The judge based his decision in part on a 1969 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that allowed students in Des Moines to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. He wrote that had the button depicted swastikas, a Confederate flag, or a burning cross, it would have been "plainly offensive" and he would have ruled differently.

The schools superintendent, Patricia L. McGeehan, said the district was disappointed in the ruling, and planned to review its options.

Ms. McGeehan said in a statement that the district was "very concerned with the precedent this may set not only for Bayonne but for every public school district in New Jersey that tries to create and maintain a school environment conducive to learning and that is not offensive to students or staff."

The statement added, "Images of racial and ethnic intolerance do not belong in an elementary school classroom."

The dispute over the button began last fall, when Michael DePinto, 11, who was a fifth grader at Public School 14 at the time, objected to the policy.

To protest, he and his mother, Laura, 47, made a button that included a photograph of a group of grim, identically dressed members of Hitler Youth with the words "No School Uniforms" imposed over them.

After Michael wore the button for several weeks, the district sent a letter to his home in November, demanding that he stop or face suspension. Another fifth-grade student, Anthony LaRocco, then began wearing one as well.

After the suspension threat, the boys' parents sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were being denied.

Michael said on Thursday that he had never intended to offend anyone but merely make a point about conformity.

"It's like forcing a swastika on someone," he said. "It's what Hitler did to his youth."

Hicks, 32, who was convicted by a US military court of supporting terrorism, was yesterday shown mug shots of persons of interest to Australian police when they interviewed him in jail in Adelaide.

But his lawyer, David McLeod, said Hicks had largely been unable to assist them.

The hour-long interview at the Yatala maximum-security prison was the first to be conducted with Hicks on Australian soil.

Mr McLeod described it as a "sweeping up exercise" ahead of Hicks's scheduled release from jail on December 29. "He was basically asked a series of questions and shown various images," said Mr McLeod, who sat in on the questioning.

"He was unable to assist in most of it, though his intention was to assist as best he could."

Mr McLeod said Hicks had told him he would honour the US-imposed ban on speaking immediately after his release, meaning Australians would not be able to hear his account of his time with Taliban forces in Afghanistan and his treatment by the Americans until March next year at the earliest.

While the Howard Government has warned Hicks it would intervene to prevent him from profiting from the sale of his story, Mr Ruddock has acknowledged that the US gag on non-paid media interviews probably could not be enforced in Australia.

But Mr McLeod said Hicks wanted to take no chances with breaching the conditions of his plea bargain with the US military, under which he returned home in May to serve out the balance of his sentence. Under the deal, clinched in March at the controversial detention centre in Guantanamo Bay where Hicks spent most of his five years in US custody, he agreed not to speak to the media for at least a year.

The 56-43 vote fell four shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

The vote was a blow for human-rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism.

President Bush and conservative Republicans counter that the ban, enacted last year, was necessary to stem the tide of legal protests flooding civilian courts.

Most Republican senators backed the administration. Besides Specter, the other Republicans who voted with the Democrats were Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

The change in law would have applied to the roughly 340 men held at Guantanamo. Many of them have been held for more than five years without being charged. The Bush administration has said that indefinite detention of enemy combatants who threaten the U.S. is necessary in an age of terrorism.

Congress enacted a law last year that establishes tribunals, made up of three military officials, to review such petitions. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a military lawyer who helped write the law, said the military is best able to determine who's an unlawful enemy combatant.

Graham said that under the Leahy-Specter bill, detainees could pick judges from courts around the country and demand the presence of witnesses from the battlefield.

"That's never been done in any other war, and it should not be done in this war," Graham said.

Leahy responded that people being held indefinitely without charges should be able to assert in court that they were mistakenly picked up. If a detainee is being lawfully held, the government can easily overcome the claim by presenting "the preponderance of the evidence," he said.

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Plaintiffs said that the judges missed a historic opportunity to strike down a discriminatory law. Legislators on both sides of the debate predicted action on the issue in the next session. The heavily Democratic legislature has passed several gay-rights laws in recent years but has not voted on legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions.

"I think history will hold them in contempt," plaintiff Lisa Polyak said of the judges. "To create a legal solution in a vacuum, that doesn't recognize that the constitution is there to support the people, is to create an ignorant and irrelevant solution."

State Sen. Richard Madaleno, who is openly gay, said he plans to introduce a bill to allow same-sex marriage. He also expects a proposal to create civil unions.

"I think we'll have a lengthy discussion next session about what the options are for legal recognition for gay people," Madaleno said.

Don Dwyer, one of the General Assembly's most conservative members, said he would introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as "insurance."

The ACLU of Maryland, which provided legal representation for the plaintiffs, said the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland would continue.

Many of the plaintiffs have children, and they argue that their families are being denied the stability and legal protection that comes from having married parents.

Lisa Kebreau, 39, and partner Mikki Mozelle, 31, who live in Riverdale, have three children — ages 20 months, 2 and 17.

"We really wanted them to understand how normal and good their family is — that their family is just like any other family," Kebreau said.

Nine same-sex couples and a gay man whose partner died filed the lawsuit in 2004 against court clerks who denied their applications for marriage licenses. Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock in January struck down the law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but the state immediately appealed.

Murdock's ruling was put on hold during the appeal and never took effect — unlike in Iowa, where same-sex marriage was legal for less than 24 hours last month. Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, but nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

In throwing out the lawsuit, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry does not discriminate based on gender because the state law applies equally to men and women. Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment, ratified in 1972, bans discrimination based on gender, but it was not intended to apply to sexual orientation, the court found.

