A phone rang while Restaino was hearing the cases of domestic violence offenders who had been ordered to appear weekly to update the judge on the progress of their counseling. A sign in the courthouse warns that cell phones and pagers must be turned off.

"Everyone is going to jail," Restaino said. "Every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."

When no one came forward, Restaino ordered the group into custody, and they were taken to jail, where they were searched and packed into crowded cells. Fourteen people who could not post bail were shackled and bused to another jail.

Restaino ordered them released later that afternoon.

Restaino told the state panel he had been under stress in his personal life.

His attorney, Terrence Connors, said Restaino would appeal.

The dispute centers on a proposed LNG terminal that energy giant BP wants to build on the Jersey side of the river. New Jersey officials approved the project, which could bring more than 1,300 construction jobs.

Delaware officials, however, have refused to authorize the construction of a 2,000-foot-long pier, which would be built on the part of the river bottom that belongs to Delaware. Without the pier, the project could not go forward.

New Jersey concedes that Delaware owns the land, but says a century-old agreement allows each state to control piers on its side of the river.

A pier on the New Jersey side that can't stretch onto Delaware territory to reach the main shipping channel is worthless, said H. Bartow Farr, who is representing New Jersey. "That's where the ships are," Farr said.

But David Frederick, representing Delaware, told the justices that decisions on what to build on Delaware land belong to Delaware. "Boundaries matter," Frederick said.

On a practical level, he said, Delaware has only twice in 160 years denied permission to build a pier on the Jersey side of the river and both instances involved LNG facilities.

Up to 150 ships a year would dock at the proposed pier, which would be directly across the river from Claymont, Del. Delaware says the proposal raises safety fears because an estimated 22,000 residents living near the river's main shipping channel would be at risk in case of a major accident. BP said the facility would be able to deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the Mid-Atlantic region.

The justices puzzled over the states' authority.

What if a murder occurred on a wharf on the Jersey side that sits on Delaware land, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered. "Is it prosecuted in Delaware or New Jersey?" Roberts asked. New Jersey, Farr said.

Justice David Souter asked Frederick whether Delaware could pass a law saying no more piers could be built on the Jersey side of the river. "It depends," Frederick replied, although he later said such a measure probably would not be upheld.

A court-appointed special master concluded earlier this year that Delaware has the authority to block the pier.

Justice Stephen Breyer is not taking part in the case. He owns $15,000 to $50,000 in BP stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

His absence could present a complication if his eight colleagues divide 4 to 4. In most Supreme Court cases, a tie means that a lower court ruling is upheld.

But disputes between states are initially decided by the Supreme Court, not lower courts. What would happen in the event of a tie vote is unclear.

The Maine attorney general's office argues that the state must protect the health of its children and that Internet and telephone sales of tobacco products have become a serious problem.

Two lower courts ruled against Maine. But if Maine officials prevail in the Supreme Court, "any number of states will impose different standards on any number of different products that they deem unhealthy or unsafe," say the three New England transportation company associations that filed suit.

Intricate national delivery networks have been able to speed $6 trillion worth of packages to their destinations every year because Congress mandated that cargo carriers not be subject to an inefficient patchwork of state laws, the shipping companies argue.

Like other states, Maine has imposed steep increases in cigarette taxes. So smokers nationwide increasingly are going online for bargains, and underage smokers are among them, according to anti-smoking groups.

A 2002 study concluded that Internet vendors sold 400 million packs of cigarettes annually, 2 percent of the cigarettes consumed in the United States, a figure that anti-smoking groups say is growing.

The number of Internet cigarette vendors has risen sharply from 88 in January 2000 to 772 in January 2006, says Kurt Ribisl, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina's school of public health who has spent the past eight years studying the issue.

"This is big business for some of the companies," said Dennis Eckhart, head of the tobacco litigation and enforcement section of the California attorney general's office. "Similar laws in several other states definitely would be at risk if the Supreme Court does not rule in favor of the state of Maine."

Ribisl says the number of Internet Web sites selling tobacco products has leveled off in recent years. At least 40 states now prohibit or severely restrict the direct delivery to consumers of tobacco products purchased from Internet vendors, state attorneys general said in a filing supporting Maine in the case. In addition, credit card companies and several major shipping companies have agreed to cease payments and cease shipping for Internet cigarette sales.

The delivery companies say they are burdened by a patchwork of widely varying state requirements.

Under the Maine statute, delivery companies must check packages against a list from the state attorney general of known unlicensed tobacco retailers. They must deliver only to the person to whom the package is addressed and a recipient under age 27 must present identification.

"Worthy motives are not enough" to uphold Maine's law, a federal judge decided in 2005.

If there is to be regulation in this area, it will have to come from the federal government, the judge ruled.

Between June 2000 and February 2006, Qantas engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate competition by fixing the rates for shipments of cargo to and from the US and elsewhere, according to the charges filed Tuesday against the carrier, the Justice Department said in a statement.

"The shipment of consumer products by air transportation is critical to our global economy. Our investigation into this important industry will continue, and we will aggressively pursue those who engage in criminal conduct that harms American consumers," said Thomas Barnett, assistant attorney general in charge of the department's antitrust division.

During the time period covered by the felony charge, Qantas was the largest carrier of cargo between the United States and Australia and earned more than 600 million dollars from its cargo flights to and from the US, the department noted.

The department said that Qantas has agreed to cooperate with its ongoing investigation under the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval.

In August, British Airways and Korean Air Lines pleaded guilty to illegally fixing prices on international passenger and cargo flights and were sentenced to pay separate 300-million-dollar fines.

Television cameras are barred from the court and reporters are not allowed to use tape recorders there. But arguments are taped by the court and usually are released at the end of the term.

The cases to be argued next Wednesday deal with whether the Guantanamo detainees can contest their confinement in U.S. civilian courts.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York yesterday ruled against Alinghi, the Swiss defenders of the America’s Cup, upholding the legal challenge of BMW Oracle Racing (BOR) and making the American team the official challengers for the trophy.

Justice Herman Cahn’s 18-page judgment in the case of the Golden Gate Yacht Club v Société Nautique de Genève (the teams’ representative yacht clubs) was damning of Alinghi and agreed with BOR’s central contention that Club Nautico Español de Vela’s (CNEV) status as official challenger — which allowed it to negotiate the much disputed parameters of the next America’s Cup with Alinghi — is illegal.

BOR argued that the Spanish syndicate was an invalid challenger since it has never held a regatta as required in the regulations. Yesterday’s ruling means that BOR have the right to a head-to-head, best-of-three race against Alinghi, with ten months’ notice, in a type of yacht and a location of their choice. That is the scenario laid out in the Deed of Gift, the 19th-century document in which the rules of the America’s Cup are enshrined.

The simplest solution for both teams, and the seven other challengers (at least two others are also waiting in the wings), will be for Alinghi and BOR to agree to the original schedule of the 2009 America’s Cup in Valencia, but with a new protocol that hands some power back to the challengers. Six dark months after what was arguably the best America’s Cup staged, there is finally the opportunity for peace.