Write an article based on this summary:

– On the red carpet, they look so glamorous—but it's the housekeepers and assistants who see what celebrities are really like when the tuxes and the gowns come off. Radar rounds up 31 secrets of the stars, as told to tabloids by the hired help. From the glamorous couple that supposedly doesn't shower for weeks on end to the diva who insists her entire household be on a macrobiotic diet, click through the gallery for a sampling. Or check out the complete list—which includes one sexy fella who liked to dress up in his woman's clothes and parade around the house. You can also read about 12 celebs' movie-salary secrets here.

We all knew celebs make big bucks for appearing in films, on TV, in commercials, in video games, and for just showing up at night clubs. But according to this recent comprehensive examination of Hollywood salaries by THR, some stars make way more than we ever realized, while others make significantly less.

 Here are 12 of the most surprising things we learned from the report…

 Robert Downey Jr.'s 'Iron Man' Payday Is Bonkers

 The Iron Man series is one of the most successful film franchises ever, so it shouldn't come as a shock that he would get good money. But $75 million is a lot, no matter who you are. How did he make that much? Part of his deal included getting 7% of the film's total gross.

 Leo Made WAY More Than Jonah On 'Wolf Of Wall Street'

 While they both got Oscar nominations for their role in The Wolf Of Wall Street, they didn't both take home the same paychecks. Leonardo DiCaprio made over $25 million for his performance, while Jonah Hill – who wanted to be in the movie so badly he agreed to work for the union minimum – only took home $60,000. This means Leo took home a paycheck 416 times larger than Jonah's.

 One Jennifer Makes A Lot More Than The Other

 Jennifer Lawrence and Jennifer Aniston are two of the most successful actresses in Hollywood, and certainly the two highest-paid Jennifers. However, Lawrence's appearances in The Hunger Games means she earns $20 million more than the former Friends star. Lawrence took home $35 million last year, while Aniston snagged $15.

 Endorsements Pay Crazy Amounts

 Movies can make you money, but product endorsements can make you buy-an-island rich. Aside from the $75 million from Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr. took home $12 million from an HTC endorsement. Meanwhile, Jennifer Aniston reportedly makes as much on her endorsements from Aveeno and Smartwater as she does for starring in a major film. And, don't forget TV host Bethenny Frankel who landed a deal with Skinnygirl that earned her $100 million.

 We Now Understand Why Liam Neeson Will Be Making 'Taken' Sequels Forever

 People really love watching 62-year-old Liam Neeson kick vaguely-foreign looking people in the face. And the studio is willing to pay big. For Taken 3 – spelled TAK3N because of course it is – Neeson reportedly got $20 million.

 VIDEO: Top 5 Highest-Paid Actors of 2014

 Ashton Kutcher Makes The Average American's Salary Every 60 Seconds

 TV Stars can make bank! For his role on Two And A Half Men, new dad Ashton Kutcher is said to make $750,000 an episode, which equals out to $34,000 per minute. Meanwhile, NCIS star Mark Harmon reportedly makes $500,000 an episode, and the main cast of The Big Bang Theory, Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki and Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting, all make $1 million per episode.

 Alex Trebek Is Swimming In Cash

 As it turns out, hosting a TV show for 30 years can pay off. While most primetime game show hosts make around $75,000 a week, Trebek is clearing $10 million per year.

 Jon Stewart Is The King Of Late Night Paychecks

 Jimmy Fallon is reportedly making around $15 million a year. Currently, Stephen Colbert makes around the same amount, but could move up when he replaces David Letterman in a few months. And Seth Meyers apparently only clears $3 million a year. Leaving Jon Stewart, host of the wildly popular and influential Comedy Central series The Daily Show, as king of the late night mountain with his $25 to $30 million annual salary.

