The ferry is in only its second day of commercial voyages between Honolulu, Maui and Kauai. The Superferry was originally scheduled to start sailings on Tuesday, but the company moved the start date to Sunday and issued $5 one-way tickets to launch the service in advance of a legal challenge by environmentalists.

More than 90 percent of the available space was filled as passengers rushed to experience Hawaii's first modern interisland ferry service at bargain basement prices.

A Superferry spokeswoman said today's Maui and Kauai trips were sold out. The 350-foot vessel can carry more than 850 people and 250 vehicles, but the company projects an average load of 400 passengers and 110 vehicles.

The first day of Hawaii Superferry service to the island of Kauai on Sunday was disrupted by hundreds of protesters on surfboards, swimming in the path of the vessel and lining the docks at Nawiliwilil Harbor, in advance of the courtroom battle over environmental issues today. The U.S. Coast Guard intervened after two hours to clear a path for the Superferry to enter the harbor.

On Thursday, the Hawaii Supreme Court decided that the state was wrong to have exempted ferry-related improvements at Maui's Kahului Harbor from the state's environmental review law.

The Supreme Court ruled on an appeal of an earlier decision by Cardoza dismissing a complaint filed against the Hawaii Department of Transportation by three citizens' groups - the Maui Tomorrow Foundation, the Sierra Club and the Kahului Harbor Coalition. Cardoza had ruled the groups did not have standing to bring the complaint.

The Supreme court ruled that they do have standing and in addition ordered an environmental assessment of the harbor improvements.

Isaac Hall, the attorney for the groups, hopes to expand the case to involve the Kauai sailings as well.

In September 2005, Judge Helen Gillmor dismissed the suit brought by the three groups seeking to require the Superferry to prepare a full Environmental Impact Study, EIS.

The groups filed suit after several months of meetings with Superferry head John Garibaldi produced no agreement for an EIS. Other groups, Kauai County and Maui's Mayor and County Council have called for an EIS review as well, but are not parties to the lawsuit.

What the Supreme Court ordered Thursday is not an EIS, but a less extensive environmental assessment. Even that could take six months to a year to complete.

Concerns range from increased traffic on Maui and Kauai, collisions with whales, impact on campsites and the creation of a new, rapid dispersal method for alien species, the Sierra Club says.

Because the court case involves concerns about impacts only at Kahului Harbor, Judge Cardonza's temporary restraining order does not prevent the Superferry from sailing between Honolulu and Kauai.

Plaintiffs in the case had sued the company on behalf of Illinois residents who bought light cigarettes since the introduction of Marlboro Lights in 1971.

The lower court had found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $10.1 billion in damages, but the decision was overturned by the state Supreme Court, which also directed the lower court to dismiss the action last year.

In May this year, however, after the U.S. Supreme Court took up another case against Philip Morris, the circuit court of Madison County asked whether it had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's request to set aside the Illinois Supreme Court's judgment in light of new developments.

But on Wednesday, the state Supreme Court denied the request and directed the lower court to enter an order dismissing the plaintiffs' motion.

Two Illinois Supreme Court justices, however, dissented.

"The court's action today is entirely predictable because it quickly and quietly closes the book on a case that a majority of this court, I am sure, would rather forget," Justice Charles Freeman wrote in his dissent.

In 2003, he became director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University. Washington University sued to keep the samples, and won several federal rulings.

Justice Samuel Alito refused to grant a delay in the federal appeals court decision.

The decision stemmed from a manslaughter case in which a lower court ruled that the results from a blood-alcohol test of a driver were unconstitutional and should be suppressed. The judge ruled that the test results violated the Fourth Amendment protection from "nonconsensual, warrantless and suspicionless searches."

The state appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In a 34-page opinion, justices issued a 4-to-2 decision, vacating the ruling to suppress the evidence and sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Chief Justice Leigh Saufley wrote that the statute itself is constitutional and that the test results are admissible in court if the state demonstrates that the defendant consented to the test or there was probable cause to believe the driver was operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Saufley further wrote that the state's need to obtain information about the intoxication of drivers involved in fatal accidents has to be balanced against the privacy interest of motorists. "We conclude that the state's interest in gathering information to assist in addressing the problem of intoxicated driving outweighs the privacy interest of drivers in the content of their blood," he wrote.

Richard Cormier of Gray was driving a car that was involved in a head-on collision on Route 85 in Raymond on May 11, 2003. An elderly couple from Gray was killed in the accident.

Cormier was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where his blood was drawn. The blood-alcohol content was 0.08 percent, meaning that he was legally intoxicated.

Cormier was later indicted on two counts of manslaughter and other charges, but he moved to suppress the results of the blood test in a court motion.

Justice Paul Fritzsche agreed, ruling that Cormier had not consented to the test and that there was not sufficient probable cause to believe he was operating under the influence.

Fritzsche found the only justification for the blood test was the state law that mandates a test when an accident has resulted in a fatality. He cited a US Supreme Court decision in declaring the test results as inadmissible in court.

Supreme Court Justices Jon Levy and Susan Calkins disagreed with the majority opinion.

"The majority's opinion leads the law into new, uncharted territory in which probable cause, a cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment, plays a secondary, after-the-fact role," Levy wrote.

"Notwithstanding [the statute's] proper and noble purpose, I conclude that to the extent the statute authorizes searches and seizures based on after-acquired probable cause, the statute is unconstitutional."

"It was wrong and I accept full responsibility for this action," Thomas told a news conference. "I will continue to work for the city I love and I have made peace with my God."

Thomas, a councilman for 13 years and a leading voice for the recovery of the city from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, had been expected to be a strong candidate for mayor when the city picks a successor to Ray Nagin in 2010.

Before U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance, Thomas pleaded guilty to bribery and faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. However, he has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in an ongoing investigation into corruption in New Orleans.

"This guilty plea is a body blow to a community that is already reeling under a wave of public corruption," Vance said at the hearing. "If this city is ever to recover, we have to have an end to this kind of venality."

Thomas' troubles are the latest in a city and state, Louisiana, with a history of corruption in politics.

U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat from New Orleans, was indicted in June on corruption charges linked to business deals in Africa.

Investigators found $90,000 in cash in the freezer of his Washington-area home. Jefferson has denied any wrongdoing.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from the New Orleans suburbs, admitted last month to having committed a "very serious sin" after his number was found in the phone records of a woman accused of running a Washington prostitution ring.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn ruled Wednesday that most of the grants were allowed because any downtown property owner was eligible to apply. He noted that the churches used the grants on lighting, parking lots, sanctuaries and landscaping.

But Cohn said some of the money the churches spent on improving large signs and stained glass windows containing religious imagery violated the separation of church and state.

It wasn't clear exactly how much grant money would be disallowed under Cohn's ruling. The judge gave both sides until Aug. 28 to discuss how much of the money won't be paid to the churches.

New Jersey-based American Atheists, which sued the city, said it may appeal.