In the Oregon case, Mayola Williams, widow of Jesse Williams, a Portland janitor who died of lung cancer in 1996, sued Philip Morris, maker of Marlboros, the brand of cigarette her husband had smoked for 45 years. The jury awarded Williams $821,000, then added a $79.5 million punitive award. Philip Morris, which is now owned by Altria Group, had denied that its cigarettes were addictive, and lawyers for Williams' estate had told jurors to consider the damage done to other smokers in Oregon in their verdict.

In Tuesday's ruling, the justices countered that the Oregon court should not have allowed consideration of any harm done to smokers, except Williams.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said the Constitution bars courts from using punitive awards to penalize companies for injuries they inflict upon others who are "essentially, strangers to the litigation."

Robert S. Peck, the Washington lawyer who represented Mayola Williams, told the Washington Post that the Supreme Court decision "slays a dragon that didn't exist," and predicted that further litigation in Oregon would "reaffirm" the jury's punitive verdict. Peck noted that contrary to the justices finding, the jury had based the award on Philip Morris' profitability and not on the number of victims harmed by smoking.

Exactly how the jury reached the award amount remains unclear and that uncertainty was a key factor in the decision of the high court to overturn the punitive award and send the case back to Oregon for further litigation.

Despite the court's refusal to use the case to set a firm limit on how much can be awarded in punitive damages, as some in the business community had hoped, Tuesdays ruling is being viewed as not only a victory for Philip Morris, but for corporations weary of what they view as run-away punitive awards in state courts.

The New York Times reports that in a note to investors, Christopher R. Growe, an analyst at A. G. Edwards and Sons hailed the ruling as "a positive," that "effectively limits the size of punitive damages in future cases."

Roberts and Bryan were joined in the majority opinion by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Samuel A. Alito. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Writing for the minority, Stevens said he had no doubt that earlier Supreme Court decisions limiting punitive awards were correct, but said the Oregon case was different because that state's supreme court had "faithfully applied the reasoning in those opinions to the egregious facts disclosed by this record...no procedural error even arguably justifying reversal occurred at the trial in this case."

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled Tuesday that provisions in the Military Commissions Act stripping foreign nationals held as "enemy combatants" of the right to file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions do not violate the Suspension Clause of the US Constitution. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The court also held that Congress was clear in its intent to strip federal courts of habeas jurisdiction even in pending challenges. The DC Circuit vacated the lower court decisions in the cases and dismissed the detainees' petitions for lack of jurisdiction.

President Bush signed the MCA into law last October and shortly thereafter the the US Justice Department sent letters to the DC district and appeals courts, notifying the lower court that it no longer had jurisdiction over some 200 pending cases filed by Guantanamo detainees, and urging the appeals court to reach the merits in the present cases. Tuesday's appeals court ruling is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The Justice Department today announced that on Feb. 20, 2007, it will monitor the special election in Richmond County (Staten Island), N.Y., to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The Department monitors will watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations in the county. A Civil Rights Division attorney will coordinate the federal activities and maintain contact with local election officials.

Each year, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers from the Office of Personnel Management, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country. During calendar year 2004, a record number of 1,463 federal observers and 533 Department personnel were sent to monitor 163 elections in 105 jurisdictions in 29 states. This compares to the 640 federal observers and 103 Department personnel deployed during the entire 2000 presidential calendar year. In 2006, another record was set for the mid-term elections with more than 800 federal observers and Department personnel sent to monitor polling places in 69 jurisdictions in 22 states on Election Day. The Department’s election monitoring program also has been very active in non-federal election years. In calendar year 2005, for example, 640 federal observers and 191 Department personnel were sent to monitor 47 elections in 36 jurisdictions in 14 states.

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.

James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery, N.Y., says he visits chat rooms to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.

In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule and did not surf the Internet any more or any differently than other employees. He also says age discrimination contributed to IBM's actions. Pacenza, 55 at the time, had been with the company for 19 years.

International Business Machines Corp. has asked Judge Stephen Robinson for a summary judgment, saying its policy against surfing sexual Web sites is clear. It also claims Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier; Pacenza denies that.

"Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said.

IBM also said sexual-behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.

If it goes to trial, the case could affect how employers regulate Internet use that is not work-related, or how Internet overuse is categorized medically. Stanford University issued a nationwide study last year that found that up to 14 percent of computer users reported neglecting work, school, families, food and sleep to use the Internet.

Pacenza was making $65,000 a year operating a machine at a plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., that makes computer chips.

Several times during the day, machine operators are idle for five to 10 minutes as the tool measures the thickness of silicon wafers.

It was during such down time on May 28, 2003, that Pacenza logged onto a chat room from his workstation.

Diederich says Pacenza had returned that day from visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington and logged onto a site called ChatAvenue and then to an adult chat room.

