system called co-determination that gives workers a major say in how the company is run.

The court ruled as expected that the Volkswagen Law broke EU rules because it capped voting rights at 20 percent and let VW's home state of Lower Saxony veto strategic decisions with just 20 percent of the votes.

Porsche welcomed the ruling that lets the maker of 911 sports cars exercise all of its VW voting rights via its nearly 31 percent stake in Volkswagen ordinary shares.

Porsche has said it has secured enough options to let it "significantly" raise its holding in VW but has declined to say whether this meant it could already gain majority control.

Medina's niece and nephew have pleaded not guilty to helping Medina set up sham companies to help funnel casino revenue into Medina's personal holdings.

Colma's former mayor was sentenced to 18 months in prison in July after pleading guilty to accepting airline tickets from Medina while the casino had business pending before him.

Continuing its global merger march, Reed Smith LLP is uniting with a large Chinese firm to gain entree to legal work in that country's growing legal market. Reed Smith, which has about 150 attorneys in the Bay Area, merged with Richards Butler Hong Kong. The 110 attorneys in Hong Kong specialize in corporate transactions and litigation. The deal marks Reed Smith's entry into Asia and instantly makes the firm one of the five largest law firms in China. Reed Smith said it will apply to the Chinese government to open an office in Shanghai as well.

With this combination, Reed Smith will have more than 1,500 lawyers worldwide and it expects revenue in 2007 just shy of $1 billion.

"This merger gives us a leading presence in Hong Kong, an entree into mainland China and the ability to provide the high quality services our clients need," said Greg Jordan, firmwide managing partner at Reed Smith.

The Hong Kong merger is the third significant union executed by Reed Smith in the past 12 months. Last January, Reed Smith merged with Richard Butler London, which operated as a separate business entity from its Hong Kong counterpart. Three months later, Reed Smith merged with Chicago law firm Sachnoff & Weaver Ltd.

Including the Hong Kong merger, Reed Smith will have added 500 lawyers in the past year.

Reed Smith pushed into California in 2003 by its merger with Crosby Heafey Roach & May, the largest Oakland-based law firm.

California wants to implement a 2002 state law that would require automakers to begin making vehicles that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009. It would cut emissions by about a quarter by the year 2030. But the law can take effect only if the EPA grants the state a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

"Unfortunately, the Bush administration has really had their head in the sand," Attorney General Jerry Brown said. "In this case, there has been an unreasonable delay."

The EPA held hearings this summer on California's waiver request, and administrator Steven Johnson told Congress he would make a decision by the end of the year. The schedule has not changed, EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said Monday.

The agency is also crafting national standards that it will propose by the end of the year, Wood said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in April warned the EPA he would sue if the agency failed to act on the waiver within six months. That deadline is Tuesday.

"We feel like it's a reasonable request," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said. "They've delayed for a long time, and it's time to take action."

Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Washington also plan to join California's lawsuit against the EPA, officials in those states said.

While the federal government sets national air pollution rules, California has unique status under the Clean Air Act to enact its own regulations — with permission from the EPA. Other states can then follow either the federal rules or California standards, if they are tougher.

Eleven other states — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — are ready to implement California's emissions standards if it gets the waiver. The governors of Arizona, Florida and New Mexico have said their states will adopt the standard.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Honda, Nissan, Toyota and 11 other foreign car companies, has sued to block the standards from taking effect.

It argues that the tougher standards would raise the cost of cars and could force manufacturers to pull some sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks from showrooms. Their case is pending in federal court in Fresno.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has asked the EPA to deny the waiver, arguing there should be one federal standard for tailpipe emissions.

Gary Medrano, of Woodbridge, Va., filed the lawsuit on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, saying his 2000 Ford F-150 XLT caught fire in October 2006 because of problems with the cruise control switch. The suit seeks class-action certification.

The 10-count complaint does not seek a specific amount of damages, but is asking for both compensatory and punitive damages.

The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker has recalled more than 10 million vehicles since 1999 because of engine fires linked to the cruise control systems in trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the company was reviewing the lawsuit, but could not comment on the case. A message seeking comment was left Friday with St. Louis attorney Jeffrey J. Lowe, who is representing Medrano.

Medrano said the fire in his pickup truck was extinguished by the fire department, but the vehicle and its contents were left completely unsalvageable.

The lawsuit said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported at least 218 similar fires from the cruise control deactivation switches. By June 2005, NHTSA had confirmed at least 65 fires were caused by the failure of the switch system.

Recent decisions by judges and elected officials have made clear that most executions will not proceed until the Supreme Court rules in a challenge by two death row inmates to the lethal injection procedures used by Kentucky. The inmates say Kentucky's method creates the risk of pain severe enough to be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Eighth Amendment.

Similar procedures are used by Texas, the far-and-away leader in lethal injections, and the 16 other states that have executed prisoners in the past two years.

It is clear the high court will not go so far as to outlaw the use of lethal injections. That issue is not even before the court in the Kentucky case.

Rather, the justices could decide whether Kentucky's procedures violate the Constitution and what standard the courts should use to evaluate the risk a prisoner will feel pain as he is put to death.

No matter how the court rules, it appears there will be few, if any, prisoners executed before the court rules, probably by late June.

"We're probably looking at delaying executions, not preventing them," said Ronald Tabak, a New York-based lawyer with the Skadden Arps firm who has represented death row inmates.

Tabak said states with the death penalty now have a chance to review capital punishment procedures. The American Bar Association has for the past 10 years called for such a freeze and review.

"The ABA's position is unless you have fair practices, executions should not resume," said Tabak, who has worked with the lawyers' organization on this issue.

But Douglas Berman, a sentencing expert at the Ohio State University law school, said the possibility exists for more dramatic action.

"The abolitionists will say if we have no executions for six months to a year, and the universe is not imploding and murder rates are not going through the roof ... it becomes easier to say, 'Why do we even need the death penalty, let's just get rid of it,'" Berman said.

"Texas and other high-execution states aren't going to get there anytime soon, but the argument against capital punishment gets even more force in those states squeamish about the death penalty in the first instance," Berman said.

Questions about the administration of lethal injections are only part of the equation.

Death-penalty opponents also have pointed to doubts about the competence of some court-appointed defense lawyers and the rise in the number of exonerations through DNA evidence of people already convicted of crimes.

Polling has shown that the public increasingly believes that life in prison without parole will keep the worst offenders off the streets. A recent Associated Presss-Ipsos poll that asked what method of punishment people prefer for murderers found only a slight preference for the death penalty over life in prison — 52 percent to 46 percent.

"There is a deeper societal appreciation for life without the possibility of parole. Ten to 15 years ago, no one thought they meant it," Berman said.

At the same time, there have been several studies, challenged by the anti-death penalty camp, that have shown a deterrent effect in the use of capital punishment. Also, public support for executions remains high. More than two-thirds of those polled favor the death penalty for murderers when the question does not include other possible punishments.

Then there is the example of the last time the country went without executions for an extended period. There were no executions from June 1967 to January 1977.

The Supreme Court in 1972 struck down 40 state death penalty laws, but did not ban capital punishment as cruel and unusual.

Some justices at the time thought their decision in Furman v. Georgia would bring an end to the death penalty.

By 1976, though, in the midst of a "law-and-order" backlash to the court's decisions in favor of the rights of criminal defendants, elected officials in 35 states had adopted laws to comply with the death penalty ruling.

A more conservative court upheld some of those laws, and a half-year later executions resumed.