A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old restrictions on corporate campaign spending, reversing two of its precedents and freeing companies to conduct advertising campaigns that explicitly try to sway voters.

The 5-4 majority, invoking the Constitution's free-speech clause, said the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. The ruling went well beyond the circumstances in the case before the justices, a dispute over a documentary film attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Companies, which had been barred since 1947 from using general-treasury dollars in support of or in opposition to a candidate, now can spend millions of dollars on their own campaign ads, potentially punishing or rewarding lawmakers for their votes on legislation. Labor unions, though they weren't directly at issue in the case, have been subject to the same restrictions and may also now expand their political spending.

The Supreme Court split along ideological lines Wednesday as it barred a federal judge in San Francisco from broadcasting a high-profile trial involving same-sex marriage.

The court issued an unsigned opinion that said lower courts had not followed proper procedure in approving plans for the broadcast. The trial is to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court cited arguments from proponents of the ban that releasing video of witnesses could subject them to harassment and even physical danger.

The court's liberal bloc -- joined for the first time in an ideological split by Sonia Sotomayor, the new justice -- issued a strong dissent. It said the court's "extraordinary legal relief" was unjustified.

The majority "identifies no real harm" from televising the trial, "let alone irreparable harm to justify its issuance of this stay," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who was joined by Sotomayor and Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts."

The court on Monday blocked U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's plan to stream live video from the trial, which started that day, to five courthouses across the country and to later release the proceedings for broadcast on YouTube. The justices' more complete ruling came at the end of the day Wednesday.

A feisty, yet reflective Gov. Ted Strickland said Monday that his biggest mistake in 2009 was deciding to rely on revenue from racetrack slot machines that were later sidelined by the Ohio Supreme Court.

It was one of the most controversial decisions the Democratic governor had to make in a challenging year that stretched government finances to their limit and left Strickland a little battered heading into a re-election campaign.

Strickland confronted a collapsed economy, high unemployment, sagging poll numbers, and a botched execution he had to call off about two hours after preparations began. Still, the governor told The Associated Press in a year-end interview in his Statehouse office that he will run for re-election against Republican John Kasich.

Strickland rattled off a number of accomplishments, including an overhaul in Ohio's school funding system, changes to the curriculum and an expansion of health coverage.

Ohio's devastated budget led Strickland in June to reverse a long-held antigambling stance to call for slot machines at the state's seven racetracks. But the Ohio Supreme Court later ruled that the plan is subject to a referendum by the voters, squelching any chance the machines could raise revenue in time to help the sagging two-year budget.

blocked construction of a massive gold mine project in northeast Nevada that critics say would harm the environment and ruin a mountain several tribes consider sacred.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of an earlier decision denying a preliminary injunction sought by conservationists and tribal leaders. The groups had sought the injunction to force Barrick Gold Corp. to postpone digging a 2,000-foot-deep open pit at the Cortez Hills mine 250 miles east of Reno.

The 17-page ruling issued Thursday in San Francisco said the U.S. Bureau of Land Management failed to adequately analyze the potential for the mine on Mount Tenabo (tuh-NAH'-boh) to pollute the air with mercury emissions and dry up scarce water resources.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and top Republican legislators blasted Arizona municipalities for going to court to challenge the constitutionality of parts of a budget law, including provisions that deny government services and benefits to illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit filed by the League of Arizona Cites and Towns amounts to siding "with lawbreakers over lawkeepers," said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who championed the provisions targeting illegal immigration.

Pearce appeared with Brewer, Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams at a news conference on Tuesday, one day after the league's lawsuit asked the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn multiple sections of the budget law, which lawmakers passed in August and Brewer signed Sept. 4.

The governor said it was "outrageous and shocking" that the league would challenge the budget law and its immigration provisions "at a time when Arizona is suffering from budget deficits of unprecedented proportions and the state is struggling to meet the basic needs of its citizens."

The illegal immigration section toughened existing prohibitions on providing services or benefits to illegal immigrants. It also makes it a misdemeanor for a state or local government employee to fail to report immigration law violations detected while administering a public benefit or service, and it allows anyone to sue the state or local governments to enforce the prohibitions.

The Senate on Thursday confirmed U.S. District Judge David Hamilton for the Chicago-based federal appeals court, approving a nominee targeted by conservatives as a liberal activist.

Hamilton was approved on a 59-39 vote and became the eighth of President Barack Obama's judicial nominees to win confirmation. He is the third confirmed for a U.S. appeals court, which is usually the last stop for federal court cases.

Republican senators — backed by their conservative allies outside Congress — had blocked a vote for five months until Democrats overcame a filibuster last Tuesday with a 70-29 vote.

The failure to stop the confirmation showed that Republicans lack the clout to block Obama's judicial nominees as the president remakes the federal judiciary following eight years of George W. Bush's mostly conservative choices for the bench.

Obama has been much slower than Bush in sending the Senate nominees to fill court vacancies. However, administration officials have said they are concentrating on the number of Senate confirmations. And they expect that number to soon equal the court confirmations in Bush's first year.

Republicans attacked Hamilton's rulings and his work in the distant past for two liberal organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union in Indiana; and as a fundraiser over two months for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, the troubled group that is under fire from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Democrats on Tuesday crushed a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, demonstrating to Republicans they can't stop President Barack Obama from turning the federal judiciary to the left.

The 70-29 vote limited debate over the qualifications of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, and assured his elevation to the Chicago-based appeals court. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but confirmation only requires a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

Ten Republicans repudiated their own party leaders and voted to limit debate. The Obama administration made a crucial decision from the outset by getting the support of Hamilton's home-state Republican senator, Richard Lugar.

The vote emphatically warned Republicans that with only 40 senators, they're too outnumbered to prevent Obama from making major inroads into a judiciary that was populated over eight years with conservative judges chosen by President George W. Bush.

Republicans have objected to holding a vote on Hamilton's confirmation since June, when the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination favorably to the full Senate.

Conservative Republican senators and their judicial-watching outside groups then launched a major political assault on Hamilton.

They criticized his rulings against Christian prayers in the Indiana legislature and against a menorah in the Indiana Municipal Building's holiday display.