All the extra money helped to push consumer spending up by the largest amount in six months, but economists warned the boost would likely prove short-lived given all the other problems facing consumers at present.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that after-tax disposable incomes jumped by 5.7 percent in May, the biggest one-month gain since a 6.3 percent increase in May 1975 when Ford was president. He was fighting a recession that year with a program to mail individual taxpayers $50 checks.

This time around individual payments range from $300 to $600 with couples getting up to $1,200. In all, $48.1 billion in rebate payments were made in May and through this week, the government announced Friday, payments total $78.3 billion — three-fourths of the $106.7 billion scheduled to be paid to 130 million households. The payments are to be completed by mid-July.

"If I was anybody else, I wouldn't be going to court," Simpson told a reporter for Fargo, N.D., radio station KFGO who interviewed him late Tuesday at a Fargo cigar bar. Simpson was vacationing in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.

"How many trials have you ever heard of where both of the victims say they don't want this guy to go to jail, they don't want to go to court, and you still go to court?" Simpson asked. "It's only me.

"But unfortunately for me," Simpson said, "I got like a bull's eye on my front, dollar sign on my back, you get involved with people who want to be governor and stuff."

Clark County District Attorney David Roger declined comment.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, said Thursday that Simpson was venting his frustration about facing trial Sept. 8 in Las Vegas on charges carrying the possibility of prison time.

"I think O.J.'s comments show how totally frustrated he is over this incident that involves family heirlooms that were stolen from him by some very nefarious characters," Galanter said.

Galanter also downplayed Simpson's comments about the prosecutor, saying that he had the "utmost respect" for Roger and another prosecutor in the case, Chris Owens.

"I have no reason to believe their motives in this case have been anything less than ethical and honorable," Galanter said.

Simpson and two co-defendants, Ehrlich and Clarence "C.J." Stewart, have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon charges stemming from allegations they robbed two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room last September. Simpson has denied any guns were involved.

A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole. An armed robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time.

It's the first time since the 1960s that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on whether to uphold the death penalty for an individual.

Fell is on death row in Terre Haute, Ind. He was the first man sentenced to death in Vermont in almost 50 years.

He was convicted of carjacking and kidnapping. Terry King was driven to upstate New York, then beaten and kicked to death, in November 2000.

Before that, Fell and an accomplice killed his mother and her companion in Rutland, Vt.

The defending Olympic 100-meter champion lost his appeal Thursday to run in the U.S. Olympic track trials and said he will not take the case to the Supreme Court, meaning there are no more back doors or last-second maneuvers that could land him in China in six weeks.

But he will continue to seek monetary and other damages from the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and other defendants, saying they discriminated against him because his first doping violation, in 2001, was for taking prescribed medication to treat attention deficit disorder.

Because that penalty was on the books, his second violation in 2006 triggered the suspension that has barred him from Beijing.

Earlier this month, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld that ban.

In the lawsuit, Gatlin said banning him from Olympic trials violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gatlin claims he has never intentionally doped.

The law allows candidates to receive larger campaign contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily out of their own pockets.

The court said by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.

The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.

Davis says the provision in 6-year-old campaign finance reforms unfairly rewards his opponents by letting them exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis dipped into personal funds.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that under the amendment, the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for the opponents of wealthy candidates.

Alito said that if the millionaire's amendment raised the contribution limits for all candidates, Davis's challenge to the law "would plainly fail," raising the question of whether Congress could easily fix what the Supreme Court struck down.

The amendment has come into play in relatively few races. Its most prominent beneficiary so far has been Sen. Barack Obama. He was able to attract additional contributions for his Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois because an opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.

A co-author of the 2002 campaign finance law, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Supreme Court decision has no impact on the central component of the reforms, the ban on six-figure political donations to political parties. Feingold co-authored the reforms with Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the court had issued a "confounding decision that takes the First Amendment to an illogical, distorted extreme."

Davis lost in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds, who spent more than $5 million in winning re-election two years ago, 51 percent to 49 percent.

Reynolds chose not to solicit increased contributions after Davis triggered the millionaire's amendment by putting at least $350,000 of his own money into the race. Reynolds could have received $6,900 from individual donors, triple the limit otherwise. Reynolds is retiring at the end of this term.

In a historic ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday declared 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" means that the government cannot enact an outright ban on certain commonly held weapons or otherwise prevent citizens from having a gun at home for personal protection or other lawful uses.

The landmark constitutional pronouncement came as the nation's highest court struck down a 32-year ban on private possession of handguns in Washington, D.C. The court also invalidated two other strict gun-control measures in the district that required that rifles and shotguns at all times be kept disassembled or secured with a trigger lock. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller.

"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

The majority justices said the District's strict gun regulations violated "the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

Justice Scalia's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the case would spawn unfortunate consequences. "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Justice Breyer wrote. "I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission."

Scalia and the majority justices declined to spell out precisely the legal standard future courts should use in weighing whether someone's Second Amendment right had been infringed. But they left no doubt that it is a robust one.

"Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family, would fail constitutional muster," Scalia wrote.

While the high court struck down the Washington, D.C., regulations, it remains unclear how many other gun-control measures may now be on shaky constitutional ground. Some analysts suggest that a handgun ban in Chicago, similar to the ban in Washington, may emerge as the next constitutional battleground over gun rights.

Scalia sought to address concerns by many critics – and the dissenting justices – that such a ruling might lead to an arms race among American homeowners stocking up with machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.

"The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia wrote. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," he said. The opinion did not undermine laws "forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," he said.

He added that the opinion did not undercut laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.