In July, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which required 28 mostly Eastern states to reduce smog-forming and soot-producing emissions that can travel long distances in the wind.

The court said the EPA overstepped its authority by instituting the rule, citing "more than several fatal flaws" in the regulation. However, a three-judge panel decided to reinstate the rule while the EPA develops a new clean air program.

Judge Judith W. Rogers said allowing the country to go without the protection of CAIR while the EPA fixes it "would sacrifice clear benefits to public health and the environment."

The judges did not give EPA a deadline to come up with new regulations, but warned the agency that this decision is not an "indefinite stay" of its July ruling.

The Environmental Protection Agency had predicted that the Clean Air Interstate Rule would prevent about 17,000 premature deaths a year by dramatically reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. In addition, the EPA said the rule would save up to $100 billion in health benefits, eliminate millions of lost work and school days and prevent tens of thousands of nonfatal heart attacks.

The court also fined the newspaper 25,000 Singapore dollars ($16,400).

Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled Tuesday against the newspaper and two of its editors, three weeks after Attorney General Walter Woon argued the editorials published in June and July questioned the judiciary's independence from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the ruling People's Action Party. Not meting out punishment in this case would undermine the country's rule of law, the court said.

The letter to the editor was written by Chee Soon Juan, head of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.

The editorials and the letter "contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence and implied that the judiciary is subservient to Mr. Lee and/or the PAP and is a tool for silencing political dissent," Tay wrote in the ruling.

"There can be no doubt that allegations of the nature mentioned above would immediately cast doubts on the judiciary in Singapore and undermine public confidence."

The newspaper's lawyer, Philip Jeyaretnam, was not immediately available for comment. The Wall Street Journal is published by Dow Jones & Co., a part of News Corp.

Singapore's leaders have sued journalists and political opponents several times in past years for alleged defamation. They have won lawsuits and damages against Bloomberg, the Economist and the International Herald Tribune.

Human Rights Watch called on Singapore last month to stop using defamation lawsuits to stifle criticism and bankrupt opposition politicians, citing the High Court's decision in October to order Chee and his party to pay $416,000 to Lee and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, in damages stemming from a 2006 defamation case.

Government leaders justify suing political opponents, saying it is necessary to defend their personal and professional reputations since it bears on their ability to govern properly and command respect from Singaporeans.

The justices typically avoid cases about judicial ethics, but they agreed to review the actions of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice whose vote overturned a $50 million verdict against a company that is run by the most generous backer of his election.

The high court's decision comes amid growing concern over the role of money in electing state judges. Campaign spending on state supreme court elections rose by 25 percent to nearly $20 million from 2006 to 2008, a national justice reform group said.

Don Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy Co., spent more than $3 million to help elect Justice Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia high court. Benjamin twice was part of 3-2 majorities that threw out a verdict in favor of Harman Mining Co. in its coal contract dispute with Massey.

Harman said Benjamin's participation in the case created an appearance of bias strong enough to violate its constitutional rights.

The American Bar Assocation and other legal ethics groups have taken Harman's side.

In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has said that judges must avoid even the appearance of bias.

Benjamin repeatedly rejected calls to recuse himself from the case when it was before the state high court. He has since said that he fairly judged the dispute.

Benjamin issued a lengthy defense of his actions, pointing out that he had no financial interest in the outcome of the case and the campaign money went to an independent group, not his campaign. He had no comment Friday after the court accepted the case for review.

Massey vice president and general counsel Shane Harvey said, "We are confident that the Harman case was properly decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court."

David Fawcett, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents Harman and its founder, Hugh Caperton, said, "The question at issue here is central to the future of our court system." Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson will argue the case for Caperton at the Supreme Court, probably in March or April.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has not commented on the West Virginia dispute, but she has bemoaned the role of money in state judicial elections.

"There is too much special interest money and influence in state court elections," O'Connor said recently. "It endangers the public's faith in the justice system. If courts are going to stay impartial, leaders in every state need to get moving on reforms."

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, an advocate for ending partisan election of judges, said the case may get "people to pay attention to the problems partisan fundraising creates." Kourlis is executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, which provided the figures on spending in judicial elections.

The Supreme Court case stems from a jury verdict in 2002 that concluded Richmond, Va.-based Massey hijacked a coal supply contract from Harman, plunging both it and Caperton into bankruptcy.

Massey contended Harman filed for bankruptcy because of mounting losses at a mining facility and other problems that had nothing to do with Massey.

The case is Caperton v. Massey, 08-22.

In a 6-0 decision, the court said the fees permitted under the 1999 Check Cashers Act were really triple-digit interest rates. The state constitution limits interest rates on loans to 17 percent.

"Because that fee is in reality an amount owed to the lender in return for the use of borrowed money, we must conclude that the fees authorized clearly constitute interest," Justice Paul Danielson wrote.

Through a payday loan in Arkansas, a customer writing a check for $400, for example, typically would receive $350. The lender would keep the check for about two weeks before cashing it.

The customer could buy back the check for $350 during that two-week period, but otherwise would pay the full $400 when the company cashed his check. The $50 charge on a $350 loan for 14 days equates to 371 percent, well above Arkansas' usury limit.

Attorney Todd Turner, who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the Check Cashers Act, said the ruling means it will be impossible for payday lenders to operate in the state.

"It's great for all the Arkansas residents who have been paying 600 percent for these loans," Turner said.

Tom Hardin, attorney for the Arkansas Financial Services Association that sought to preserve the law, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Even before Thursday's ruling, the number of payday lenders in the state has dwindled in response to threats of lawsuits from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. An advocacy group said in a report last month that the number of payday lenders operating in the state has dropped from 237 in March to just 33.

In its 6-0 decision, the court overturned a Pulaski County judge who last year ruled that the 1999 act was constitutional.