The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.

The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.

The city refiled the lawsuit in January 2004, saying manufacturers let handguns reach illegal markets at gun shows in which non-licensed people can sell to other private citizens; through private sales in which background checks are not required; by oversupplying markets where gun regulations are lax, and by having poor overall security.

The United States is not a member of the court, but the White House and the State Department said that anyone who has committed atrocities should be held accountable.

"As this process moves forward, we would urge restraint on the part of all parties, including the government of Sudan," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. "Further violence against civilians, Sudanese or foreign interests is to be avoided and won't be tolerated."

Gibbs declined to comment on whether President Barack Obama supported the issuance of the warrant, but the State Department said the indictment could help bring peace to the region.

"This can be a helpful step," State Department deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid said. "We will see how it proceeds from here."

Duguid urged all sides to cooperate with the court's decision and added that the United States, which has an embassy but not an ambassador in Khartoum, would review diplomatic contacts with Bashir in light of the ICC arrest warrant, the first issued against a sitting head of state.

"Because we take the court's actions very seriously, any official contacts with President Bashir would have to be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis, very mindful of the indictment," Duguid said, noting that the United States believes "it is evident that the government of Sudan has the brunt of the responsibility for what has happened in Darfur."

Court documents seen on Tuesday said the trustee, New York lawyer Irving Picard, had made the request with the consent of other civil and criminal investigators as part of efforts to recover assets for Madoff's customers.

Madoff, a once-respected Wall Street trader and investment manager, was arrested and charged with fraud on December 11 after authorities said he confessed to running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme over many years. He is the only person charged in the purported scheme, in which early investors are paid with the money of new clients.

The document filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan said Picard was seeking control of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and Primex Holdings LLC "and any membership or ownership interest therein." Primex was a digital trading firm that operated out of Madoff's New York headquarters in what is known as the "Lipstick Building."

The trustee said he wanted Madoff to voluntarily hand over "all of his rights, title and interests" to the firms, property and other assets he listed.

The filing comes after a U.S. judge on Monday partially lifted a freeze on assets of Madoff and his wife Ruth Madoff so he can cooperate with Picard. On Monday, lawyers for Ruth Madoff asserted that her $7 million Manhattan apartment and $62 million in accounts were unrelated to the purported fraud.

The emerald is one of the largest ever found and a judge conceded Tuesday it will take awhile to sort out all of the competing interests. The lawyer for one of the purported owners suggested outside court the gem may be a curse for his client. And the man who first reported it stolen said he was giving up his claims because "I have been threatened."

Larry Biegler, who refused to elaborate on the threats, told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John A. Kronstadt he was bowing out of the case. But it was his call to sheriff's deputies reporting that the emerald had been stolen that led to a multi-state caper in which two deputies trucked the mammoth object from Las Vegas.

Another of the claimants, Todd Armstrong of Eagle, Idaho, said outside court that he moved the emerald to Las Vegas after a gem dealer gave it to him as collateral for a shipment of diamonds he paid for but never received. He was trying to sell it when the law arrived.

The parties told the judge that the huge object is worth about $400 million. Lawyers said that museums including the Smithsonian and the Getty have expressed interest in obtaining it for their collections. Its value is as an art object and it can't be broken down to make jewelry, they said.

The emerald was dug up in Brazil in 2001 and became known as the Bahia Emerald. Its first owner was a Brazilian gem trader who made the first sale of it. But after that, its route became muddled. At one point, it wound up in a warehouse in New Orleans that was flooded during Hurricane Katrina.

The justices are expected to issue at least one ruling Tuesday morning, then consider a West Virginia case about when elected judges should step aside from cases that involve their campaign supporters.

At the heart of the dispute is $3 million that coal company executive Don Blankenship spent to help elect a state Supreme Court justice. Later, that justice — Brent Benjamin — sided with the coal company in a multimillion-dollar dispute with another mining firm.

The losing party, Harman Mining Corp., argues that Benjamin's refusal to step aside in the 3-2 decision violated the company's constitutional right to due process.

In an order Monday, the justices ended Marcus Borden's fight against the East Brunswick, N.J., school district's policy that forbids him and other staff members from joining in student-led prayer. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia sided with the district.

The high court declined to weigh in on whether Borden's desire to bow his head silently and "take a knee" with his football players violates the Constitution's prohibition on government endorsement of religion. Borden says such gestures are secular.

The school district says Borden, the East Brunswick coach since 1983, had a long history of leading prayers before he was ordered to stop after complaints from some parents. The district says the issue is whether its policy is constitutional, not Borden's actions.

Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school district.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia agreed that the school district policy is constitutional, but the judges differed on what exactly the coach should do if his team prays.

The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member for prayers before sports events.

The justices offer no comment on their action Monday, rejecting appeals in three separate cases, in favor of Dow Chemical, Monsanto and other companies that made Agent Orange and other herbicides used by the military in Vietnam.

Agent Orange has been linked to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and American veterans.

The American plaintiffs blame their cancer on exposure to Agent Orange during the military service in Vietnam. The Vietnamese said the U.S.' sustained program to prevent the enemy from using vegetation for cover and sustenance caused miscarriages, birth defects, breast cancer, ovarian tumors, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease and prostate tumors.

All three cases had been dismissed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The appeals court said that lawsuit brought by the Vietnamese plaintiffs could not go forward because Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.

The other two suits were filed by U.S. veterans who got sick too late to claim a piece of the $180 million settlement with makers of the chemical in 1984. In 2006, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on whether those lawsuits could proceed.