WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. 
 
 The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms. 
 
 The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients. 
 
 Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork. 
 
 Kagan's opinion was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often considered the court's swing vote, as well as liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. 
 
 In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. He was joined by the court's other conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 
 
 The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount. 
 
 Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you." 
 
 Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun. 
 
 A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 
 
 The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns. 
 
 Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns. 
 
 The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration. ||||| A group of people organized by the NYC Light Brigade and the women's rights group UltraViolet, use letters in lights to spell out their opinion, in front of the Supreme Court, Monday, March 24, 2014,... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed divided Tuesday over whether employers' religious beliefs can free them from a part of the new health care law that requires that they provide coverage of birth control for employees at no extra charge. 
 
 The case involves family-owned companies that provide health insurance to their employees, but object to covering certain methods of birth control that they say can work after conception, in violation of their religious beliefs. 
 
 The fast-paced 90-minute argument at the court touched on abortion and the health care law in general, but focused mainly on the question of whether profit-making businesses have religious rights. The justices have never ruled that way before, but the companies in the Supreme Court case and their backers argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses as well as individuals. 
 
 The Obama administration and its supporters say a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses also could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages. 
 
 The outcome could turn on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote. Kennedy voiced concerns both about the rights of female employees and the business owners. Kennedy asked what rights would women have if their employers ordered them to wear burkas, a full-length robe commonly worn by conservative Islamic women. 
 
 Later in the 90-minute argument, he seemed troubled about how the logic of the government's argument would apply to abortions. "A profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," Kennedy said. "Your reasoning would permit it." 
 
 Under the new health care law, health plans must offer a range of preventive services at no extra charge, including all forms of birth control for women that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. 
 
 The three women on the court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, repeatedly questioned Paul Clement, representing the businesses, whether blood transfusions and vaccinations would be subject to the same religious objections if the court ruled for his clients. 
 
 "Everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform," Kagan said. 
 
 Clement acknowledged that courts would have to decide on a case-by-case basis, but he said only the kind of family-owned companies he represents would make such claims, not large, multinational corporations. "That's something that's not going to the happen in the real world," Clement said. 
 
 Chief Justice John Roberts at one point suggested that the court could limit its ruling to apply to just such companies. 
 
 One key issue before the justices is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 religious freedom law or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose. The court could skirt that issue by finding that the individuals who own the businesses have the right to object. 
 
 The justices still would have to decide whether the birth control requirement really impinges on religious freedom, and if so, whether the government makes a persuasive case that the policy is important and is put in place in the least objectionable way possible. 
 
 Kennedy also showed some interest in the argument that the companies could decide not to offer any health insurance to their workers and instead pay a tax of $2,000 per employee. That route might allow the court to sidestep the thorniest questions in the case. 
 
 Clement objected that businesses would find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a situation where other employers were offering insurance. 
 
 But when Kennedy asked Clement to assume that the company would come out the same financially, Clement acknowledged that the government might have a strong case. 
 
 Some of the nearly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives object to paying for all forms of birth control. But the companies involved in the high court case are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. 
 
 The largest company among them is Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City-based chain of more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states with more than 15,000 full-time employees. The company is owned by the Green family, evangelical Christians who say they run their business on biblical principles. The Greens also own the Mardel chain of Christian bookstores. 
 
 The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa. The business is owned by the Hahns, a family of Mennonite Christians, and employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. 
 
 Members of the Green and Hahn families were at the court Tuesday, while protesters on both sides congregated outside in an early spring snow. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter: https://twitter.com/shermancourt ||||| Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Gorsuch will be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice on Monday 
 
 Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, following a bitter and partisan battle over his nomination by President Trump. 
 
 The conservative judge could be required early on to weigh in on several hot-button issues due before the court, including religious freedoms, gun rights and Mr Trump's travel ban. 
 
 Other cases which deadlocked between the eight current justices may be reheard now that there is a ninth justice in place to break the tie on America's highest court. 
 
 Here are some of the key cases he may have a hand in deciding in the coming weeks and months. 
 
 Church and state 
 
 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v Comer 
 
 One of the first cases Justice Gorsuch will hear, with oral arguments due to begin next week, concerns separation of church and state. 
 
 A school run by Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri sought to take part in a state programme that resurfaces playgrounds with rubber from recycled tires. 
 
