The Supreme Court left in place Friday two Biden administration environmental regulations aimed at reducing industry emissions of planet-warming methane and toxic mercury.

The justices did not detail their reasoning in the orders, which came after a flurry of emergency applications to block the rules from industry groups and Republican-leaning states. There were no noted dissents.

The high court is still considering challenges to a third Environmental Protection Agency rule aimed at curbing planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.

The regulations are part of a broader effort by the Biden administration aimed at curbing climate change that includes financial incentives to buy electric vehicles and upgrade infrastructure, and rules tightening tailpipe pollution standards for cars and trucks.

The industry groups and states had argued the EPA overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards with the new regulations. The EPA, though, said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.

An EPA spokesperson said Friday the agency is pleased that the Supreme Court denied applications to stay the final methane and mercury rules. EPA believes the rule tightening methane emissions from oil and gas drilling will deliver major climate and health benefits for all Americans, while the mercury rule will limit hazardous pollution from coal-fired power plants, spokesperson Remmington Belford said.

The methane rule will build on innovative technologies and solutions that many oil- and gas-producing states and companies are already using or have committed to use, while the mercury and air toxics rule “will ensure that the nation’s coal-fired power plants meet up-to-date standards for hazardous air pollutants,” Belford said.

Both rules are firmly grounded in the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, he said. The Supreme Court has shot down other environmental regulations in recent years, including a landmark decision that limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in 2022, and another that halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.

The methane rule puts new requirements on the oil and gas industry, which is the largest emitter of the gas that’s a key contributor to climate change. A lower court previously refused to halt the regulation.

Methane is the main component in natural gas and is far more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term. Sharp cuts in methane emissions are a global priority — including the United States — to slow the rate of climate change.

The methane rule targets emissions from existing oil and gas wells nationwide, rather than focusing only on new wells. It also regulates smaller wells that will be required to find and plug methane leaks.

Studies have found that smaller wells produce just 6% of the nation’s oil and gas but account for up to half the methane emissions from well sites. The plan also calls for a phased-in requirement for energy companies to eliminate routine flaring, or burning of natural gas that is produced by new oil wells.

The states challenging the rule called the new standards “impossible to meet” and said they amounted to an “attack” on the industry.

The mercury rule, meanwhile, came after a reversal of a move by the Trump administration. It updated regulations that were more than a decade old for emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants that can affect the nervous system, kidneys and fetal development.

Industry groups and conservative-leaning states argued emissions were already low enough, and the new standards could force the shuttering coal-fired power plants.

A North Carolina appeals court on Friday blocked students and employees at the state's flagship public university from providing a digital identification produced by the school when voting to comply with a new photo ID mandate.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the intermediate-level Court of Appeals reverses at least temporarily last month's decision by the State Board of Elections that the mobile ID generated by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill met security and photo requirements in the law and could be used.

The Republican National Committee and state Republican Party sued to overturn the decision by the Democratic-majority board earlier this month, saying the law allows only physical ID cards to be approved. Superior Court Judge Keith Gregory last week denied a temporary restraining order to halt its use. The Republicans appealed.

Friday's order didn't include the names of the three judges who considered the Republicans' requests and who unanimously ordered the elections board not to accept the mobile UNC One Card for casting a ballot this fall. The court releases the judges' names later. Eleven of the court's 15 judges are registered Republicans.

The order also didn't give the legal reasoning to grant the GOP's requests, although it mentioned a board memo that otherwise prohibits other images of physical IDs — like those copied or photographed — from qualifying.

In court briefs, lawyers for the RNC and N.C. GOP said refusing to block the ID's use temporarily would upend the status quo for the November election — in which otherwise only physical cards are accepted — and could result in ineligible voters casting ballots through manipulating the electronic card.

North Carolina GOP spokesperson Matt Mercer said Friday's decision "will ensure election integrity and adherence to state law."

The Democratic National Committee and a UNC student group who joined the case said the board rightly determined that the digital ID met the requirements set in state law. The DNC attorneys wrote that preventing its use could confuse or even disenfranchise up to 40,000 people who work or attend the school so close to the election.

North Carolina is considered a presidential battleground state where statewide races are often close.

Friday's ruling could be appealed to the state Supreme Court. A lawyer for the DNC referred questions to a spokesperson for Kamala Harris' campaign who didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A state board spokesperson also didn't immediately respond to a similar request.

Voters can still show photo IDs from several broad categories, including their driver's license, passport and military IDs. The board also has approved over 130 types of traditional student and employee IDs.

