Defense attorney Jacqueline Ross said at Smith's arraignment that his client is taking psychiatric medication and being treated for mental health problems. She is being held without bail.

Prosecutors say Smith gave a videotaped statement in which she admitted to starting the blaze by trying to warm her feet by lighting a dollar bill that an apartment visitor had given her.

Smith was wearing plastic bags on her feet when she was arrested at a nearby coffee house. Prosecutors have not decided whether to pursue the death penalty.

It is the first time the court has intervened in the way abortions are carried out, as opposed to just over abortion itself.

The decision was viewed by both pro and anti-abortionists as an indication of a changing mood in the court towards a more conservative position.

"We're moving beyond putting roadblocks in front of abortions to actually prohibiting them," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national anti-abortion group.

He and other strategists said they hoped to introduce bills in a number of states that would:

- Ban all abortion of viable foetuses, unless the mother's life is endangered.
- Ban mid and late-term abortion for foetal abnormality, such as Down syndrome or a malformed brain.
- Require doctors to tell patients explicitly what an abortion will involve and show them ultrasound images of the foetus.
- Lengthen abortion waiting periods so women must reflect on such counselling.

It is far from certain that the Supreme Court would uphold all these proposals, but anti-abortion activists feel momentum is on their side.

For more than 30 years, since the Roe v Wade case in 1973 established abortion as a constitutional right, the court has tended to reject any attempt to restrict access to terminations.

What appears to have been crucial in tipping the court's attitude was the retirement last year of Sandra Day O'Connor from the nine-member panel, and her replacement, at President George Bush's instigation, by the more conservative Samuel Alito.

Abortion-rights lawyer Katherine Grainger predicted the ruling would "open the floodgates" in state after state.

"The state's interest in the foetus has now been elevated above the woman's health," said Ms Grainger, who directs state policy for the Centre for Reproductive Rights. "States are going to push the boundaries and try to restrict access on all fronts."

The procedure that was challenged involves doctors partially removing the foetus from a woman's uterus and then crushing or cutting into its skull while it is still in the woman's body. Partial-birth abortions are allowed only for medical reasons and are applied to terminations after 12 weeks.

Six more former workers arrested during a raid of the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Cactus pleaded guilty to federal charges this week and could go to prison.

The six entered pleas in federal court in Amarillo on Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a news release issued Wednesday.

Charges against them stem from a December immigration raid at the Swift plant in the Panhandle conducted as part of an investigation into the use of Social Security numbers by illegal immigrants to gain employment.

Four of the defendants -- Jesus Gutierrez-Ramos, Domingo Velasquez-Gutierrez, Manuel Castro-Pablo and Cristino Pablo-Alonzo -- each pleaded guilty to one count of fraud in connection with an immigration document. They face a possible maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Two others pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of unlawful entry by an illegal immigrant. They face a maximum penalty of six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Raids at Swift & Co. plants in six states led to the arrests of more than 1,200 immigrant workers. All 53 people charged in the Northern District of Texas have pleaded guilty. Sentencing has not yet been set.

No charges were filed against Swift, which bills itself as the world's second-largest beef and pork processor.

EOCCs are hydraulic devices that protect sensitive cargos by mitigating the forces experienced by railcars during transit and coupling. The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the transaction harmed competition. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed consent decree that, if approved by the court, would resolve the Department's competitive concerns.

Amsted's acquisition of FMI was not subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 since the value of the transaction did not meet HSR reporting requirements. However, the Department opened an investigation after customers complained that the consummated transaction removed a significant constraint on pricing, resulting in an immediate price increase for EOCCs. According to the Department, the merging companies were the only two manufacturers of new EOCC units and two of only three suppliers of reconditioned EOCC units used in the railway industry. The acquisition left Amsted as the sole competitor in the market for new EOCCs and the dominant supplier in the reconditioned EOCC market.

"Amsted's acquisition of FMI substantially reduced competition resulting in higher prices," said Gerald F. Masoudi, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department's Antitrust Division. "This divestiture will create an opportunity for a new entrant to enter the markets for EOCCs and restore competition to these markets."

The Department said that the proposed consent decree requires Amsted to divest all of the intangible and other manufacturing assets needed to produce new and reconditioned EOCCs that it acquired from FMI. Because the FMI business was discontinued as a result of the transaction and Amsted has only one facility that manufactures EOCCs, the decree requires Amsted to grant a perpetual license to its own intellectual property to account for gaps in the FMI assets. The divestiture and license grant will be conveyed to an approved buyer, to facilitate that company's entry into the markets for new and reconditioned EOCCs. The Department said that the divestitures will enable that company to become a viable EOCC supplier and compete with Amsted.

In addition, under the proposed consent decree Amsted will be prohibited from acquiring any assets of or any interest in the development, production, or sale of EOCCs in the U.S. if the value of such acquisition exceeds $1 million without first notifying the U.S. through procedures set out in the decree, unless the transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. This notification requirement runs for a period of 10 years.

Amsted is a diversified manufacturer of industrial components serving primarily the railroad, vehicular, and construction markets. Its products include a range of railroad car parts, including couplers, side frames, bolsters, draft gears and hydraulic cushioning devices. In 2005, Amsted reported sales of $2.5 billion. Amsted's EOCC sales in the U.S. are made through ASF-Keystone Inc., a subsidiary of Amsted Industries, headquartered in Granite City, Ill.

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the Department's competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed decree during a 60-day comment period to Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 3000, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the Court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.

A Georgia woman is suing the town of Highlands and a Macon County funeral home after she fell into the open grave of her friend in a town-owned cemetery.

Marian May, of Marietta, Ga., fell into the grave of Jean Murphy Henderson in June 2004 while trying to place flowers on her casket.

She remembers the ground giving way as she stepped toward the casket and then hitting the concrete vault 6-feet below. The fall broke her hip, which she eventually had to have replaced.

"It is not much fun being down there, where it's nice and black and you are looking up and I am saying 'Jean, I don't want to go with you,'" May said.

The rescue squad removed her from the grave on a backboard.

A federal judge recently cleared the case to proceed. It could go to trial next year.

In the court papers, May claims the open grave was dangerous because green carpeting, which she says appeared to be a good place to step, was the only material covering its opening. She also says the side of the grave might have been crumbling beneath the carpeting.

She said the town and the funeral home are responsible because they didn't make the grave safe for the service, didn't dig it to the proper size, didn't cover the opening with plywood and failed to warn people about the danger.

She and her husband William May, 92, who claims the accident has cost him the affection of his wife, are suing for more than $75,000.

The town denied the claims in court papers filed in response to the lawsuit.

A lawyer for Highlands said the town didn't know about dangerous conditions at the graveside and that it is not responsible for making the area near a grave safe. The town's lawyer also said May didn't heed warnings from funeral home officials to stay away from the graveside.

Bryant Funeral Home also denied it was responsible for the accident in court papers and said funeral home workers warned May to stay away from the graveside.

In a second 5-4 decision handed down Wednesday, the Court held in James v. United States that attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, qualifies as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Under the ACCA, defendants may subjected to longer sentences if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. James unsuccessfully argued that his Florida conviction for attempted burglary did not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision in the case. Read the Court's opinion per Justice Alito, along with a dissent from Justice Scalia and a second dissent from Justice Thomas.