The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."

One of the dissenting judges said the legislature should either be required to adopt civil unions or marriage. The other two said that the case should be sent back to the lower court for a trial to see if government has a good enough reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage.

The majority opinion said that while the court agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, it says there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex.

The court also said that although there has been a history of unfair discrimination against gay people, as a group gay people are not politically powerless.

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

"The court refused to recognize that lesbian and gay couples form committed relationships and loving families just like heterosexual couples," said Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project who argued the case before the court.

The suit originally was filed two years ago by the ACLU on behalf of the nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner passed away and who would like to be able to marry one day.

In January Baltimore Judge M. Brooke Murdock said that the 1973 law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman "cannot withstand constitutional challenge."

The ruling was stayed to allow the state to appeal.

In oral arguments last December before the Court of Appeals the state argued that the matter of same-sex marriage should be decided by the legislature not the courts.

"The General Assembly is the proper forum to weigh these issues," said Robert Zarnoch, counsel to the General Assembly.

Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project disagreed, telling the court that the issue was the state constitution and basic fairness. 

"Lesbians and gay couples, who form loving and committed relationships, and who raise children, need and deserve the critical protections that come with marriage," he said.

"The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the most fundamental guarantees of equality and liberty for all."

Equality Maryland said it was surprised by the high court ruling, given judgments in Massachusetts and New Jersey where courts have ruled same-sex couples must be accorded the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

"We will be pushing for full, legal equality in the Maryland General Assembly," Equality Maryland executive director Dan Furmansky told the Washington Post after the ruling was released.

"This is a social justice struggle. Eventually, Maryland will have civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. It's inevitable."

The issue of same-sex marriage is also before the Supreme Court in California. Oral arguments are expected to be heard late this year or early in 2008.

The court’s presiding judge, Bo Vesterdorf, reading a summary of the decision on his final day in office, said, “The court finds the commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine. Since the abuse of a dominant position is confirmed by the court, the amount of the fine remains unchanged.”

“The court said the commission wins on virtually everything,” said Thomas Vinje, a partner at the law firm Clifford Chance and part of the legal team for the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a coalition that includes Microsoft opponents like I.B.M. “The court has spoken. The commission was right.”

In a statement this morning, the European Union’s competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said: “The court has upheld a landmark commission decision to give consumers more choice in software markets. Microsoft must now comply fully with its legal obligations to desist from engaging in anti competitive conduct. The commission will do its utmost to ensure that Microsoft complies swiftly.”

Brad Smith, the general counsel for Microsoft, who was present for the reading, said the company would follow the ruling but did not say specifically whether the company would appeal it.

“It’s clearly very important to us as a company that we comply with our obligations under European law. We will study this decision carefully and if there are additional steps that we need to take, we will take them,” Mr. Smith said.

Robert Kramer, a vice president of public policy for CompTIA, a Microsoft ally that represents 3,000 technology companies, predicted the court’s ruling would have a chilling effect on investment both within the European Union and beyond.

“What this ruling will do is send a message to companies that if they establish a good market position with a successful product, they will be forced in Europe to essentially give up that product to their competitors,” Mr. Kramer said.

But Carlo Piana, a lawyer representing the Free Software Foundation Europe, hailed the court’s decision as a victory for small software developers around the world who may have lived in fear of Microsoft or other large platform operators. “This is an incredibly huge victory. The doors are kept open now for competition,” Mr. Piana said.

The decision followed a five-day hearing on the issues in April. Microsoft has indicated in the past that it would appeal any negative ruling to the European Court of Justice, the highest court in Europe, but Mr. Smith would not say today whether the company would take that step in the two months and 10 days it has to. An appeal by the company, a process likely to take at least two years, would focus only on whether the appellate court erred in procedure in reaching its decision, not on the facts in the case.

Microsoft has already been forced to pay nearly €1 billion in fines in the nine-year-old legal case, which has pitted the software maker based in Redmond, Wash., against the commission and a host of competitors, including I.B.M., Sun Microsystems, RealNetworks and Novell.

In its ruling, the 13-member panel of judges said Microsoft had violated European antitrust law by exploiting its near dominance in operating systems to shut out competitors like RealNetworks in digital media players and Sun Microsystems in workgroup exchange servers.

The ruling validated the pursuit of Microsoft by Mario Monti, former competition commissioner for the European Union, and his successor, Ms. Kroes. The case began in 1998 when Sun Microsystems filed a complaint over Microsoft’s refusal to disclose its confidential server protocols — computer code that competitors need to make their servers or desktop computers work with Microsoft products.

Microsoft has been repeatedly fined by the commission since the 2004 antitrust ruling for inadequately supplying the protocols. “I think this means it’s about time for Microsoft to comply,” Mr. Vinje said.

The commission later expanded its inquiry to include Microsoft’s practice of bundling its Windows Media Player into its dominant Windows operating system. After Microsoft began bundling its media player into Windows, it overtook the market leader, RealNetworks, and as of January it had a 50 percent share of the global market, according to the researcher Nielsen/NetRatings.

“There has obviously been a lot of work that has gone into our efforts to comply with the commission’s terms with respect to communications protocols,” Mr. Smith said in Luxembourg today. “We have made a lot of progress in that regard and yet we all have to acknowledge that there are some issues that do remain open.”