Walters spoke just before Bell, 17, was freed on $45,000 bail after spending 10 months in jail for beating a white classmate.

"He goes home because a lot of people left their home and stood up for him," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, referring to the Sept.20 march. "We do not condone violence of any kind. ... Upon this young man's shoulders is a movement for fairness."

His parents at his side, Bell, who did not speak, walked out of the LaSalle Parish courthouse, flanked also by Martin Luther King 3rd and Sharpton, who recently supplanted less media-savvy local activists to become Bell's spokesman.

An all-white jury convicted Bell after his court-appointed lawyer failed to question any witnesses. The conviction was thrown out this month when an appeals court said he should not have been tried as an adult.

Walters, who is being accused of treating black offenders more harshly than white ones, said he decided not to appeal the ruling.

He said he would retry the case in juvenile court as soon as possible.

"I believe that it is in the best interest of the victim and his family not to delay this matter any further," he said.

Walters charged Bell and five black friends - known as the Jena 6 - with attempted murder last year for punching and stomping white classmate Justin Barker after a series of ugly racial incidents in town.

Walters later reduced the charge to aggravated battery, which could still put the teens in prison for 20 years.

"With the Illinois Act, the state ... is attempting to indirectly regulate the U.S. government by imposing state standards on a federal program that must be satisfied before Illinois employers are permitted to enroll," the 12-page complaint states. "Congress also made it clear its objective and purpose to encourage broad participation in the Basic Pilot Program by instructing DHS to expand the program to all 50 states."

The suit asks for the state law to be declared invalid and seeks an injunction on the ban. Employers using the program submit job applicants' identification information into Social Security Administration and Homeland Security databases on the Internet to confirm their work eligibility. In most cases, the check takes a few seconds, according to Homeland Security. If the program cannot confirm the work eligibility of an applicant, it issues a "tentative nonconfirmation" notice that can take days or weeks to resolve.

Supporters say the program helps employers keep illegal immigrants off employee rolls, but critics note it has an accuracy rate of between 80 percent and 95 percent, which they say marks it as too unreliable and results in some applicants being wrongly dismissed. The Illinois ban was to remain in effect until the program results were 99 percent accurate. The ban also exempts employers who undergo training in the program and receive "anti-discrimination notices" from the U.S. Department of Justice and Illinois Department of Human Rights. About 750 Illinois businesses used E-Verify before the ban took effect, according to the complaint.

The Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a Chicago-based advocacy group, said they thought Homeland Security was wrong in considering the voluntary E-Verify program a federal mandate.

"The verification program is voluntary for nearly all private employers; they are not required to participate in these verification programs to begin with," the statement reads. "The law does not interfere with any federal obligation because for most employers no such obligation exists."

But the department's actions may already have had an effect, as some state lawmakers started backing away from the amendment after learning of the lawsuit.

"We should take a second look at that bill," said Rep. Ruth Munson, R-Elgin, who was one of 76 state House members who voted to pass the amendment in April. "If DHS thinks it's an important tool, the state ought to step back and look at what it does. Maybe the law needs to be repealed or changed."

"The governor would rather do this next week," Brown said. "He's totally focused on the fires."

California intends to sue the EPA in federal court to force a decision on whether California and 11 other states, including Rhode Island, can impose stricter vehicle standards.

The state has waited 22 months for a response from the agency to its petition to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles.

California regulators need an answer because they want to implement a 2002 state law requiring vehicles sold in California to emit fewer greenhouse gases starting with model year 2009.

The proposed standard would cut emissions in California by about a quarter by the year 2030, according to the California Air Resources Board. But the law can take effect only if the EPA grants California a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA held hearings in May on the state's request, and administrator Steven Johnson has said he would make a decision by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the agency is also crafting national standards that it plans to propose by the end of the year.

California's lawsuit will allege there has been an "unreasonable delay" by the EPA in deciding on the waiver request, which the state first applied for in December 2005.

Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington also plan to join California's lawsuit against the EPA, officials in those states said.

While the federal government sets national air pollution rules, California has unique status under the Clean Air Act to enact its own regulations -- with permission from the EPA. Other states can then follow either the federal rules or California standards, if they are tougher.

Eleven other states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- are ready to implement California's emissions standards. The governors of Arizona, Florida and New Mexico also have said their states will adopt the standard.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Honda, Nissan, Toyota and 11 other foreign car companies, has sued to block the standards from taking effect.

It argues the standards would raise the cost of cars and could force manufacturers to pull some sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks from showrooms. Their case is pending in federal court in Fresno.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has asked the EPA to deny the waiver, arguing there should be one federal standard.

"There's no mention anywhere on this page telling consumers installing the drop rail that there is a top and bottom," attorney Mark Weycer said.

"I feel like we followed the instructions to the best of our ability," said Arceneaux.

Without knowing it, the Arceneauxs put the drop rail on upside-down and because of that, they said a hinge broke. That allowed a gap between the mattress and the rail. That gap is where they said Royale suffocated to death with her head against the mattress.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled more than one million cribs made by Simplicity, also using the Graco logo, because the drop rail can become detached.

