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.

With hordes of attorneys poised to assume senior status, achieving a consensus among partners to ditch mandatory retirement policies is just the first step -- and perhaps the easiest -- in switching to what many say is a fairer system.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis recently did it, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman made the change, and others are expected to follow. And while these firms report that reaching the decision to abandon age-based retirement was relatively painless, implementing a merit-based system for evaluating older attorneys will not be a simple feat for most.

"It takes time for people to internalize what this means," said Deborah Johnson, a member of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's executive committee and the firm's chief human resources officer.

Pillsbury Winthrop in April decided to get rid of the provision in its partnership agreement that, in general, created a rebuttable presumption that when lawyers turned 65 it was time for them to give up full equity status.

In light of the firm's decision, Johnson has worked with other firm leaders to devise a system that provides flexibility but holds attorneys accountable for their contributions. She estimates that the change affects about 10 percent of the firm's partners.

The full results of the decision at the 755-attorney firm will take at least a year to realize, Johnson said. In the meantime, the firm is operating under its newly implemented program that includes refined partner evaluations, stated goals from senior partners, revised financial planning services and an increased role for career consultants in working with "seniors." The firm defines seniors not by their age but by year of service. It considers as seniors those who have practiced for 25 years or more.

The trial of the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback in a state court is separate from federal charges of dogfighting to which Vick pleaded guilty in August.

Vick is due to be sentenced on those charges on December 10 and faces up to five years in jail, though prosecutors have requested a sentence of between 12 and 18 months.

In an unusual move, the 27-year-old turned himself in to U.S. marshals last week to begin serving the federal sentence early.

The two state charges carry sentences of five years each, which would be added to any sentence on the federal charges, according to media reports.

Vick's indictment in July shocked U.S. sports fans because it was a spectacular fall from grace and because dogfighting, in which people bet on pit bulls and other aggressive dogs, is widely reviled for its cruelty.

Vick initially pleaded innocent but then admitted his guilt after reaching an agreement with prosecutors.

The brief hearing at Surry County Circuit Court, Virginia, also set court dates in March and April for three other co-defendants, according to a member of the prosecutor's team.