Pacenza, who has a wife and two children, said using the Internet at work was encouraged by IBM and served as "a form of self-medication" for post-traumatic stress disorder.

He said he tried to stay away from chat rooms at work, but that day, "I felt I needed the interactive engagement of chat talk to divert my attention from my thoughts of Vietnam and death."

BANGOR (Feb 19): A Native American group comprised of prison inmates is suing Maine State Prison Warden Jeffrey Merrill, among other prison officials, for refusing to permit the group reasonable accommodations to practice its religion.

The group, Sacred Feather, has 27 members and was formed in December 1998. It filed a similar lawsuit against Merrill in May 2003, but the case was dismissed seven months later in December of that year. According to the most recent lawsuit, the 2003 case was dismissed and attorneys for the Maine Department of Corrections and Sacred Feather entered into a settlement agreement, which expired, as stipulated, on Dec. 23, 2005.

Since that time, Sacred Feather alleges it has attempted to retain "religious freedom" and "quality of religious practices" afforded other religious faith inmate groups, to no avail.

One of the things that has not been in keeping with fair treatment, according to Sacred Feather, has been the requirement that smudging ceremonies take place in a location described as a high-traffic area of the prison grounds.

In a smudging ceremony, sacred tobacco and sweet grass are burned in a ceremonial smudge bowl. Then, as group members stand in a circle in prayer, the resulting smoke is blown onto each member's face and body with an eagle feather.

Holding the smudging ceremony between buildings in a heavily traveled part of the prison's outdoor yard results in "many onlookers and derogatory comments made both from passing non-Native American inmates and from prison guards," claims Sacred Feather.

In the court document, Sacred Feather states that its Native American members are entitled to practice their religion with dignity and with accommodations equal to those afforded to Catholic and Protestant groups. Sacred Feather alleges that continues to not be the case at Maine State Prison.

Sacred Feather points to the prison's provision of a chapel where Catholics and Protestants can privately practice their religions and of office space and funds to purchase office supplies and other items needed to practice their religious faith.

"Catholics are provided weekly services, their own priest, inmate clerks and the ability to take Communion every week," states the court document. "Candles are burned during the weekly services, and holidays of special religious significance, like Christmas, Easter and Ash Wednesday, are also fully observed and accommodated at the prison."

Sacred Feather also alleges that accommodations are provided for Protestant Kairos groups in the prison but not for the Native American group. One example cited is the prison's provision of a space for the inmate Protestant group and an outside Protestant group to conduct their Kairos ceremony, for which the prison also provides, without charge, extra guards to monitor the large group.

Sacred Feather alleges that prison officials have failed to provide religious items agreed to when the group first formed in 1998, including a medicine bag, drums, eagle feathers, sweet grass, a sacred pipe, tobacco ties, sage, cedar and a smudge bowl.

Sacred Feather further alleges that prison officials have canceled smudging ceremonies more than 18 times since 2003 and have not provided a shelter for smudging ceremonies held in inclement weather.

"Reasons for the cancellations range from 'No officers are available' or 'We are not feeling like it,'" states Sacred Feather in the court document.

And despite earlier agreeing to continue to communicate about whether it is possible to erect a sweat lodge for sweat lodge ceremonies, prison officials have been reluctant to communicate about resolving the issue, alleges Sacred Feather.

"Prison officials have also denied the plaintiffs powwows, ceremonial foods and ceremonial music," states Sacred Feather in the court document. "Though the defendants plan, prepare and pay for ceremonial foods of Christian religions at major Christian holidays, no such accommodation is made for Native American festivals or holy days."

Sacred Feather is demanding that the court find in its favor in terms of it being entitled to the same level of accommodation and dignity as inmates practicing Christian religions.

Sacred Feather is seeking the right to hold twice-weekly smudging ceremonies and twice-monthly pipe ceremonies, in a location that provides privacy and does not subject the ceremonies to cancellation due to inclement weather. It also seeks permission to construct a sweat lodge, and to hold sweat-lodge ceremonies at least monthly.

Sacred Feather also seeks to have its members be allowed to retain religious items in their prison cells in order to practice their religion daily, as well as entitlement to a proportionate share of the funds provided to other religious groups at the prison.

Along with requiring that Merrill issue a directive to his staff prohibiting any form of retaliation against members of the group, Sacred Feather also asks the court to issue an order permanently prohibiting prison officials from engaging in any of the conduct alleged in the complaint.

In addition to costs and fees associated with filing the lawsuit, Sacred Feather also seeks unspecified damages to compensate for the violation of its constitutional rights, and asks that the court award damages in an amount Sacred Feather would have received for religious purposes dating back to Dec. 16, 1998, equivalent to the amounts received by the other religious prison groups during that same period.