In a one-sentence order, the court left in place a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court in favor of Mayola Williams. The state court has repeatedly upheld a verdict against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA in a fraud trial in 1999.

The judgment has grown to more than $155 million with interest, and Williams stands to collect between $60 million and $65 million, before taxes and payments to her lawyers, said Robert Peck, her Washington-based lawyer.

The justices heard arguments in the case in December, but said Tuesday that they are not passing judgment on the legal issues that were presented. Instead, it is as if the court had declined to hear the case at all.

Philip Morris had argued that the award should be thrown out and a new trial ordered because of flaws in the instructions given jurors before their deliberations.

Business interests had once hoped the high court would use the case to set firm limits on the award of punitive damages, intended to punish a defendant for its behavior and deter a repeat offense.

Peck said the court has signaled a willingness to allow large awards in certain circumstances. "I think we can take from this long tale that if the behavior is sufficiently reprehensible, then larger awards are merited," Peck said.

The case was turned over to the Los Angeles Superior Court jury Thursday after the prosecution concluded a rebuttal to the defense closing arguments.

Spector is being retried on a second-degree murder charge in the shooting of actress Lana Clarkson six years ago.

His first trial ended in a jury deadlock in 2007 with the majority favoring conviction. This time the jury has the option of considering a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Clarkson died of a gunshot fired inside her mouth as she sat in the foyer of Spector's home. The 40-year-old star of the cult film "Barbarian Queen" had met Spector hours earlier at her job as a hostess at the House of Blues.

The Obama administration on Thursday detailed its wide-ranging plan to overhaul financial regulation by subjecting hedge funds and traders of exotic financial instruments, now among the biggest and most freewheeling players on Wall Street, to potentially strict new government supervision.

The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, outlined the plan Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. He said the changes were needed to fix a badly flawed system that was exposed by the current financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, in his opening statement, called for “comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”

Included in the plan would be the establishment of one single agency “with responsibility for systemic stability over the major institutions and critical payment and settlement systems and activities.”

To that end, Mr. Geithner said: “Financial products and institutions should be regulated for the economic function they provide and the risks they present, not the legal form they take,” Mr. Geithner said. “We can’t allow institutions to cherry pick among competing regulators, and shift risk to where it faces the lowest standards and constraints.”

He did not provide details for how all this will work, saying that the proposals would be outlined over the coming weeks.

The plan, which would require Congressional approval, would give the government new powers over “systemically important” banks and other financial institutions that are so big that their collapse would jeopardize the economy as a whole.

The government would have the power to peer into the inner workings of companies that currently escape most federal supervision — insurance companies like the American International Group, multibillion-dollar hedge funds like the Citadel Group and private equity firms like the Carlyle Group or Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts.

If regulators decided that a company had become “too big to fail,” as was the case with A.I.G. in September, they would subject it to much stricter capital requirements than smaller rivals and much closer scrutiny of its borrowing levels and its trading partners, or counterparties.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected an appeal from the administration, saying U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson can proceed with the hearings.

The Schwarzenegger administration is refusing to turn over $250 million as a down payment sought by a court-appointed receiver. The receiver, J. Clark Kelso, wants up to $8 billion spent on new medical centers for prison inmates.

The appeals court decided the case on procedural grounds. It did not weigh in on the larger question of how far the federal government can intrude on states' control of their prisons.

But Al-Marri's third trip to the area comes under far different circumstances — facing trial on federal charges alleging he supported al-Qaida terrorists. His first court appearance is Monday.

Al-Marri, 43, was arrested in late 2001 while studying at Bradley University in Peoria after federal authorities alleged he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent tied to organizers of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was a legal U.S. resident but became the only "enemy combatant" in custody on American soil.

He was held without charges for more than five years at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Then, last month, a federal grand jury in Illinois indicted al-Marri on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to terror.

The scant Feb. 26 indictment offers no details on the long-awaited charges and federal officials are not discussing al-Marri's case.

Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.

A measure to remove that payment requirement — opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" — has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.

"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."

Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.

But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.

"Until they pay their fines and restitution, to me, they haven't carried out their entire sentence," said Rep. Ed Orcutt, a Kalama Republican who opposes the bill. "So their voting rights shouldn't be restored."

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a Seattle Democrat who sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said felons will still need to pay off their debts, but won't have to wait to vote while they're doing so.

"It's more an issue of fairness," she said. "I don't think the right to vote should be based on one's income."