The Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked Virginia's plans to kill Christopher Scott Emmett, 36, hours before he was to die by lethal injection. Courts in Nevada and Texas this week postponed executions scheduled before year's end, making 2007 one of the quietest so far for executions since the mid-1990s.

"Some courts are being prudent by waiting to see how the Supreme Court will go," said Lisa McCalmont, a consultant to the death penalty clinic at the University of California at Berkeley law school.

Fewer than 50 executions will take place this year, even if several states pushing ahead with lethal injections defeat legal efforts to stop them. The last time executions numbered fewer than 50 was in 1996, when there were 45.

Since executions resumed in this country in 1977 after a Supreme Court-ordered halt, 1,099 inmates have died in state and federal execution chambers. The highest annual total was 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

In 2007, 42 people have been executed.

Texas, where 26 prisoners have been put to death this year, plans no more executions in 2007 after federal and state judges stopped four death sentences from being carried out.

Executions also have been delayed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma since the high court announced Sept. 25 it would hear a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection method. Courts in California, Delaware, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee previously cited problems with lethal injections procedures in stopping executions.

The last person executed in this country was Michael Richard, 49, who died by lethal injection in Texas the same day the Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection procedures in Kentucky. A Texas state judge refused that day to accept an appeal from Richard's lawyers, saying it had arrived after office hours.

Kentucky's method of lethal injection executions is similar to procedures in three dozen states. The court will consider whether the mix of three drugs used to sedate and kill prisoners has the potential to cause pain severe enough to violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The U.S. is clearly in what amounts to a de facto death penalty moratorium," said David Dow, a lawyer who runs the Texas Innocence Network out of the University of Houston Law Center and represents death row inmates.

Josh Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., and a death penalty supporter, said executions should continue even while the Supreme Court looks at lethal injection.

The reprieves for the dozen or so men whose dates to die had been set are likely to be only temporary. Even the lawyers for the Kentucky inmates acknowledged there are alternative drugs and procedures available that lessen the risk of pain.

Justice Antonin Scalia also has suggested that people are reading too much into the court's decision to take up the Kentucky case. Scalia said Tuesday night he would have allowed Arkansas to proceed with the execution of Jack Jones.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier put off Jones' execution because of the high court review. That decision "was based on the mistaken premise" that the high court wants state and federal judges to intervene every time a defendant raises a court challenge to lethal injection, Scalia said in a statement accompanying the Supreme Court's order that kept the appeals court ruling in place.

State officials in Florida and Mississippi are continuing with plans to carry out death sentences despite the high court's review. In both states, high courts are considering pleas for a delay from condemned inmates.

Lawyers for Mississippi are arguing that there is no reason to wait for the Supreme Court's lethal injection ruling. Earl Wesley Berry has an Oct. 30 execution date for a 1987 killing.

In Florida, Mark Dean Schwab, 38, is scheduled to die Nov. 15 for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old. Executions had been suspended since December after it took twice as long as usual — 34 minutes — for a convicted killer to die. Gov. Gov. Charlie Crist ended the freeze in July by signing Schwab's death warrant.

The decision could heighten the importance of the Values Voter Summit, to be headlined by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Dobson has expressed doubts about several of the leading Republican contenders. But they nonetheless are planning to show up at the gathering because of the belief that evangelicals could hold the key to the GOP nomination.

Brownback's positions dovetail with those of the evangelical leaders, but he has failed to make headway because of the perception that he had little voter support. Brownback's withdrawal is expected to help former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who has a similar political philosophy and who has been "fishing from the same pool" for voters, according to Chuck Hurley, one of Brownback's closest friends and a key Iowa backer. Brownback is pulling out because "he doesn't have the name ID or connections . . . or money" that other candidates have, Hurley said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, could benefit indirectly because Brownback will no longer be on the debate stage as a vocal critic of Romney's switch to an antiabortion position.

Brownback had used some of his meager campaign resources to pay for automated phone calls to Iowa voters that portrayed Romney as being "proabortion" as recently as 2005. Romney called Brownback's attack "desperate" during an Aug. 5 debate, but Brownback defended the calls.

Romney, in his speech to the evangelical leaders tonight, does not plan to use the occasion to give a long-anticipated address about his Mormon faith, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "This is not a religion speech," he said.

Instead, the speech is expected to focus on Romney's proposals for strengthening families. The Romney campaign last night provided excerpts of the speech, quoting Romney as saying he is "pleased that so many people of many faiths have come to endorse my candidacy and my message."

The religious leaders hope to influence the campaign, but support among evangelicals is split widely among the top candidates and it is not clear that they will rally behind one candidate.

For example, while Rudy Giuliani has been criticized by evangelical leaders for his support of abortion rights, he leads Republicans among people who say they attend church weekly, with 27 percent support, followed by Fred Thompson at 24 percent and John McCain at 17 percent, according to a recent Gallup Poll. Romney came in fourth place among regular church-goers at 9 percent, followed by Huckabee at 7 percent.

This week, Romney won the endorsement of Bob Jones III, the chancellor of a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina that bears his family's name, but it was far from enthusiastic. "I'd rather endorse someone whose religion is wrong than somebody who doesn't have any religion at all," Jones said in announcing his support.

Romney yesterday said he wasn't bothered by the comment because he and Jones agree on many issues.

"We want marriage before babies," Romney said, according to the Associated Press. "We have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue, so I'm happy to have his support."