 VIDEO: Top 5 Highest-Paid Country Musicians of 2014

 Reality TV Pays Nothing, Unless You're A Kardashian Or A Member Of The Duck Dynasty

 Sure, Kourtney and Kim Kardashian reportedly signed a three-year deal with E! for a solid $40 million, and the Robertson family, featured on the popular A&E series Duck Dynasty allegedly make $200,000 an episode. But they are reality royalty. You average contestant on a reality competition show, or even those who appear on a docu-series, make close to nothing.

 The Sad Stat About An Actor's Average Earnings

 Are you an aspiring actor? If so, you might want to skip this one, because it's only going to make you sad. Let's just quote THR, "According to the most recent SAG statistics, the average member earns $52,000 a year, while the vast majority take home less than $1,000 a year from acting jobs." Ouch.

 VIDEO: Who is the Top Paid Actress on TV?

 Everyone Short On Cash Should Try To Be An Extra

 Extras, those people who just sort of mill around in the background of shots and often mess up continuity, often make $148 a day. Also, they get a $50 bump if they have to work in uncomfortable conditions. And, if the shoot goes over 16 hours (which isn't uncommon), they get a whole day's pay for every hour after.

 A Monkey Makes WAY More Than Most Regular People

 Remember that monkey on that very short-lived NBC show Animal Practice? Its name is Crystal, and it reportedly made $108,000 for appearing in nine episodes. Just try to read that and not get mad. Who does that money even go to? Does Crystal have a wild $1000 per day banana addiction?

 Related Gallery ||||| Advertisement

 G Christina Aguilera: While Christina was married to Jordan Bratman, the pop star loved to run around in sexy costumes to spice up their marriage and staffers were continually picking up her “maid’s dresses, nurse’s uniforms, and other risqué clothing off the floor!” a mole told Star a few years ago. In 2012, a source reported that The Voice judge, now divorced, requires that there’s a bottle of Dom Perignon chilling on ice for her at all times.

 G Ryan Gosling: Star recently reported the hunky actor has some strange habits at home, including peeing while sitting down, creeping up the stairs on all fours and sleeping with his head at the foot of his bed. He also enjoys a good wax, said the household snitch: “Ryan hates having any hair on his chest or back—he gets waxed multiple times a month.”

 Advertisement

 G Jessica Simpson: According to a Star insider, Jessica is known to bug staffers by dropping her hair extensions all over. “It looks like an animal has been shedding all over her house,” the source sighed. And one housekeeper got the fright of her life thinking she saw a large black spider in the bedroom—instead, it turned out to be one of Jessica’s fake eyelashes! Maybe her habit will change because she’s had a new baby?

 G Jennifer Aniston: In 2010, Star reported that the Friends star shocked the help by flaunting her nakedness in front of them. Jen thought nothing of walking around in her bra and underwear, a see-through tank top and sheer panties or a skimpy bikini, a source said. She also sunbathed topless and staffers signed for oodles of packages of sexy underwear that she purchased online. Another insider with knowledge of her living habits reported she and fiancé Justin Theroux consulted the book Fifty Shades of Grey for inspiration in trying to get Jen pregnant. But if recent breakup reports are true, she may be living alone again!

 F Sandra Bullock: The Heat star has told her housekeepers the curtains should always stay closed, according to a report last year in Star. The adoptive mom of precious son Louis is so paranoid about people looking in her windows that she has the drapes closed day and night, a source said.

 G George Clooney: A few years back, Star learned the movie hunk made sure employees didn’t imbibe his pricey liquor! “He has his decanters marked so he can see exactly how much is in them and to make sure nobody ever secretly takes a swig,” confided a friend of a housekeeper. And last year, more information about The Descendants actor came to light in Star-- he was called a “disgusting pig” who burped and farted around his household help.

 G Mariah Carey: According to a Star snitch, the former American Idol judge’s liquor glasses were always overflowing on the home front. “Mariah will sometimes drink so much that she gets loopy,” a source claimed, and she required assistance in getting dressed. Although Mariah is known for treating employees very well, they also earn their keep—last year, an insider told Star Mariah’s glam squad had to do her hair and makeup after she had passed out drunk.

