The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed the limits on contributions that political parties can raise, and rejected a challenge by the Republican Party that the restrictions violated free-speech rights.

The justices sided with the Obama administration and affirmed a ruling that upheld the limits, a cornerstone of the 2002 federal campaign finance law designed to regulate the influence of money in politics.

Republican Party attorneys had sought to end the limits and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in January that corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.

That decision has been denounced by President Barack Obama for turning loose a flood of special-interest money into the U.S. political system before the November congressional elections, when Democratic control of Congress is in jeopardy.

It also has provoked efforts by Democrats in Congress to adopt legislation to blunt the impact of the ruling and has become a major issue at the Senate confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, who Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court.

Nearly three dozen alleged members and associates of the New York-based Lucchese crime family have pleaded not guilty to state racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering charges in New Jersey.

Among the defendants who appeared in court in Morristown on Monday was Nicodemo Scarfo Jr., son of former Philadelphia crime boss Nicodemo "Little Nicky" Scarfo.

Also charged are Joseph DiNapoli of Scarsdale, N.Y., and Matthew Madonna of Seldon, N.Y., alleged members of the Lucchese family's three-man ruling panel.

An indictment alleges a litany of offenses under the racketeering charge, including gambling, theft, aggravated assault and bribery.

The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that Philip Morris does not have to pay $100 million in punitive damages to the family of a smoker who sued the tobacco giant over its low-tar cigarettes.

The case, however, is going to another jury to decide just how much the death of Michelle Schwarz from lung cancer in 1999 will cost Philip Morris — and legal experts say it could easily be another big award.

A Multnomah County jury in Portland originally awarded the Schwarz family $150 million in March 2002 before the trial judge reduced it to $100 million.

On Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court vacated the $100 million award and sent the case back to the trial court to reconsider the punitive damages after ruling the judge failed to properly instruct the jury.

The court said the judge should have told the jury it could not punish Philip Morris directly for harm caused to others besides Schwarz.

But the court also supported the trial judge, who had rejected jury instructions the tobacco company had requested.

While busy running a general store that caters to the growing number of Latinos in this Nebraska meatpacking town, Alfredo Velez had new concerns Tuesday after his neighbors voted for an ordinance to crack down on illegal immigrants.

To Velez, the vote a day earlier in Fremont to ban hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants sent a clear message: "We're not welcome here," said Velez, a native of Mexico who became a U.S. citizen in 1985.

As a business owner, though, he worried about his store, Guerrero, which sells food and other products from Mexico and Central America.

"How much more in taxes am I going to have to pay for this thing to go to court?" wondered Velez, 56. "We're all going to have to pay for it, no matter what color our skin is."

With roughly 57 percent of voters supporting the ordinance, Fremont joins Arizona and a few other cities in the national debate over immigration regulations. The community about 35 miles northwest of Omaha has seen its Hispanic population surge in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel plants.

Supporters argued the measure was necessary to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it's aimed at people who aren't legally in the U.S.

The Utah Supreme Court says state election officials must accept online petition signatures that are turned in to get individuals on the ballot.

The justices announced the unanimous decision Tuesday as voters went to the polls for primary elections.

The issue was raised by an independent candidate for governor. Farley Anderson's paperwork included more than 150 e-signatures and was rejected by the lieutenant governor's office.

Utah law acknowledges that electronic signatures are valid substitutes for handwritten ones, but the state attorney general's office argued that e-signatures could not be counted because election law only contemplates a paper-based system.

Farley's attorney argued that the state denied Farley his constitutional right to ballot access.

The Supreme Court on Monday:

_Upheld a federal law that bars "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups. The court ruled 6-3 that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

_Decided to allow a new trial for a woman who got breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy and is seeking punitive damages against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The justices rejected Wyeth's attempt to block the trial because it is to be limited to punitive damages. Wyeth is a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug company.

_Ruled that a federal judge went too far when he banned the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds after claims that the plants might harm the environment. The court, on a 7-1 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.

_Made it harder for people to challenge arbitration agreements in court. The court, in a 5-4 vote, decided that arbitrators are the only ones who can decide if an arbitration agreement as a whole is "unconscionable" if the contract explicitly delegates that issue to the arbitrator and a person fails to challenge that specific clause.

_Announced that it will decide whether Virginia's advocate for the mentally ill can force state