Brownback, who hoped to be the evangelicals' candidate, has been stuck at 1 percent to 2 percent in national polls. During the third quarter of 2007, he raised about $925,000, less than his six GOP rivals, and had less than $95,000 in the bank by Sept. 30.

In a meeting with the Globe's editorial board earlier this week, Brownback was sober about his campaign standing, admitting "we've languished" since he finished third, behind Huckabee and Romney, in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll in August.

Brownback said his support for a guest-worker program for immigrants has hurt him among Republicans.

He also talked about trying to gain traction with his antiabortion views and by pushing a congressional apology for slavery. "If we can't, we won't be able to move forward," he said.

Brownback, who left his evangelical church four years ago and became a Catholic, had hoped to take advantage of concerns among some religious conservatives about some of his rivals.

Thus, Brownback found himself in a political Catch-22: Many evangelical leaders won't back him out of concern he has no chance, and he has little chance without strong support from evangelical leaders.

The Kansas City Star and Associated Press reported that Brownback will formally announce his withdrawal this afternoon in Topeka, and may indicate whether he plans to run for governor in 2010.

The former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger has lived in the rent-stabilized apartment for some 20 years and argued that it was her primary residence and her landlord should be barred from evicting her.

A British citizen who was born in Nicaragua, Jagger is in the United States on a B-2 tourist visa.

Her lawyer, Ryan Goldstein, had argued that a mold problem in the apartment had made it unlivable and that she had stopped paying the $4,614 a month rent in 2003.

Goldstein was not immediately available for comment.

The landlord, Katz Park Avenue Corp, countered that Jagger was in the United States on a tourist visa and, as a result, is not eligible to maintain permanent residence.

The 3-2 decision by New York State Supreme Court's Appellate Division reversed a lower court's finding.

The decision, which noted that the environmental activist maintains a luxury apartment in London's Belgravia section, said Jagger will also have to pay back rent and other fees.

Tenants in rent-stabilized apartments are protected from sharp increases in rent. Once a tenant leaves a rent-stabilized apartment, the landlord is free to charge market rate.

After their post-midnight deal, leaders hugged each other and toasted with champagne a treaty that will be signed on December 13 in Lisbon. But for some, the celebration was tempered with pangs of regret for the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

"At least it's a good thing it is over now. Now we need to continue to work to have it ratified in all countries -- it won't be easy," said Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, one of the most fervent backers of the constitutional project.

Asked to comment on the deal, French President Nicolas Sarkozy gave a thumbs-up to reporters but said nothing before entering a second day of talks, set to cover economic issues.

Provided it is ratified by all 27 member states, the treaty will take effect in 2009 giving the EU a long-term president, a more powerful foreign policy chief, more democratic decision making and more say for the European and national parliaments.

Clinched after midnight, the accord ends a crisis opened by Dutch and French rejections that were votes of no confidence in an organization seen as remote and bureaucratic.

"Some courts are being prudent by waiting to see how the Supreme Court will go," said Lisa McCalmont, a consultant to the death penalty clinic at the University of California at Berkeley law school.

Fewer than 50 executions will take place this year, even if several states pushing ahead with lethal injections defeat legal efforts to stop them. The last time executions numbered fewer than 50 was in 1996, when there were 45.

Since executions resumed in this country in 1977 after a Supreme Court-ordered halt, 1,099 inmates have died in state and federal execution chambers. The highest annual total was 98 in 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.

So far this year, 42 people have been executed. Texas, where 26 prisoners have been executed this year, plans no more executions in 2007 after federal and state judges stopped four death sentences from being carried out.

Executions also have been delayed in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas and Oklahoma since the court announced Sept. 25 it would hear a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection method. Courts in California, Delaware, Missouri, North Carolina and Tennessee have previously cited problems with lethal injections procedures in stopping executions.

The last person executed in this country was Michael Richard, 49, who died by lethal injection in Texas the same day the Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection procedures in Kentucky. A Texas state judge refused that day to accept an appeal from Richard's lawyers, saying it had arrived after office hours.

Kentucky's method of lethal injection executions is similar to procedures in three dozen other states. The court will consider whether the mix of three drugs used to sedate and kill prisoners has the potential to cause pain severe enough to violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The U.S. is clearly in what amounts to a de-facto death penalty moratorium," said Bridgers' attorney David Dow, who runs the Texas Innocence Network out of the University of Houston Law Center.

Josh Marquis, the district attorney in Clatsop County, Oregon, and a death penalty supporter, said executions should continue even while the Supreme Court looks at lethal injection.

Marquis distinguished the lethal injection issue from court reviews that led to banning execution of the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed their crime. "The court's response is not going to be ban all lethal injections. At most, it's going to be reformulate the protocol," Marquis said.

The reprieves for the dozen or so men whose dates to die had been set are likely to be only temporary. Even the lawyers for the Kentucky inmates concede that there are alternative drugs and procedures available that lessen the risk of pain.

Justice Antonin Scalia also has suggested that people are reading too much into the court's decision to take up the Kentucky case. Scalia said Tuesday night he would have allowed Arkansas to proceed with the execution of Jack Jones.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier put off Jones' execution because of the high court review. That decision "was based on the mistaken premise" that the high court wants state and federal judges to intervene every time a defendant raises a court challenge to lethal injection, Scalia said in a statement accompanying the Supreme Court's order that kept the appeals court ruling in place.