 G Tom Cruise: When Tom was married to Katie Holmes, their house was full of rules and operated like a hotel with relatives and friends coming and going constantly, staffers dished to Star. Tom was vigilant about cleanliness—especially in his private gym, and didn’t even allow Katie to use his equipment, a spy said. Still, the famously secretive couple worked hard not to let their guard down around employees in private, according to the source.

 G Tori Spelling: Tori and Dean have four kids, and it’s no mystery why—Dean is “the Energizer Bunny when it comes to sex,” a source close to a family employee told Star in May 2010. Even if the help is around, Dean goes into graphic detail with Tori on what he wants to do to her. Dean’s outfit of choice around the house? Nothing but his boxers! the source said.

 G Britney Spears: A source familiar with the singer’s home in 2010 said she kept a collection of sex toys in a drawer in her nightstand. But even more embarrassingly, a maid pulled out some half-eaten burgers, fries, and cookies from under Britney’s bed, a household mole told Star. The messy star takes off her clothes and flings them on the floor when she gets home, another insider shared.

 G Demi Moore: According to a 2012 report in Star, the actress can’t bear to look in the mirror unless the lighting is perfect. “Amber bulbs are the order of the day at Demi’s house,” a source said. “She believes the softer light is more flattering.” In fact, the 50-year-old beauty hoards cases of the special bulbs in her home, scared they’ll stop being manufactured, the article reported.

 S Kristen Stewart: The Twilight homewrecker is a chain smoker around her house, said a snitch. “She puffs away like a chimney and leaves cigarette butts everywhere—in the shower, in the potted plants, and once they found one inside the fridge!” the source said in Star.

 G Kim Zolciak: A 2010 Star report exposed the former Real Housewives of Atlanta star and Don’t Be Tardy reality diva as a heavy smoker who kept $1,000 Versace ashtrays lying around everywhere. It got messy because “she often uses the sink in her master bath to ash,” an insider said. But now she’s pregnant again by hubby Kroy Biermann and claims the cigarettes are history! As RadarOnline has reported, Kim recently said that a picture allegedly taken of her smoking while pregnant with her fifth child was an old photo and she was considering legal action.

 G Lindsay Lohan: Everyone who worked for her a few years again told Star the Hollywood wild child slept in way past noon on most days. And when she did get up, the house workers said, she was often in a foul mood because of a hangover. In 2012, a source told Star that Lindsay had to call a locksmith—after she lost the key to a locked trunk in her bedroom that was full of sex toys!

 G Cindy Crawford: The supermodel is the rare celebrity employer who you’d want to work for! In 2012, a source told Star after Cindy did a shoot for Cadillac, the company gave her the car to keep. Cindy asked her assistant, “ ‘Do you want it? I don’t need it’—and gave her the Caddy!”

 G Taylor Swift: An insider said the young singing superstar is the cat lady at home! She owns a few cats and her entire home is filled with photos of them, according to a person familiar with her house. “She’s constantly grooming them to reduce the cat hair.” Many of Taylor’s clothes, shoes, and underwear feature cat patterns. And “she makes the housekeeper leave cat food and milk outside, so the neighborhood strays flock to her stoop,” the Star source reported.

 G Jim Carrey: In a 2010 Star article, a household source claimed Jim is a chameleon just like in the movies. “He’s incredibly hard to work for, because you never know what kind of guy you’re going to get. One moment he is the sweetest guy in the world, and the next he is screaming at you at the top of his lungs.”

 S Miley Cyrus: Miley’s pups Mate, a white shepherd, and Sophie, a Maltipoo, weren’t very well trained, according to a mole who worked for the singer and spoke to Star about her. “They poop and pee at will in the house.” When the dogs had accidents, Miley yelled for a maid to clean up the mess.

