That means that as of Jan. 1, Oregon will join eight other states that have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.

Later this week, word is expected on whether opponents gathered enough signatures to block a gay-rights law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation — though that effort, as well, appears to be lacking sufficient signatures.

Social-conservative and church groups mounted the signature-gathering drive after the two gay-rights laws were approved by the Democratic-controlled Oregon Legislature with strong backing from Gov. Ted Kulongoski, also a Democrat.

The state's largest gay-rights group called Monday's announcement a "proud day for Oregon."

"In refusing to sign these petitions, Oregonians showed that they aren't interested in rolling back our anti-discrimination laws," said John Hummel, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.

Sponsors of the referral effort had conceded in recent days that they probably hadn't gotten enough signatures. But they vowed to take another avenue to try to derail the laws — an initiative effort to repeal the laws outright. They would have until next July to collect 82,000 valid signatures to repeal each of the two laws.

AEP, based in Columbus, Ohio, maintains it never violated Clean Air Act rules to curb emissions, and had already spent or planned to pay $5.1 billion on scrubbers and other equipment to reduce its pollution.

Scott Cowger, spokesman for Maine's Department of Environmental Protection, said the settlement should have an impact beyond acid rain control. It will limit regional haze and ozone, and very possibly reduce mercury in the environment, he said.

Cowger acknowledged Maine was not in the suit, but not due to a lack of interest. Maine is involved in acid rain litigation against the EPA already, said Cowger, adding that the state must aim its resources where they are going to have the greatest effect.

Matthew Davis of Environment Maine said he hopes the settlement sends a message that power plant operators no longer can disobey the Clean Air Act and get away with it.

In Vermont, Attorney General William Sorrell said the new pollution control devices will reduce a lot of particulate matter that causes pollution, helping people with asthma and other conditions.

"This is a major victory for the environment in the northeastern part of the U.S.," said Sorrell. "Acid rain is a huge problem in the Adirondacks, the Green Mountains and the White Mountains."

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and Environmental Services Commissioner Thomas Burack said the settlement will open the door to the largest emissions reductions ever.

"This settlement represents a huge step toward reducing the impact that Midwestern coal-fired power plants have on New Hampshire's air quality," Ayotte said.

The case against AEP began in 1999 when New Hampshire, Vermont and six other states, as well as 13 environmental groups joined the Environmental Protection Agency's crackdown on energy companies accused of rebuilding coal-fired power plants without installing pollution controls as required.

"I asked if I could go into the bathroom because they didn't have a privacy screen and no women security officers were available," Plato said Wednesday. "They said, 'No.'

"I wasn't carrying a shank in my bra. If it's so dangerous, why did they give it back and let me put it on?"

Patrick McDonald, the U.S. Marshal in Boise, said appropriate security protocols were followed in the Sept. 20 matter, and guards suggested she simply remove the bra in her car outside, or find a restaurant bathroom.

"She's inflating it," McDonald said. "All of a sudden she just took it off. It wasn't anything we wanted to happen and it wasn't anything we asked for her to do. She did it so fast."

Plato, of Bonners Ferry, said she was parked on a busy street and wasn't familiar with downtown Coeur d'Alene businesses. So her husband held up his coat to shield her from the rest of the people in the courthouse lobby while she removed her bra underneath her shirt.

Generally, McDonald said, undergarments aren't considered a danger to security.

"I don't think they're considered a weapon, really, the last time I looked," he said.

He declined to discuss other ways the federal courthouse guards could have screened Plato for weapons.

Plato wants the Marshals Service to apologize and stop forcing women to disrobe.

"It was very humiliating," her husband, Owen Plato, said. "They could have handled it with a much more professional attitude."

Whether Jackson has the discretion to ignore the guidelines is the issue before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A companion case from Iowa also involves a judge's discretion to impose a more lenient sentence in a drug case, although Brian Gall pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy. In Gall's case, the judge decided probation was sufficient punishment even though the guidelines called for prison time.

Federal appeals courts threw out both sentences, but the justices accepted the defendants' appeals.

The Bush administration is supporting the appeals court rulings, while civil rights and advocacy groups are backing the defendants.

Congressional opponents of the laws establishing more severe sentencing for crack cocaine than powdered cocaine are racially discriminatory because they hit more directly at the black community, where this form of drug abuse is more commonplace.

Advocates for reducing the disparity point to crime statistics that show crack is more of an urban and minority drug while cocaine powder is used more often by the affluent. They say harsher penalties for crack cocaine unfairly punish blacks.

More than four-fifths of crack cocaine offenders in federal courts last year were black, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. By contrast, just over a quarter of those convicted of powder cocaine crimes last year were black, the commission said.

Kimbrough actually had much more powder than crack, but it was the latter that determined the length of his prison term.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond said judges are not free to impose sentences shorter than the guidelines "based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses."

The crack-powder disparity grew out of a 1986 law that was passed in response to violent crimes committed to get money to feed crack habits.

The law includes what critics have called the 100-to-1 disparity: Trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of cocaine powder to warrant the same sentence.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency within the U.S. judiciary, voted in May to reduce the recommended sentencing ranges for people convicted of crack possession, a step toward lessening the disparity. The recommendation will become effective Nov. 1 unless Congress acts.

At the same time, the commission urged Congress to repeal the mandatory prison term for simple possession and increase the amount of crack required to trigger obligatory five-year or more prison terms as a way to focus on major drug traffickers.

The Supreme Court gave a boost to judges' discretion when it ruled in 2005 that the sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The guidelines were adopted in the 1980s to ensure comparable sentences for similar crimes from courtroom to courtroom.