 But the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied the request, arguing that the state constitution prohibited funding of religious organisations. 
 
 Representing the church, the Alliance Defending Freedom said the denial infringed the church's First Amendment rights. 
 
 The case was accepted by the court in January last year but delayed a hearing for 15 months. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Neil Gorsuch could influence American policy for decades 
 
 Religious freedoms 
 
 Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission 
 
 The Supreme Court is due to decide this week whether to accept the case of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, on religious grounds. 
 
 The lower courts found that the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), and the decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. 
 
 The case has been under consideration for acceptance by the Supreme Court since January, suggesting that Judge Gorsuch could tip the balance either way. 
 
 He has previously found in favour of religious freedoms in the workplace, including in two of his most well-known cases. 
 
 In Burwell v Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor v Burwell, Judge Gorsuch ruled that a requirement for employers to cover contraception under their health insurance plans infringed their religious freedoms. 
 
 Gun rights 
 
 Peruta v San Diego 
 
 This takes up a lower court ruling that said the second amendment alone did not grant California gun owners the right to carry a concealed weapon in public places. The ruling granted counties the right to apply additional tests before granting a permit, including whether the applicant showed "good cause" to require it. 
 
 The argument essentially boils down to whether the existing right to gun ownership for self defence at home extends to carrying a concealed weapon in public places. 
 
 "Any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry - including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined - is necessarily allowed by the [Second] Amendment," said the lower court ruling. 
 
 The ruling led to variation across counties, with some sheriff's offices denying nearly all concealed carry applications. The restrictions are being challenged by a group of Second Amendment campaigners. 
 
 Travel ban 
 
 President Trump's controversial executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries is probably heading to the Supreme Court later this year. 
 
 Justice Gorsuch repeatedly declined to comment on the issue during his confirmation hearings, but a Supreme Court case would provide a public test of his independence from Mr Trump, who nominated him for the court. 
 
 The order is due to go before the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit court in May. 
 
 Another immigration issue which could make its way to the court at some point is Mr Trump's attempt to strip federal funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" - cities that refuse to comply with federal orders to detain immigrants. 
 
 Mexico shooting 
 
 Hernandez v Mesa 
 
 This is the case of a 15-year-old unarmed Mexican boy who was on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot dead in 2010 by a US border patrol agent, in disputed circumstances. Sergio Hernandez's family want to sue the agent for infringing the boy's constitutional rights. 
 
 The Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments in the case but the justices did not reach any conclusion. That opens the way for the case to be reheard with Justice Gorsuch on the bench. 
 
 Voting rights 
 
 North Carolina v North Carolina NAACP 
 
 In July, judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a North Carolina voting overhaul that they said targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision". 
 
 The case went to the Supreme Court in August but split the justices 4/4 over whether to prevent the overhaul coming into effect before November's general election. 
 
 With the case due to go before the court again, Judge Gorsuch could swing the result either way.
– The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that an anti-abortion group can challenge an Ohio law that bars people from making false statements about political candidates during a campaign. The high court said the Susan B. Anthony List does not have to wait until it is prosecuted under the law to claim its First Amendment rights have been infringed. The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the law, but the decision raises serious doubts about whether the law—and similar measures in more than a dozen other states—can survive. The case began during the 2010 election when the group planned to put up billboards ads accusing then-Rep. Steve Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he supported President Barack Obama's new health care law. Driehaus, a Democrat who opposes abortion, claimed the ads misrepresented the true facts and therefore violated the false speech law. In other high court news today: A divided court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration, by upholding the federal ban on "straw" gun purchases. The justices ruled 5-4 that a man could not buy a gun for a relative in Pennsylvania, even though that relative was legally allowed to own guns. Anthony Kennedy joined the court's liberals, who argued in their decision that allowing straw purchasing would make it too easy to evade the various restrictions on gun ownership. The court handed Argentina a double defeat in its long-running fight with holders of its defaulted bonds, rejecting without comment its appeal of judgments ordering it to pay more than $1.3 billion to hedge funds that hold some of the country's bonds. The justices ignored the South American country's pleas that its economy could be threatened if it has to pay off the old debt. The court also dealt a blow to Scottie Pippen, refusing to revive his defamation suit against NBC Universal and other media outlets that had reported that he filed for bankruptcy.