From NBC's Pete Williams
Six states, New York City, and three conservation groups ran into a buzz saw at the U.S. Supreme Court today, likely signaling an end to their legal battle against five big power companies over global warming.

The Supreme Court Building is seen last month on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)

They filed their lawsuit in 2004, hoping to have a legal fallback ready in the event the Environmental Protection Agency chooses not to impose carbon dioxide pollution limits on existing power plants. The states, New York, and the conservation groups -- collectively, the plaintiffs -- claimed that those power plants were creating a public nuisance, releasing greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and cause environmental damage. The power plants they targeted, their suit said, emit ten percent of the entire country's carbon dioxide pollution.

But based on comments from the justices during today's oral argument, it's doubtful the plaintiffs have a single vote on the court in favor of keeping their lawsuit going. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the EPA has decided to look at whether CO2 emissions from existing plants should be regulated. "Doesn't that mean that this federal action displaces any right to sue under common law?" he asked.

Even the court's more liberal justices hinted that they doubted the plaintiffs could keep their public nuisance suit going. "The relief you seek sounds like what the EPA does. You want to turn federal judges into a super-EPA," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

The justices were also skeptical that the plaintiffs could successfully attribute a measurable change in global warming -- a worldwide phenomenon -- to a single group of polluters. The states claim they can do so based on past cases in which one state sues a company in another state for causing pollution that creates a public nuisance. "But there's a huge gap or chasm between state pollution cases and this global one," said Justice Elena Kagan. 

The EPA has said it will decide by May of 2012 whether to regular CO2 emissions from existing plants. Environmental groups wanted this lawsuit to be a fallback in the event it views the EPA's action as insufficient. But it now seems doubtful that legal safety net will be available.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Assuming it doesn't last very long, a government shutdown would not have much effect on the federal courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court would likely go on about its business, much as it did during the last federal shutdown. Back then, a court official says, the justices and the court staff continued coming to work, and the court remained open to visitors.

The rest of the federal judiciary -- the trial and appeals courts -- have enough money to keep going for 10 days, or two work weeks, says a spokesman for the administrative Office of the U.S. courts.

"Once that funding is exhausted, however, the federal court system faces serious disruptions," the spokesman says. "Following their own contingency plans, federal courts would limit operation to essential activities." That court mean that some jury trials would be postponed.

From NBC's Pete Williams and Jonathan Hutcheson
Did President Obama violate the Constitution or federal law when he ordered the U.S. military to take part in coalition attacks on forces loyal to Moammar Khaddafy in Libya?

The Constitution itself doesn't answer the question, because it gives Congress authority "to raise and support Armies," "to provide and maintain a Navy," and "to declare War." But it also provides that, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

Congress has formally declared war only five times in U.S. history -- for the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II. But presidents have approved dozens of military actions with no such declaration, including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam. 

Well over 100 military operations were ordered without any advance Congressional authorization at all. Recent examples include actions in Grenada, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, and intervention in civil wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia.

A federal law, the War Powers Act of 1973, requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before deploying U.S. forces. An exception was made for emergencies created by attacks on the U.S. or its armed forces.

Some legal scholars conclude that President Obama violated the law's requirements, when he failed to seek congressional approval.

"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.

While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.

But one former official who advised President George W. Bush said that while the decision to deploy U.S. forces in the Libyan operation was a political and strategic mistake, it's entirely legal.

"Congress raises and supports the military, but the president is the commander. Declaring war and making war are two different functions. There's no question President Obama has the authority to do what he did," the official said, asking that his name not be used.

Mr. Obama's actions are consistent with the way every president since Richard Nixon has treated the War Powers Act, choosing to notify Congress only after a decision has been made to sign orders authorizing military operations.

His actions do, however, appear to contradict the view he expressed as a candidate. In December 2007, he told Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe that a president "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 

So who's right? Constitutional questions, and legal battles over violations of federal laws, are normally resolved by judges. But this is an area where the courts have been reluctant to tread, unwilling to referee what they see as disputes between the political branches of the government. 

From NBC's Pete Williams
In a concession to his inability to close down the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as he planned to do when he came into office, President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to resume military tribunals for some detainees there.

Since Obama became president, no NEW cases were referred to military tribunals, but some existing cases were proceeding. This order lifts the freeze and allows new cases to be brought.

However, the policy makes clear that the administration continues to believe that some cases should be tried in civilian U.S. courts. This new policy today does not mean that ALL detainees at Gitmo will be tried in military commissions. 

In other words, the administration continues to believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-value detainees should be tried here, not at Gitmo, and it will continue pushing Congress to change a recently enacted law which bars bringing any further detainees to the U.S. for trial. However, if Congress is unwilling to budge, then this new policy opens up an avenue for putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial before a military commission, if it comes to that.

