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.

A second charge of interference with privacy against the 62-year-old senator was dismissed. Mr. Craig was fined more than $500 at the Aug. 8 proceedings and was placed on unsupervised probation for one year. His 10-day jail sentence was suspended, according to a copy of a court document in the case.

According to a police report obtained by Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper that disclosed the episode and guilty plea today, a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of sexual activity in the bathroom arrested the senator on June 11 after what the officer described as sexual advances made by Mr. Craig from an adjoining stall.

Roll Call reported that the officer said Mr. Craig tapped his foot as a signal to engage in lewd conduct, brushed his foot against the investigator's and waved his hand under the stall divider several times before the officer showed him his badge. After his arrest, the senator denied any sexual intent and in a statement issued this afternoon he attributed the matter to a misunderstanding.

"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions," Mr. Craig said in a statement. "I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

"I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

Mr. Craig, whose seat is up for election next year, is the second Republican senator in recent weeks to find his personal behavior under scrutiny. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was implicated in a separate case in the Washington area when his phone number turned up in the records of an escort service. He made a public apology for what he described as "a very serious sin in my past," but he has not been charged with any crime.

In the Senate, Mr. Craig, who is married and has three children, is known for his advocacy for the rights of gun owners and has a close association with the National Rifle Association. When Republicans controlled the Senate in the last Congress, Mr. Craig was chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. He is a former member of the party's Senate leadership. He represented Idaho in the House before first winning election to an open Senate seat in 1990 and he was easily re-elected in 1996 and 2002.

In 2006, Mr. Craig publicly rejected allegations by a gay rights advocate that he had engaged in a homosexual behavior, calling them "completely ridiculous."

"Counterbalancing any cognizable interest that public employees may have in avoiding disclosure of their salaries is the strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority opinion signed by three other justices. Another three justices each wrote separate opinions essentially agreeing with the majority take, with Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin arguing that police officers' salaries should be exempt from public disclosure.

The ruling Monday was the result of a Contra Costa Times' lawsuit against Oakland and it also should settle an almost identical lawsuit filed by the San Jose Mercury News demanding the names and salaries of every San Jose city worker who earned more than $100,000 annually.

"I think this sets the rule for the state," said media attorney Karl Olson, who represented the Times. "These are landmark cases that serve the public's right to know."

Some of the largest newspapers companies serving California, including the owners of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, New York Times and the Orange County Register filed friends of the court briefs in support of the Times.

Duane Reno, who represented the Oakland police officers argued that publicizing the salaries would open the employees to unwanted sales calls.

"Unfortunately the Supreme Court didn't feel that was a big enough invasion of privacy," Reno said.

The court also ruled in a separate 5-2 opinion that police officers' names, hiring and termination dates compiled in a massive state Department of Justice computer database also are fair game.

"It should have been a no brainer," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "We are discovering that police departments across the country are increasingly withholding this kind of information."

The Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit joined the Los Angeles Times in its legal action against the California DOJ, which refused to turn over a decade's worth of police officer information to the newspaper. Several other news organizations, including The Associated Press, also filed court papers in support of the Times' case.

The newspaper said it planned to use the information to track the movements of police officers from one department to the other while also examining staffing levels.

Cullen challenged his conviction on the grounds that the act does not apply to captive-bred birds and that its failure to specifically define the term "personal pet" rendered it unconstitutionally vague.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those arguments in United States v. Cullen, 06-0607-cr.

Judges Richard Cardamone and Chester Straub, along with Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl, sitting by designation, decided the appeal.

Writing for the court, Cardamone noted that judges frequently describe odd legal provisions or ingenious arguments as a "rare bird."

"We have before us as the subject matter literally a rara avis in terris or a rare bird of the earth," he wrote.

The court described Cullen as "an internationally known professional falconer." He was hired at one time by the City of New York to help restore bald eagles to Inwood Hill Park. Cullen once claimed to own one of the largest collections of birds of prey in the country. At the time of his trial, he maintained 47 birds of prey in Goshen.

But Cardamone added that Cullen "also has a history of questionable activity involving exotic birds."

According to the court, Cullen wanted to add the black sparrowhawk to his collection, but he did not meet the criteria for any of the four exceptions to the Act's importation ban: he had not been away from the United States for more than a year, so he did not come within the personal pet exception; he was not conducting scientific research; he was not involved in zoological breeding or display programs; and he was not engaged in cooperative breeding programs.

