The court determined that the towns and counties failed to identify a special injury that could be compensated. It said the claim was essentially a products liability issue, and falls under the state Product Liability Act, which excludes coverage for exposure to toxic material.

A lawyer for the towns and counties, Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, said they were considering whether to ask the court to reconsider its decision, which dismissed the last remaining claim of the lawsuit.

"It means that the New Jersey Supreme Court turned its back on lead-poisoned children of New Jersey, and they allowed the companies that profited from lead paint to turn their back on the children of New Jersey and the crisis that they created," Fitzpatrick said.

Individuals have little recourse to sue because they cannot identify which manufacturer made the paint that is on the walls of their home, Fitzpatrick said.

The paint makers praised the ruling, noting the Missouri Supreme Court had a similar decision on Tuesday.

"These companies are not responsible for risks today from poorly maintained lead paint," said Bonnie J. Campbell, spokeswoman for the paint makers and a former attorney general of Iowa.

New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who had entered the case in support of the towns and counties, said the ruling was disappointing, but did recognize that landlords must maintain their properties to prevent lead paint from flaking and becoming a health hazard.

The aged housing stock in New Jersey has at least 2 million units with lead paint, Chen said. As a result, 4,547, or nearly 2.5 percent of New Jersey children under 6, had high levels of lead, compared to 1.6 percent nationally, according to the state Department of Health and Senior Services.

The lawsuit was originally filed in December 2001 by Newark, and was later joined by other towns and counties.

A trial judge had dismissed the entire lawsuit, but an appellate panel reinstated the claim charging the manufacturers with creating a public nuisance.

The private, nonprofit Partnership was started in Decmeber 2000 after Attorney General Michael Moore was successful in persuading a Jackson County chancery judge to start the program. To do so, the judge diverted to the Partnership $20 million per year of the $110 million the state receives annually from the tobacco companies.

Gov. Haley Barbour and Treasurer Tate Reeves filed suit, claiming the judge's decision to appropriate the money to the Partnership was unconstitutional. The settlement funds, they argued, were state money and only the Legislature can spend the funds.

Carlson wrote "...it is the Legislature's solemn duty and responsibility to appropriate these funds and not that of the judiciary."  The ruling was not unexpected.

Justice Oliver Diaz of Biloxi was the only member of the high court to dissent. He said the issue had been settled in 2000 and it was too late for Barbour and Reeves to object.

Barbour said the ruling pointed out "a local judge and the attorney general have no power to give taxpayer money to a private charity."

"It's a shame it look a long, drawn-out lawsuit to stop this illegal and unconstitutional diversion of taxpayer money."

Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Arthur Eaves said Barbour, a former Washington lobbyist who represented tobacco companies, is continuing "to put the interest of his Washington cronies above those of Mississippi children."

Moore said Thursday the issue had never been about constitutionality for Barbour. He said that to appease Barbour, the Legislature voted in 2006 to appropriate the funds to the Partnership, but the governor vetoed the bill.

While some union foes called the court's ruling an important victory and predicted that it would lead to other such laws, the National Right to Work Committee acknowledged that it decided a narrow issue.

The justices did not say it was unconstitutional to require teachers and other public employees to pay dues to a union. Rather, they said only that states that allow public sector unions may also protect the rights of dissidents.

At issue before the court was a unique Washington state law that said unions may not collect fees from a nonmember and spend this money on politics unless "affirmatively authorized by the individual."

The state's largest teachers union challenged this rule in court. The Washington Supreme Court struck down the restriction as a violation of the union's rights, but the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "It is undeniably unusual for a government agency to give a private entity the power, in essence, to tax government employees," he wrote, referring to the "agency shop" laws in many states that permit such arrangements in the public sector.

The vote was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

An amendment now can't reach voters before 2010. That would happen only with a successful new petition drive and the backing of 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sittings of the 200-seat Legislature - including the one that just rejected the ballot measure.

Such a scenario appeared increasingly unlikely, but opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on.

North Korea lambasted U.S. efforts to build a missile defense system Friday and vowed to increase its "self-defense deterrent," a term that the communist regime usually uses to refer to its nuclear program.

"The U.S. is claiming that it is building a global missile defense system to protect against missile attacks from our nation and Iran. This is a childish pretext," the North's ministry said in a statement carried by the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

"We cannot but further strengthen our self-defense deterrent if (an) arms race intensifies because of the U.S. maneuvers," it said.

The North Korean warning came as Russia seemed reluctant to respond to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assertion Thursday that the Bush administration will not replace its plan for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe with Moscow's counterproposal for a radar site in Azerbaijan.

Gates met briefly with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, and told reporters afterward that the hotly debated missile defense plan simply did not come up.

"I guess I would have to say, honestly, I was somewhat surprised," said Gates, who is attending a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium. "I don't know how to read it, to be honest."

The silence came after other Russian officials blasted the U.S. plan, and warned that the new sites could be targeted by Russian missiles.

Gates said he did not bring the matter up in his session with Serdyukov because, "I felt I'd been pretty explicit yesterday in the session so I didn't feel the need to." Instead, Gates said, they talked about plans for an upcoming meeting between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During a session on Thursday, Gates told the allies that the U.S. will proceed with its plans for a radar system in the Czech Republic to watch for missile threats and 10 interceptor rockets in Poland to shoot down any missiles.

And he flatly dismissed any notion that Russia's push for joint use of a radar station in Azerbaijan could replace the broader U.S. plan.

He also said he doubts that there could be any agreement with the Russians by next month, when Mr. Bush meets Putin at Kennebunkport, Maine.

"I was very explicit in the (NATO) meeting that we saw the Azeri radar as an additional capability, that we intended to proceed with the X-Band radar in the Czech Republic," Gates told reporters Thursday.

Russian officials earlier this week called for a freeze on the U.S. plan, arguing that it would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. And they reportedly issued threats against the planned sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Meanwhile, NATO ordered its military experts to draw up plans for a possible short-range missile defense system to protect nations on the alliance's southern flank that would be left exposed by proposed U.S. anti-missile units in central Europe.

According to U.S. and NATO officials, the addition of the European bases to anti-missile installations in North America would protect most of Europe from the threat of long-range attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. But it would leave Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and parts of Romania exposed.

To fill that gap, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said NATO experts would produce a report by February on short-range anti-missile defenses "that can be bolted on to the overall missile defense system as it would be installed by the United States."

Russia has threatened to retaliate against the U.S. plans by pulling out of a key arms control treaty and pointing warheads at Europe for the first time since the Cold War. However, at last week's G-8 summit, Putin seemed to take a more open approach, suggesting Russia could cooperate with the West on an anti-missile radar base in Azerbaijan.