The court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld a law aimed at cracking down on the flourishing online exchange of illicit images of children.

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, said Justice Antonin Scalia's narrow reading of the law in his majority opinion should result in "considerably less damage than it might otherwise have done." But Bertin said aggressive prosecutors still could try to punish people for innocent activity and put them "through a terrible ordeal."

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child pornography. It replaced an earlier law the court had struck down as unconstitutional.

The new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography.

Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex or the marketing of other material that may not be pornography.

Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law takes a reasonable approach to the issue by applying it to situations where the purveyor of the material believes or wants a listener to believe that he has actual child pornography.

First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography," Scalia said.

Likewise, he said, the law does not cover "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies."

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, he said.

"I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law's criminalization of pandering proposals," Souter said.

Scalia said the law would not apply to a situation in which both sender and recipient were talking about virtual images, not real pictures.

Jay Sekulow, a conservative public interest lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of members of Congress in favor of the law, said the decision reflects the importance of trying to cut down on child pornography on the Internet.

"The court understood, perhaps for the first time, how difficult and troubling the proliferation of online pornography is," said Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Authorities say 40-year-old Michael Arthur Howell (HOW'-el) of Indian Trail is charged with first-degree murder in the death of 44-year-old Sallie Rohrbach (RAW'-bak). Howell's initial court appearance will be held Monday afternoon in Superior Court in Charlotte.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police continue to look for Rohrbach's body.

Ronhrbach is a Department of Insurance investigator who traveled to Charlotte early last week to audit Howell's Dilworth Insurance Agency. When family and co-workers didn't hear from her by Friday, they called police.

Authorities say Rohrbach's slaying was connected to her duties as an auditor, and that evidence was found in both her car and Howell's vehicle.

Aziz, 72, is the former deputy prime minister and one of Saddam Hussein's best-known lieutenants. He walked into the court Tuesday using a cane.

The other defendants include Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Chemical Ali. He already was sentenced to death in another case.

They are facing charges stemming from the 1992 executions of 42 merchants accused by Saddam's government of profiteering when the country was under strict U.N. sanctions. They face the death penalty if convicted.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that "the most natural reading" of federal law goes against Ressam. Stevens said it is undisputed that Ressam was carrying explosives when he falsely identified himself on a U.S. customs form as a Canadian citizen named Noris. Ressam is Algerian. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the court's interpretation is too broad. Breyer said such a holding would permit conviction of anyone on an explosives charge, even if they were carrying explosives legally while engaging in a totally unrelated crime.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had set aside Ressam's conviction on the explosives count. The appeals court said the law required proof that the explosives were carried "in relation to" the underlying crime of filing a false form. Prosecutors established no such relationship, the appeals court said.

In a 7-2 ruling in a case from Kentucky, the justices permitted states to exempt interest on their own bonds from taxation while taxing residents for interest on bonds issued by other states.

In the $2.5 trillion municipal bond market, 42 states exempt some or all interest on their bonds from income taxes, while taxing interest on bonds from other states.

The states have said that throwing out the system of exemptions that began 90 years ago would have a devastating impact on state finances.

Industry groups warned of possible turmoil in the municipal bond market if the existing setup were dismantled.

In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter said that the state tax exemptions go back to 1919 and have not hindered commerce among the states.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the majority decision "invites other protectionist laws."

Souter responded that that the dissent "rightly praises the virtues of the free market." But Souter said that overturning the tax exemptions now would upset the market in bonds based on the experience of nearly a century.

Monday's 6-3 decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, deals with provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The law makes defendants eligible for longer prison terms if they have three prior criminal convictions for crimes that are either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

A jury convicted Gino Gonzaga Rodriquez of possessing a gun as a convicted felon. Prosecutors said his five prior convictions — two for burglary in California and three for drug trafficking in Washington — should have led to a 15-year prison sentence.

But a federal judge imposed a sentence of 92 months and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed.

At issue was what makes a crime a serious drug offense. Judges sometimes look at the length of the sentence prescribed by state law.

In this case, the question was whether the additional time that state law imposed because someone is a repeat offender can be used to trigger the still harsher penalties under the federal sentencing law. The Supreme Court concluded it can.

Justice David Souter, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, dissented. Souter said the court's ruling would make life more complicated for trial courts trying to calculate prison sentences.

The family of Steven Domalewski, who was 12 when he was struck by the ball in 2006, filed the lawsuit in state Superior Court. It names Hillerich & Bradsby Co., maker of the 31-inch, 19-ounce Louisville Slugger TPX Platinum bat used when Steven was hit.

The lawsuit also names Little League Baseball and Sports Authority, which sold the bat. It claims the defendants knew, or should have known, that the bat was dangerous for children to use, according to the family's attorney, Ernest Fronzuto.

"People who have children in youth sports are excited about the lawsuit from a public policy standpoint because they hope it can make the sport safer," Fronzuto said after filing the suit Monday morning. "There are also those who are skeptical of the lawsuit and don't see the connection between Steven's injury and the aluminum bat."

Little League denies any wrongdoing, as does the bat manufacturer. Sports Authority has not responded to several telephone messages seeking comment.

Steven was pitching in a Police Athletic League game when he was hit just above the heart by a line drive. His heart stopped beating and his brain was deprived of oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes, according to his doctors.

Although he was not playing in a Little League game, the organization is being sued because it gave its seal of approval to the bat, certifying it as safe for use by children, Fronzuto said.