 G Kirstie Alley: The star said Cheers to pets, but her employees? Not so much—because Kirstie allegedly was never bothered when they did their business inside. “The place is often littered with what Kirstie calls ‘little surprises,’ “ an insider dished to Star. When the source spoke to the magazine, the actress had a menagerie of a dozen pets, so her home sure didn’t smell like a bed of roses!

 G Bruce Springsteen: The Boss loves to fraternize with his female help, according to an insider. “Bruce hits on them constantly,” said the Star source, who claimed winking and flirting with his housekeepers, maids, and assistants was common. “If there is a woman around the house, Bruce makes his presence known!”

 G Jennifer Lopez: In 2010, the mom of twins was branded so cheap that her employees called her “Pay-low!” According to the ex-worker who spoke to Star, the singer/actress expected people to slave away for her for half of what they would make elsewhere. Supposedly Jenny from the Block felt that because she once had to struggle to make it, everyone should!

 G Martha Stewart: The domestic diva made her workers color the bottoms of her Louboutin shoes, a source said in Star. Martha’s staffers were kept busy because she wasn’t a fan of the signature red soles and always wanted the red changed to black with a Sharpie.

 G Kate Gosselin: The reality star got so concerned about looking good that if she ran out of a certain beauty product, she would scream at the staff, according to Star. Kate’s helpers often had to work overtime watching the mom’s eight kids while she was obsessing over her outfits, makeup, and hair, said the magazine source.

 G Johnny Depp: The actor famous for his odd movie getups is the same at home, an insider revealed to Star in a 2010 article. “He is really into costumes,” the source said. “Johnny loves to try them on and slip into a character.” He also did it to make his then-partner Vanessa Paradis laugh by putting on her heels or dresses and walking around, the source claimed. But maybe it wasn’t so funny after all, as the never-married couple recently split after many years and two kids together.

 G Madonna: In 2009, Angela Jacobsen, the former nanny for Madonna’s son, David Banda, whom the star adopted from Malawi, told an Australian TV show, “I was on call 24 hours a day.” Jacobsen said Madonna demanded that everyone in her household be on a macrobiotic diet and also revealed “there wasn’t any television in the house.” After Jacobsen was apparently reminded about her confidentiality agreement with the Material Girl, however, she clammed up! Three years later, however, another ray of light was shed on what it was like to live with Madonna. Star’s sources claimed the singer asked her assistant to get her water at least six times throughout the night, every night, and paid the employee only half of what other celebrity assistants earned. |||||


Write a summary based on this article:

Image caption Have a break for a quick lunch? Nestlé believes it owns the shape of four-finger bars

 Even if it looks like a Kit Kat, it might not be.

 The European Court of Justice has thrown out an appeal by the chocolate bar's maker, Nestlé, which argued that it owns the shape of the teatime treat.

 Nestlé has spent more than a decade fighting to trademark the four-fingered wafer shape - something that rival Cadbury had fought hard against.

 But Wednesday's judgement found that a previous court had been right to annul the decision by Europe's trademark group.

 That could bring an end to the snack's protected European status - and a saga that has proved expensive for both sides.

 It also takes the pressure off identical treats like Norway's Kvikk Lunsj - pronounced "quick lunch" and which has been around for 80 years - and opens the door to own-brand imitations at your local supermarket.

 A tale of four fingers

 British and US readers may not even have heard of Kvikk Lunsj.

 Norwegians, though, have national pride in the snack, and its long-running image as a meal on the go for healthy Scandinavian hikers.

 Its chocolate has a different flavour from the Kit Kat, similar to parent company Mondelez's Milka brand. Taste-testing from the Guardian newspaper last year concluded that Kvikk Lunsj was, in fact, the superior product.

 The Norwegian bar has been made since 1937, a mere two years after Kit Kat - originally called Rowntree's chocolate crisp - hit the market in 1935.