From NBC's Pete Williams
After giving the Obama administration a severe tongue lashing, the federal judge in Florida who found the health-care law unconstitutional agreed today to put a hold on his own ruling while the government appeals.

Judge Roger Vinson said he never expected, after ruling Jan. 31 against federal agencies who were defending the law, "that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act" and then ask the judge to explain the practical effect of his own ruling. When a judge finds a law unconstitutional, Vinson said, it's assumed to have the force of an injunction, or order barring enforcement, because of a long-standing presumption that the government will comply with court rulings.

The judge found that the individual mandate in the law, requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance, exceeded the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. But because he said it could not be cleanly separated from the rest of the law, he declared the entire act unconstitutional.

In mid-February, the Justice Department asked the judge to clarify his ruling. His order, the government said, "potentially implicates hundreds of provisions of the Act and, if it were interpreted to apply to programs currently in effect, duties currently in force, taxes currently being collected, and tax credits that may be owed at this time or in the near future, would create substantial uncertainty."

Today, a clearly exasperated Judge Vinson said it was possible the government "may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood" his earlier order. He repeated that he meant for the administration to stop enforcing the health-care law. Even so, given the need for a quick resolution of the issue nationwide, he agreed to put his earlier order on hold, provided that the government seeks fast-track review in either a federal appeals court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Justice Department said it would seek quick review in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “We appreciate the court's recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted," said a Department spokesman, Tracy Schmaler.

“We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case and continue to believe - as three federal courts have found - that this law is constitutional,” she added.   

From NBC's Pete Williams:  In a powerful 8-1 ruling, the US Supreme Court today ruled in favor of a highly controversial group from Kansas that has made a practice of protesting at military funerals with signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates You."

It is a huge victory for a group whose antics have outraged many, including veterans groups.

The court today threw out a jury's award of damages to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq.  He sued the group, claiming that its protests at his son's funeral robbed him of his only chance to bury his son with dignity.   But today, the court said the group's actions were protected by the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.

The subject of the protests -- gays in the military, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and controversies in the Catholic church -- are plainly matters of public interest.  The group's views were expressed in a public place, and the group abided by all local regulations that restrict protests at funerals.

"Speech is powerful.  It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain," Roberts wrote.  But he said the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.

For more on the Court's decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, click here.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The suspicions of a North Carolina chemical dealer have led to the arrest of a college student in Texas, who is accused of plotting to carry out bomb attacks in the U.S.

The FBI arrested 20-year-old Khalid Al-M Aldawsari, a Saudi Arabian college student in Lubbock, late yesterday. Agents say he was in the process of buying chemicals that could be used to make a powerful bomb. They say a search of his home found documents indicating that he has been planning a terror attack in the U.S. "for years" and was inspired by bin Laden's speeches.

Investigators say they found e-mails that Aldawsari sent to himself, one of which was titled "targets." It listed the home addresses of three former U.S. soldiers who served at abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reservoirs and dams in California and Colorado, and "the Dallas address for former President George W. Bush," court document say.

From NBC's Pete Williams
What's the point, asks Virginia's attorney general, of letting the federal appeals courts chew over the constitutionality of the health care law when only the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether it's willing to expand the powers of Congress?

That's the question at the heart of an unusual request filed Wednesday by Virginia, asking the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals courts and take up a review of the health care law as soon as possible. The Supreme Court grants such requests exceedingly rarely, and one justice signaled just last week that she would resist such a move.

The Justice Department has already indicated it will oppose this request.

Ken Cuccinelli (R), Virginia's attorney general, argues that this is the kind of case the justices should take up, because conflicting district-court decisions about the constitutionality of the health-care law have left states and businesses unsure about which requirements, if any, will survive the legal battle.

"States, citizens, and the economy remain mired in uncertainty," he says in his court filing. "Citizens and businesses are widely believed to be reducing spending and delaying hiring in response to the overhand of uncertainty."

Allowing lawsuits filed by Virginia and other states to take their normal course through the appeals courts "will not further focus the controlling issues," Cuccinelli writes. "It is not clear to what extent the courts of appeal are even entitled to engage in independent legal development in the face of binding precedent" from the Supreme Court.

Some aspects of his court filing lean more on political arguments than legal ones.  He says, for example, that the health care law "has roiled America. The party that unanimously opposed" the law in the House "has just seen its largest electoral gains in over seventy years."

At a public forum in Washington last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that she, for one, would look unfavorably on an attempt to bypass the appeals courts. Asked about the practice in general, but reminded that the health care issue was coming, Ginsburg said of the appeals process, "In most cases, travel is rather slow.  And one reason that that's good is by the time that the case comes to the Supreme Court, other courts have considered the issue.

