In a 5-4 decision Thursday written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons.

Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.

Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation.

The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.

The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.

"The bottom line is, we won," NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling.

In Thursday's ruling, the court said the city could not ban assault weapons or pass the law prohibiting straw purchases, in which one person fills out forms and buys a gun for someone else — often convicted felons who can't legally own guns.

In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner asserted the city does have the right to pass its own gun laws, citing the hundreds of residents killed by gun violence every year.

The NRA has also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down strict gun control laws in the Chicago area. The NRA wants the court to rule that last year's decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia also applies to local and state laws. The justices likely won't decide before late September whether to hear the NRA's case.

Travelers had been named in lawsuits alleging that it tried to hide dangerous health effects of asbestos. The company argued that asbestos claims be paid out of a trust created by Johns Manville in the 1980s and approved by a federal bankruptcy judge.

Travelers settled with several groups of plaintiffs with the caveat that federal courts make clear the company would not have to face any new similar lawsuits.

The 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned lower-court approval of the settlement, saying a bankruptcy judge lacks the authority to act so broadly.

The high court overturned that decision.

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.