 For 65 years, the two crispy treats lived together in harmony - until Nestlé went on the offensive.

 In 2002, the global chocolate giant applied for a trademark in Europe for Kit Kat. There was no issue with the bar itself, embossed with the Kit Kat logo.

 But it also applied for the trademark for the shape of a Kit Kat - or "four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base" as a top EU legal adviser put it.

 Image copyright EUOIP Image caption A real Kit Kat has logos - but what about the shape on the left, from Nestlé's application?

 After four years of back-and-forth, the EU trademark granted Nestlé the shape as a trademark.

 The makers of Kvikk Lunsj, Mondelez, also owns brands including Cadbury, Milka, Oreo, and Toblerone - and Cadbury took issue with Nestlé's new trademark.

 Mondelez also makes the Leo bar - another four-fingered chocolate treat.

 In 2007, the court battle began in earnest, see-sawing from one side to the other during appeal after appeal.

 What's in a shape?

 Wednesday's ruling threw out Nestlé's appeal, telling the EU trademark office it has to "reconsider" its decision - essentially annulling Kit Kat's claim.

 The case was about whether the brand had become distinctive enough to deserve its trademark - that its shape alone was how people recognise the snack.

 In 2016, a lower EU court decided that Nestlé had to prove a Kit Kat was recognisable in every EU country - and no evidence had been provided for Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Portugal.

 And none of the parties involved - Mondelez, Nestlé, or the European trademark office - were happy about that.

 Image caption Nothing in common on the wrapper - it's what's inside that counts

 Nestlé and the EU's trademark office appealed against the 2016 decision. If proof of distinctiveness had to be shown for every single member state, they argued, no company could ever reach that high standard.

 Mondelez, meanwhile, argued that it was wrong to conclude that Kit Kat had "distinctive character" anywhere - including countries like the UK, Germany and France.

 The European court threw out all those objections.

 The result is that the EU's top court has now declared that it's not enough to prove that a product has become iconic in "a significant part" of the EU - it has to be proven across all the markets of the bloc, not just some.

 Is this the end of the road?

 Nestlé said that Wednesday's judgement was "not the end of the case" and that it believed the EU trademark office will side with the company anyway.

 "We think the evidence proves that the familiar shape of our iconic four-finger Kit Kat is distinctive enough to be registered as an EU trademark," a spokesman said.

 John Coldham, partner at the UK law firm Gowling WLG, said that rather than cancelling the trademark the court decided it should never have been awarded at all on the basis of the evidence.

 That means the decision heads back to the EU trademark office.

 "Assuming the EU Intellectual Property Office does not have evidence that the shape is distinctive across the EU, I would expect it to remove the mark from the register now," Mr Coldham said.

 "It is open to Nestlé to apply again, and to put stronger evidence in, so this may well not be the end of the road," he added.

 "No-one is saying it is impossible to get a trade mark for the Kit Kat shape - just that there needs to be evidence that the shape is distinctive of Kit Kat in every part of the EU."

 So the Kit Kat is set to lose its EU trademark - for now. But there is still a fight to be fought.

 Triangular trials

 European status aside, chocolate is serious business for trademark lawyers on a country-by-country basis.

 Nestlé had been looking for Europe-wide protection for the Kit Kat shape. But the trademark still exists on national level in some countries, including France, Germany, Spain and Italy.

 When the UK considered it, however, a lengthy court case ended in a 16,000-word ruling that Kit Kat had "no inherent distinctiveness".

 Cadbury, meanwhile, lost its own trademark battle when it tried to register a shade of purple.

 And, back in 2006, a case involving gold chocolate bunnies asked similar questions to the Kit Kat saga.

 Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Lindt reportedly suggested its rival change their gold wrapper to bronze, and ban the red ribbon

 Swiss chocolatier Lindt applied for a trademark for its Easter bunnies with a red ribbon, which are iconic in many countries - but not all.