"If you are a parent who has this type of crib, check immediately to see if it's one being recalled. If it is, don't put your child in that crib tonight," said Patty Davis of the CPSC.

Other parents around the Houston area, such as Tammy Ellison of Nassau Bay, said she felt lucky nothing happened to her little boy. Nine-month-old Dylan has been sleeping in his Simplicity crib since he came home from the hospital.

"It's scary. My crib's put together right, but I don't feel it's safe for him," said Ellison.

Dylan will be sleeping in his playpen until the company sends her a repair kit. She said that could take four to six weeks.

The recall may be too late for little Royale, but her mother said it's still a blessing.

"Royale is gone. I can't bring her back. I wish I could. It helps me sleep at night now that this is recalled, to help other families," said Arceneaux.

CPSC said at least three babies have died in Simplicity cribs from the defect, and seven more had been dangerously trapped. There were more than a dozen different models being recalled. The recalled Simplicity crib models include: Aspen 3 in 1, Aspen 4 in 1, Nursery-in-a-Box, Crib N Changer Combo, Chelsea and Pooh 4 in 1. The recall also involves the following Simplicity cribs that used the Graco logo: Aspen 3 in 1, Ultra 3 in 1, Ultra 4 in1, Ultra 5 in 1, Whitney and the Trio.

The recalled cribs have one of the following model numbers, which can be found on the envelope attached to the mattress support and on the label attached to the headboard: 4600, 4605, 4705, 5000, 8000, 8324, 8800, 8740, 8910, 8994, 8050, 8750, 8760, and 8996.

The cribs, which were made in China, were sold in department stores, children?s stores and mass merchandisers nationwide from January 1998 through May 2007 for between $100 and $300.

Signed by "God," the response filed Wednesday argues the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction over God.

Blaming the Almighty for human oppression and suffering misses an important point, it says.

"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.

St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.

Another response - also signed God - says the Lord disputes Chambers' allegations.

That filing lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.

Chambers could not be reached Thursday to comment on the response. He said in his five-page lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against him and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against God.

The self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit against a judge, filed by a woman who was barred from saying "rape," "victim" and other words in court.

Chambers said the woman's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.

Chambers said his lawsuit is serious but also makes a point: Anybody can sue anybody.

The judge based his decision in part on a 1969 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that allowed students in Des Moines to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. He wrote that had the button depicted swastikas, a Confederate flag, or a burning cross, it would have been "plainly offensive" and he would have ruled differently.

The schools superintendent, Patricia L. McGeehan, said the district was disappointed in the ruling, and planned to review its options.

Ms. McGeehan said in a statement that the district was "very concerned with the precedent this may set not only for Bayonne but for every public school district in New Jersey that tries to create and maintain a school environment conducive to learning and that is not offensive to students or staff."

The statement added, "Images of racial and ethnic intolerance do not belong in an elementary school classroom."

The dispute over the button began last fall, when Michael DePinto, 11, who was a fifth grader at Public School 14 at the time, objected to the policy.

To protest, he and his mother, Laura, 47, made a button that included a photograph of a group of grim, identically dressed members of Hitler Youth with the words "No School Uniforms" imposed over them.

After Michael wore the button for several weeks, the district sent a letter to his home in November, demanding that he stop or face suspension. Another fifth-grade student, Anthony LaRocco, then began wearing one as well.

After the suspension threat, the boys' parents sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were being denied.

Michael said on Thursday that he had never intended to offend anyone but merely make a point about conformity.

"It's like forcing a swastika on someone," he said. "It's what Hitler did to his youth."

Hicks, 32, who was convicted by a US military court of supporting terrorism, was yesterday shown mug shots of persons of interest to Australian police when they interviewed him in jail in Adelaide.

But his lawyer, David McLeod, said Hicks had largely been unable to assist them.

The hour-long interview at the Yatala maximum-security prison was the first to be conducted with Hicks on Australian soil.

Mr McLeod described it as a "sweeping up exercise" ahead of Hicks's scheduled release from jail on December 29. "He was basically asked a series of questions and shown various images," said Mr McLeod, who sat in on the questioning.

"He was unable to assist in most of it, though his intention was to assist as best he could."

Mr McLeod said Hicks had told him he would honour the US-imposed ban on speaking immediately after his release, meaning Australians would not be able to hear his account of his time with Taliban forces in Afghanistan and his treatment by the Americans until March next year at the earliest.

While the Howard Government has warned Hicks it would intervene to prevent him from profiting from the sale of his story, Mr Ruddock has acknowledged that the US gag on non-paid media interviews probably could not be enforced in Australia.

But Mr McLeod said Hicks wanted to take no chances with breaching the conditions of his plea bargain with the US military, under which he returned home in May to serve out the balance of his sentence. Under the deal, clinched in March at the controversial detention centre in Guantanamo Bay where Hicks spent most of his five years in US custody, he agreed not to speak to the media for at least a year.