The Supreme Judicial Court's punishment for Judge Ernest Murphy is slightly less severe than the public censure and $25,000 fine recommended by the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct. The SJC did order Murphy to reimburse the commission for its costs.

The case began in 2002, after the Herald published a series of stories depicting Murphy as soft on crime. Several quoted Murphy as saying a young rape victim should "get over it."

Murphy won his lawsuit, then wrote threatening letters to the Herald publisher demanding payment.

Murphy agreed in August to step down from the bench, citing health problems brought on by the stress of the case.

The court issued a one-line denial of an appeal by contractors who worked at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The contractors — E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., General Electric Co. and UNC Nuclear Industries Inc. — were challenging a lower-court ruling last spring that sided largely with the plaintiffs.

The people exposed to radiation lived in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon and Idaho, downwind of Hanford, as the U.S. government was developing atomic bombs in the 1940s.

The government did not disclose until 1986 that radiation had been released at the site, and since then the "downwinders" have sought compensation for thyroid cancer and other conditions they believe were caused by the exposure.

"This is very exciting for us," Richard Eymann, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the long-running case, told The Spokesman-Review of Spokane. "With a new administration coming in, we want a serious look at compensation for these people after years of litigation."

So far, the plaintiffs have not agreed to a settlement offer by the contractors that would compensate them based on the amount of radiation they likely received and the illnesses they have, said Kevin Van Wart, lead attorney in Chicago for the Hanford contractors.

In a 5-4 split won by the court's liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote "light" and "low tar" brands.

The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power.

Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices. The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine, where the case originated, and across the country.

The roster of potential victims in what prosecutors said was a $50 billion Ponzi scheme has grown exponentially longer in the past few days.

Madoff, 70, said in regulatory filings that he only had around 25 clients, but it has become apparent that the list of people who lost money may number in the hundreds or even thousands.

Among those who have acknowledged potential losses so far: Former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon and J. Ezra Merkin, the chairman of GMAC Financial Services.

A charity in Massachusetts that supports Jewish programs, the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, said it had invested its entire $8 million endowment with Madoff. The organization's executive director said she doesn't expect it to survive.

Other institutions that believed they had lost millions included The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and the Texas-based Julian J. Levitt Foundation.

Hedge funds and other investment groups looked like big losers too. The Fairfield Greenwich Group said it had some $7.5 billion in investments linked to Madoff. A private Swiss bank, Banque Benedict Hentsch Fairfield Partners SA, said it had $47.5 million worth of client assets at risk.