 In Germany, the Riegelein company also made gold-wrapped bunnies, and the case made it to both European and German courts - where Lindt eventually lost.

 And while Mondelez won the argument that you can't trademark the shape of a Kit Kat, it's sure you can trademark a Toblerone - which it owns.

 Toblerone's shape was registered in 1998 - but was only put to the test last year, when British retailer Poundland designed an off-brand version.

 Featuring two rows of triangular bumps rather than one, Poundland argued that its copycat wasn't a trademark infringement - especially since Toblerone had changed the shape of their UK product to reduce weight.

 That disagreement was settled out of court. ||||| LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - A long-running legal battle between global chocolate giants over the shape of KitKat finger wafers was sent back to the EU’s trademark office on Wednesday after judges dismissed appeals by both companies.

 The ruling by the European Court of Justice means the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) must review a 2012 decision to uphold Swiss-based Nestle’s (NESN.S) trademark on the shape of the four-finger chocolate-covered wafer biscuit over objections raised by Mondelez (MDLZ.O) of the United States.

 The Luxembourg court found that Nestle had failed to show that consumers in enough EU countries recognized the shape as distinctive but also dismissed an appeal by Mondelez against some of the grounds for a lower EU court ruling in 2016 that had found the EUIPO was wrong to reject the U.S. firm’s complaint.

 Slideshow (2 Images)

 The outcome leaves open that the trademark agency could, while respecting the judges’ ruling, take account of other evidence — such as new proof the shape is distinctive to people in more countries — and might preserve protection for KitKat’s shape. The brand name “KitKat” is not at issue in the case.

 Proceedings have been followed closely by trademark lawyers, who see implications for brands operating across the EU single market, where there are varying histories in national markets.

 It has also at times featured in Britain’s Brexit debate, with some supporters of cutting ties with the EU suggesting that EU courts have failed to defend a much-loved British treat first marketed by Rowntree’s, which was bought by the Swiss in 1988.

 In 2015, the Brexit-supporting Daily Express newspaper headlined a story on an earlier ruling: “End of the KitKat?”. It said an EU “diktat” might “spell the end of” the wafer bars as the “market could now be flooded with copycat confectionery”.

 The case has also been mirrored by a dispute between the two multinationals in the British courts, where Nestle objected to a trademark for the purple color used by Cadbury, bought by the Americans in 2010, to wrap its Dairy Milk chocolate bars. |||||

– "Four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base" may not be instantly recognizable. Put that setup in chocolate form, however, and many people would be able to distinguish it as a KitKat. Even if that's the case, the European Union's highest court just ruled that the shape of the sweet treat isn't unique enough to merit trademark protection, meaning other confectioners can potentially produce KitKat knockoffs, the Guardian reports. Nestle, which makes KitKats, has been fighting Cadbury (and then Mondelez, which ultimately bought Cadbury) in the courts for more than a decade on this issue. The BBC notes that Nestle first applied for trademark protection for the candy's shape in 2002, and it was granted that protection four years later. Cadbury's pushback began in 2007, and Wednesday's decision by the European Court of Justice essentially tells the EU trademark office it now has to "reconsider" its original decision. What that means, however, is that if the EU Intellectual Property Office finds, based on more recent evidence, that the KitKat bar's shape is recognizable in enough countries, it can retain the trademark protection, per Reuters. The brand name itself of "KitKat" is not being contested. (Atari accused Nestle of ripping off one of its popular video games in an ad for KitKat.)


Here is a news article: “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a resounding victory for public health and a key component of E.P.A.’s efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe,” Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a statement. She added that “the court’s finding also underscores the importance of basing the agency’s efforts on strong legal foundations and sound science.”

 The interstate air pollution regulation, also known as the “good neighbor” rule, has pitted Rust Belt and Appalachian states like Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky against East Coast states like New York and Connecticut.