"We will get a range of views, we will get good minds on federal courts of appeals, district courts, giving their best interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to this particular law. So, we do so much better when we have the views of other federal judges who are certainly no less qualified then we are," Justice Ginsburg said.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Two of the newest members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Republican Mike Lee of Utah, share a distinction appropriate to that committee. Both were U.S. Supreme Court clerks.

Blumenthal clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun, and Lee was a clerk for Justice Samuel Alito. 

But how many other U.S. senators have clerked for Supreme Court justices throughout American history? 

A) 0
B) 2
C) 3
D) 5

The correct answer is below. But before getting to it, it's worth noting how many former Supreme Court clerks have gone on to become justices on the high court. Three members of the current court have that distinction -- John Roberts clerked for William Rehnquist; Elena Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall; and Stephen Breyer clerked for Arthur Goldberg. Among former justices, Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson; John Paul Stevens clerked for Wiley Rutledge; and Byron White clerked for Fred Vinson.

Now to the answer: It's zero. Remarkably, Lee and Blumenthal become the first U.S. senators ever to serve as Supreme Court clerks, according to a check with the court and the Senate historian. It's a fact first pointed out by Legal Times, noted in introducing an interview with Sen. Lee in its Feb. 7 issue.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a January 2011 photo in Richmond, Va.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Virginia official most responsible for his state's challenge to the health-care law says he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the legal dispute over the law quickly, bypassing the federal appeals courts.

Federal law does allow for appealing a trial judge's ruling directly, without waiting for an intermediate appeals court to review the case. It is, however,  a legal gambit disfavored by the Supreme Court and rarely granted. 

Even so, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) says this is the sort of exception the rules were intended to accommodate.

"Given the uncertainty caused by the divergent rulings of the various courts on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we feel that it is necessary to seek resolution of this issue as quickly as possible," he said. 

"Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest," Cuccinelli said.

The Justice Department opposes the move, partly on the grounds that if any case should be used to fast-track a decision, this one isn't it, given that the ruling the state seeks to appeal is partly based on fact unique to Virginia -- a state law declaring that residents cannot be required to buy insurance.

"This case is one of two that are already scheduled for argument in the 4th Circuit this May, so going through the usual process would make little difference in timing as to when the Supreme Court could hear it, while allowing the appellate court to thoroughly evaluate the issues," said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler.

"The individual responsibility provision does not go into effect until 2014, so there is more than sufficient time for this case to proceed first in the court of appeals," she said.

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the process of leap-frogging over the appeals court as "an extremely rare occurrence." It has been granted in cases of national emergency, such as the Truman administration crisis over nationalizing steel mills and the showdown over Watergate tapes during the Nixon administration.

But the Supreme Court has declined to hear other cases that were deemed to be of national importance, denying immediate review, for example, in the 1998 case that sought to test whether President Clinton could be sued while in office.

Cuccinelli undeniably has a point, because some states are confused about the effect of the two federal court rulings declaring the law unconstitutional. But the split among the lower courts is precisely the sort of condition that the Supreme Court prefers to let the appeals courts sort out before the justices wade in.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Justice Department responded promptly to today's ruling on the health-care law, pledging to appeal.

"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides; that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires; and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she said.

From NBC's Pete Williams
Attorney General Eric Holder called today's life sentence -- the maximum allowed by law -- for convicted bombing conspirator Ahmed Ghailani a demonstration of "the strength of the American justice system in holding terrorists accountable for their actions." 

While the jury's verdict in November was something of a setback for the government, finding Ghailani guilty of only one of 285 counts in the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa, today's sentence of life in prison was what the government had urged the judge to impose. Ghailani was convicted in November of helping al Qaeda plotters obtain the materials they needed to build two powerful bombs that killed 213 people at the embassy in Kenya and 11 more at the embassy in Tanzania.

Today's legal victory for the government is somewhat muted, however. Ghailani, once viewed as a test case for putting detainees from Guantanamo Bay on trial in U.S. civilian courts, may turn out to the last such case. 

Holder said the sentence shows the government's resolve to "use every tool available to the government to do so," invoking the language he has employed to argue that terrorism detainees can be effectively tried in regular civilian courts and not only before military commissions.

But Congress has blocked the government from any further use of one of those tools, by revoking the authority to bring any more Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. to face trial in civilian courts. While Justice Department officials continue to believe that such high-profile terror suspects as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in the U.S., there's a growing sense that if the 9/11 detainees are ever going to be put on trial, it will probably be before a military commission at Guantanamo.