The government alleged Cullen used an American couple living in London, Joseph and Kristen Kulak, as a front for the importation in 1999 of three black sparrowhawks said to be the couple's personal pets.

One of the birds died in transit, and a Wildlife Service inspector at JFK Airport refused to believe Cullen's claim that he was just picking up the remaining birds for the Kulaks. The officer quarantined the birds pending an investigation.

A second bird died while in quarantine. The lone remaining bird was turned over to Cullen in 2000 with the understanding that he would return it to the Kulaks.

Instead, Cullen made a breeding arrangement with the owner of the only other black sparrowhawk in North America. That failed and the bird was returned to Cullen.

Kulak testified against Cullen, pursuant to a nonprosecution agreement, at a jury trial in 2005 before Southern District Judge Colleen McMahon. Cullen was convicted of knowingly importing exotic birds and making false statements about his activities. However, he was acquitted of illegally importing saker falcons.

WILD VERSUS CAPTIVE

At the 2nd Circuit, Cardamone addressed first Cullen's contention that Congress passed the Wild Bird Conservation Act because it was concerned about protecting birds in the wild -- not captive-bred birds.

"Yet, nothing in the language of the statute itself supports Cullen's assertion," Cardamone said. "Quite the contrary -- the statute provides that any exotic bird listed ... is covered, with no limiting language as to where or how an exotic bird is bred."

The judge added that a "Wild Bird Act provision mandating the Secretary of the Interior to exempt selected captive-bred species from the act's prohibitions on importation ... conclusively demonstrates that Congress aimed to have all other captive-bred species, like the Black Sparrowhawk, covered under the act. Otherwise, this exemption would be meaningless."

Cullen's complaint about the vagueness of the personal pet exception required the court to employ the requirement that a law must give "fair warning" to the accused of exactly what activity it prohibited.

"Although we recognize in many English words there lurk uncertainties ... to meet the fair warning prong an ounce of common sense is worth more than an 800-page dictionary," Cardamone wrote. Here, he said, the words personal and pet are "comprehensible to an ordinary person."

"The common meanings of these words, coupled with the Wild Bird Act's explicit provisions as to who qualifies for the personal pet exception, gave adequate notice to defendant that the activities he was planning did not fit within the pet exception," Cardamone said.

Peter Ginsberg of Crowell & Moring in New York represented Cullen.

"We're obviously disappointed in the circuit's opinion," Ginsberg said. "Tom has dedicated his life to protecting and expanding the bird population and if he made a technical mistake in how he obtained some birds -- and it's clear the jury did think he made mistakes -- it was certainly not out of malice or the desire to break the law."

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jesse Furman, Stephen Ritchen and John Hillebrecht represented the government.

Yahoo yesterday asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the Internet giant of abetting torture and abuse of pro-democracy writers in China.

Yahoo acknowledged releasing personal user information about the writers to the Chinese government, but said it had to comply with the country's lawful request and therefore cannot be held liable. Its 40-page response was filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for Northern California.

Advocacy groups view the suit as an important test case because it asks U.S. courts to punish corporations for human rights violations abroad. Internet companies such as Yahoo entering the booming Chinese market have had to alter user policies or allow censorship in order to comply with the country's laws.

The lawsuit was filed this spring by The World Organization for Human Rights USA on behalf of the imprisoned writers.

Two Chinese writers who used Yahoo's e-mail service to distribute their work are serving 10-year prison sentences. Shi Tao, a reporter and editor at Contemporary Business News in China, was arrested in November 2004 for publishing a document that the Chinese government considered a state secret and pleaded guilty. Wang Xiaoning, an author and editor of pro-democracy publications, was arrested in September 2002 and convicted for "incitement to subvert state power." Both are believed to have been abused and tortured while in custody, according to the lawsuit.

In its response, Yahoo argued that it did not "willfully" provide information about the online activities of the writers.

"Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws," the company said in its filing. Chinese law requires anyone who receives a request for information as part of an investigation to comply and prohibits challenging such a request in the Chinese courts, Yahoo said in its filing.

Morton Sklar, the human rights organization's executive director, questioned whether the Chinese government's request for information was lawful. "But even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but U.S. law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad," Sklar said in a statement.

Yahoo spokeswoman Kelley Benander said in a statement that the company supported freedom of expression around the world and would continue to work with human rights organizations "on a global framework for technology companies operating in countries that restrict free expression and privacy."

"The real issue here is the plaintiffs' outrage at the behavior and laws of the Chinese government," she said. "The U.S. court system is not the forum for addressing these political concerns."