 In its arguments before the court, the E.P.A. said the rules were necessary to protect the health and the environment of downwind states. East Coast states in particular are vulnerable to pollution blown by the prevailing west-to-east winds of the United States. The soot and smog produced by coal plants are linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.

 In her decision, Justice Ginsburg noted that in reining in interstate pollution, regulators must account for the vagaries of the wind. “Some pollutants stay within upwind states’ borders, the wind carries others to downwind states, and some subset of that group drifts to states without air quality problems,” she wrote, adding a biblical quotation from the Book of John: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.”

 In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the regulation was unwieldy and suggested it was Marxist. As written, the regulation will require upwind polluting states to cut pollution in relation to the amounts of pollution each state produces, but also as a proportion of how affordably a state can make the cuts. In other words, states that are able to more cost-effectively reduce pollution will be required to cut more of it.

 “I fully acknowledge that the proportional-reduction approach will demand some complicated computations where one upwind state is linked to multiple downwind states and vice versa,” Justice Scalia wrote.

 “I am confident, however, that E.P.A.’s skilled number-crunchers can adhere to the statute’s quantitative (rather than efficiency) mandate by crafting quantitative solutions. Indeed, those calculations can be performed at the desk, whereas the ‘from each according to its ability’ approach requires the unwieldy field examination of many pollution-producing sources with many sorts of equipment,” he said, paraphrasing Karl Marx. ||||| Quoting from the Bible — not the usual source of legal wisdom — the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a government rule that will parcel out the duty to stop or at least reduce dirty air from blowing from one state into another. The decision split the Court, mainly along the lines of whether big government is getting out of control.

 It took nearly a half-hour for the authors of the majority and dissenting opinions to orally proclaim in the courtroom their differences, in the six-to-two ruling in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation. It was a clear victory for EPA, with the only blemish on its name the complaint of the dissenters that the result was a “textbook example of . . . government by the bureaucracy” instead of “by the people.” The EPA, already beleaguered by critics of its actions, may well draw new protests and attempts in Congress to curb its authority.

 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, described the basic weather-pattern problem that EPA sought to solve in this dispute. She did so by quoting the King James Version of the Bible: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.”

 In her own words, Ginsburg said this was the problem: “In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators [the EPA] must account for the vagaries of the wind.” Pollution, it appears, rises from various industrial sources, like power plants and factories, and wafts with the wind currents from place to place, sometimes over hundreds of miles, and even changes its chemical nature, creating hazards to health in its ultimate destinations — mainly, but not entirely, in downwind states.

 At issue in the case was how the Court would interpret a so-called “good neighbor policy,” mandated by Congress in 1977. Aware that “upwind states” were sending foul air to “downwind states,” the policy ordered states to develop plans to keep polluters within their borders from sending into other state winds that would keep those neighbors from satisfying federal clean-air requirements.

 Finding that the approach adopted in 1977 did not deal adequately with the problem because it was too limited in scope, Congress in 1990 told the states to prohibit any source inside their borders from adding “significantly” to neighbors’ ability to maintain clean air.

 EPA has tried various regulatory rules to carry out that mandate. The latest approach, the one upheld by the Court on Tuesday, is a complex rule adopted in 2011 that took into account nearly 2500 wind flow patterns between upwind and downwind states. In view of that complexity, EPA opted not to calculate each upwind state’s share of the blame for transporting pollution to a neighboring state.

 Instead, it selected the states whose pollution migration had more than a minuscule impact on neighbors, with the scope of its pollution-reducing duty defined mainly by the cost of doing so. These cost formulas did not have the direct effect of assigning to each state its actual proportion of the reduction in air quality downwind. EPA figured it couldn’t allocate the blame that precisely. Its cost-based formulas were the option it chose.

 That approach, however, was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled that EPA was supposed to apportion the blame state by state on the basis of their share of downwind impairment of air quality. The court of appeals also ruled that EPA should not have stepped in to craft a pollution-control plan of its own for the upwind states, but rather should have held off until those states were given a chance to adopt control methods on their own.

