The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes.

The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority, against an Alaska man who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.

William Osborne won a federal appeals court ruling granting him access to a blue condom that was used during the attack. Osborne argued that testing its contents would firmly establish his innocence or guilt.

In parole proceedings, however, Osborne has admitted his guilt in a separate bid for release from prison.

The high court reversed the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. States already are dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

Last month, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned his 1988 convictions and double life sentence in the murders of a Florida couple in 1983 in what prosecutors described as a drug deal gone bad. The court wrote that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Such reversals, in which no new evidence is presented, are considered extremely rare.

Kamienski, 61, was released from South Woods State Prison on Tuesday afternoon. Standing across the street from the prison, he spoke softly and fought to hold back his emotions. He expressed thanks for the friends who stood by him during the lengthy appeal process and said he would take time to let it all sink in.

"It's hard to put into words how I feel," the lanky Kamienski said. "I'm just going to try and get my life back together, do some thinking, do some unwinding."

Prosecutors contended Kamienski helped two friends dispose of the bodies of Barbara and Henry DeTournay after one of the friends, Joseph Marzeno, shot the couple during a 1983 robbery involving $150,000 worth of cocaine. Their bodies were dumped in New Jersey's Barnegat Bay and discovered several days later.

Marzeno, Kamienski and a third man were convicted of the murders, but the trial judge later threw out Kamienski's conviction for a lack of evidence. A state appeals court reinstated the conviction, however, and New Jersey's Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Enter Timothy McInnis, a lawyer who heard about Kamienski's case at a holiday party in New York in the late 1990s and decided to take it on.

A statewide court rule letting judges regulate the appearance of witnesses — such as asking them to remove face coverings — was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.

Justices heard last month from a Muslim woman who sued because her small claims case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil.

Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnnah Muhammad he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. The 45-year-old from Detroit kept her niqab on during the 2006 hearing.

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that women wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not their husband or close relative.

After Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association got behind a court rule giving judges "reasonable" control over the appearance of parties and witnesses to observe their demeanor and ensure they can be accurately identified.

The two justices who voted against the rule Wednesday said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.

Muhammad originally went to court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

The Detroit area is home to one of the country's largest Muslim populations. Legal observers have said the veil flap is a cutting-edge issue that will arise elsewhere in the United States.

The court's 4-3 ruling — the first such decision by Georgia's top appellate court — found that Expedia must collect hotel occupancy taxes from its customers and pay them to the city of Columbus.

An attorney representing Columbus said the ruling doesn't say whether Expedia owes back taxes, and said that issue may be decided by a lower court.

While the Georgia court's ruling doesn't apply to cases in other states, city attorneys say it could bring fresh momentum to dozens of other lawsuits around the country brought by frustrated officials who say the online travel scheme is depriving them of tax dollars.

"Decisions like this are persuasive if nothing else," said Wade Tomlinson, who represented the city of Columbus in the lawsuit. "Other courts will look at it, consider it and apply it."

Many similar complaints have been dismissed by federal or state judges, but attorneys say several are still pending, including lawsuits filed by officials or customers in Atlanta, Baltimore, San Antonio and a federal class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Georgia cities. Similar complaints have also been filed in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Anaheim, Calif.

The lawsuits hinge on the complicated pricing schemes used by Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity and other online travel sites.

When consumers make reservations at the sites, they pay more for a room than the online outfits pay the hotels for the room, allowing the online companies to pocket the difference.

The ruling came after a contentious hearing that ultimately spilled into a courthouse hallway, where the former manager, Mike Gilbert, and a lawyer for Fred Goldman exchanged heated accusations.

Goldman — the father of Ronald Goldman, who was slain alongside Simpson's ex-wife 15 years ago — is seeking to satisfy a $33.5 million civil judgment against Simpson by selling the suit the Hall of Famer wore to court when he was acquitted on murder charges.

Gilbert said Simpson gave him the suit the day after his Oct. 3, 1995, acquittal. He claims it is his property because Simpson had not yet been found civilly liable for Ronald Goldman's and Nicole Brown Simpson's deaths.

Gilbert told Fred Goldman's lawyer, David Cook, that Goldman previously said his pursuit of Simpson was not about money.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Obama's judicial nominees, including Sotomayor and three others to the U.S. Court of Appeals, raise questions about what role a judge's background should play in deciding cases.

"I'm troubled, I have to say, by President Obama's philosophy of judging," Sessions, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, told USA TODAY and Gannett Washington Bureau reporters. "When he talks about wanting a judge to show empathy, that's very troubling to me."

Sessions, a former prosecutor, said he does not expect Republicans to filibuster Sotomayor's nomination, but he said she is the latest in a pattern of Obama nominees he has found troublesome.

"She seems to be willing to accept that a judge's rulings may be influenced by the judge's personal backgrounds or feelings, which is sort of what President Obama has said," Sessions said.

Hearings for Sotomayor's nomination are scheduled to begin July 13.

Sessions singled out three other nominations: David Hamilton of Indiana for the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Andre Davis of Maryland for the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; and Gerard Lynch of New York for the New York City-based 2nd Circuit.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman, who has studied judicial appointments, said it is difficult to generalize about any Obama pattern with so few nominations.

"The differences struck me more than any similarities," Hellman said of the nominees. "Lynch is a straight-down-the-middle former prosecutor. With Hamilton, you have someone who happens to have two high-profile cases in two of the most contested areas of the law, abortion and prayer."

Sessions focused on two Hamilton rulings. In one, Hamilton invalidated an Indiana law requiring women seeking abortions to obtain information about the procedure's risks. In the other, Hamilton forbade references to Jesus Christ in opening prayers at the Indiana Legislature. Both decisions were reversed.