The mobile UNC One Card marked the first such ID posted from someone's smartphone that the board has approved. Only the mobile ID credentials on Apple phones qualified.

The mobile UNC One Card is now the default ID card issued on campus, although students and permanent employees can still obtain a physical card instead for a small fee. The school said recently it would create physical cards at no charge for those who received a digital ID but want the physical card for voting.

The Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature enacted a voter ID law in late 2018, but legal challenges prevented the mandate's implementation until municipal elections in 2023. Infrequent voters will meet the qualifications for the first time this fall. Voters who lack an ID can fill out an exception form.

Early in-person voting begins Oct. 17, and absentee ballots are now being distributed to those requesting them. Absentee voters also must provide a copy of an ID or fill out the exception form.

The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that nearly 98,000 people whose citizenship documents hadn’t been confirmed can vote in state and local races, a significant decision that could influence ballot measures and tight legislative races.

The court’s decision comes after officials uncovered a database error that for two decades mistakenly designated the voters as having access to the full ballot. The voters already were entitled to cast ballots in federal races, including for president and Congress, regardless of how the court ruled.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Stephen Richer, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, had disagreed on what status the voters should hold. Richer asked the high court to weigh in, saying Fontes ignored state law by advising county officials to let affected voters cast full ballots.

Fontes said not allowing the voters who believed they had satisfied voting requirements access to the full ballot would raise equal protection and due process concerns.

The high court, which leans Republican, agreed with Fontes. It said county officials lack the authority to change the voters’ statuses because those voters registered long ago and had attested under the penalty of law that they are citizens. The justices also said the voters were not at fault for the database error and also mentioned the little time that’s left before the Nov. 5 general election.

“We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote in the ruling.

Of the nearly 98,000 affected voters, most of them reside in Maricopa County, which is home to Phoenix, and are longtime state residents who range in age from 45 to 60. About 37% of them are registered Republicans, about 27% are registered Democrats and the rest are independents or affiliated with minor parties.

Arizona is unique among states in that it requires voters to prove their citizenship to participate in local and state races. Voters can demonstrate citizenship by providing a driver’s license or tribal ID number, or they can attach a copy of a birth certificate, passport or naturalization documents.

Arizona considers drivers’ licenses issued after October 1996 to be valid proof of citizenship. However, a system coding error marked nearly 98,000 voters who obtained licenses before 1996 — roughly 2.5% of all registered voters — as full-ballot voters, state officials said.

After approximately five weeks, 19 witnesses, reams of documents and a dash of salacious testimony, the prosecution against Donald Trump rested its case Monday, handing over to the defense before closing arguments expected next week.

Trump’s team immediately sought to undermine key testimony against the former president, who is accused of covering up hush money paid to a porn star over an alleged encounter that could have derailed his successful 2016 White House bid.

His attorneys called lawyer Robert Costello — who once advised star prosecution witness Michael Cohen before falling out with him — in an apparent attempt to puncture Cohen’s credibility.

But Costello’s start on the stand was shaky at best, as his dismissive tone provoked an angry response from Judge Juan Merchan.

Merchan chided Costello for remarking “jeez” when he was cut off by a sustained objection and, at another point, “strike it.” Merchan told him: “I’m the only one that can strike testimony in the courtroom. Do you understand that?”

"And then if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side eye and you don’t roll your eyes.”

Merchan was about to bring the jury back in when he asked Costello, “Are you staring me down right now?” and then kicked out the press to further admonish him.

"I’m putting you on notice that your conduct is contemptuous,” Merchan said, according to the transcript of the conversation that occurred when the press was out of the room. ”If you try to stare me down one more time, I will remove you from the stand.”

Costello didn’t return a message seeking comment Monday night.

Trump, speaking to reporters afterward, called the episode “an incredible display,” branding the proceedings “a show trial” and the judge “a tyrant.”

Extended quibbling among the two legal teams, along with the upcoming holiday weekend, means closing arguments that the judge had hoped could start Tuesday are now anticipated for next week.

It’s unlikely and risky, but the door remains open for Trump to take the stand in the criminal trial, the first ever of a former US president.

Experts doubt he will, as it would expose him to unnecessary legal jeopardy and forensic cross-examination by prosecutors — but his lawyer Todd Blanche has raised the prospect.

On Monday, Blanche finished his third day of questioning Cohen after hours of at times digressive, at other times bruising, exchanges.

In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints. The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can’t “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”

The companies themselves are not involved in the case.

Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.