In a unanimous ruling, the justices said Thursday a lower court was wrong to conclude that a vintage airplane buff could not sue for the same documents that were sought by a fellow lover of antique aircraft.

Brent Taylor is executive director of the Antique Aircraft Association and a mechanic who restores vintage airplanes. He sued the Federal Aviation Administration for the plans for an antique F-45 plane.

Taylor filed his lawsuit less than a month after an appeals court issued its ruling against another member of the same organization who sought the same plans.

Government watchdogs and press freedom groups backed Taylor. They worried that government agencies would try to short-circuit efforts by people who request similar records for different reasons.

Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.

Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final. The ruling to legalize gay marriage overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal, which is therefore required to issue an order consistent with the high court's 4-3 opinion.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."

"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

Vik Amar, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Davis, said it was unlikely the lower court would go against the will of the state Supreme Court.

"It would be an abuse of discretion to ignore the clear statement made by the Supreme Court when they turned down the stay and grant one now," Amar said.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

President Bush was unhappy with the ruling. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," the president said during a press conference in Rome. "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented."

Bush also said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

Anton Geiser's work as a guard meets the type of persecutory conduct banned under a 1953 federal law, the ruling said.

Geiser, 83, did not reveal his Nazi ties on his visa application, but he is not accused of lying about them. Files from the period have been lost and it is not clear what questions he was asked.

His lawyer, Adrian N. Roe, told the appeals court this year that guards not deemed war criminals were sometimes allowed in by the State Department. He complained that the Justice Department, in its efforts to expel former Nazis, was revisiting decisions made a half-century ago.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which focused on the language of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, said Geiser should have his U.S. citizenship revoked and be deported.

The justices have twice struck down the award to the family of a longtime smoker of Marlboros, made by Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA.

Oregon courts have repeatedly upheld the judgment. The most recent ruling, in January, followed a high court decision last year that said jurors may punish a defendant only for harm done to someone who is suing, not other smokers who could make similar claims.

The justices will consider only whether the Oregon Supreme Court in essence ignored the U.S. high court's ruling, not whether the amount of the judgment is constitutionally permissible.