 In Tuesday’s ruling, the Court overturned the D.C. Circuit on both points. It declared that the courts were obliged to defer to EPA’s expertise on how to fashion an explicit “good neighbor policy” that dealt with “the vagaries of the wind.”

 The Court also ruled that EPA had no duty to give the affected states a new opportunity to fashion their own pollution-control strategies to protect their neighbors, before EPA stepped in to develop its own approach.

 Justice Ginsburg’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part in the ruling; no reason was given for his recusal.

 Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent for himself and Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the ruling implicated “the major problem that many citizens have with the federal government these days: that they are governed not so much by their elected representatives as by an unelected bureaucracy operating under vague statutory standards.”

 Congress, the dissenters said, “did it right” by ordering each state to shoulder its own share of sending polluted air downwind. Instead, the dissenting opinion said, EPA opted to develop a plan “to make each state eliminate those contributions to downwind pollution that are inexpensive to eliminate.”

 Click for vote alignment by ideology

 Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Opinion analysis: Paying for blocking ill winds, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2014, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/opinion-analysis-paying-for-blocking-ill-winds/ ||||| The US supreme court endorsed the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to deal with air pollution blowing across state lines on Tuesday, in an important victory for the Obama administration as well as downwind states.

 The court's 6-2 decision unblocks a 2011 rule requiring 28 eastern states to reduce power-plant emissions that carry smog and soot particles across state lines, hurting the air quality in downwind states.

 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the court's majority opinion, said the EPA's formula for dealing with cross-state air pollution was “permissable, workable and equitable”.

 Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

 The decision delivers an important victory to the EPA which has wrestled for years with trying to regulate air pollution as it moves beyond smokestacks and tailpipes. It is also a win for states such as Connecticut, where 93% of air pollution is from out-of-state sources.

 Major power companies, such as Southern Company and American Electric Power Company, and states such as Texas, Michigan and Ohio had sued to block the rule. The Washington DC court of appeals put the rule on hold in 2012.

 The reversal of that ruling now means that about 1,000 power plants, mainly in the eastern half of the country, will have to adopt new pollution controls to limit emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.

 Air pollution remains a growing problem in America despite decades of environmental protection –and Ginsburg acknowledged the complexities of putting a regulatory regime in place.

 “Pollutants do not emerge from the smokestacks of an upwind state and uniformly migrate downwind. Some pollutants stay with in upwind states’ borders, the wind carries others to downwind states, and some subset of that group drifts to states without air quality problems,” Ginsburg wrote, going on to quote a phrase from the Bible. “In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators must account for the vagaries of the wind.”

 Regulators also had to take into account that emissions are transformed into different pollutants as they travel downwind, Ginsburg wrote.

 Under the EPA rule, each upwind state was allocated a budget for total amount of pollution they could produce in a year. The dissenting states had argued they should be allowed to create their own plans to cut emissions to solve the problem.

 However, the supreme court disagreed, arguing that would lead to “costly over-regulation”.

 “[The] EPA’s cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States, we hold, is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision,” the court said.

 Justice Scalia in his Dissent said the EPA rule was an "undemocratic revision" of the clean air act. "Today's decision feeds the uncontrolled growth of the administrative state at the expense of government by the people," he said in a statement read from the bench.

 The EPA had tried three times over the last two decades to control air pollution wafting across state lines, the court said. Congress has also weighed in dozens of times.

 The EPA argued when the rule was originally adopted in 2011 smog and particle pollution from power plants caused 34,000 premature deaths every year, and triggered more than 400,000 asthma attacks.

 Environmental groups cheered the decision.

 The EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, said the decision was "a resounding victory for public health."

 The American Lung Association, which had joined the lawsuit, said on Tuesday the court decision was a “life-saving standard”. “The people in these 28 states needed the EPA to enforce the law and protect them from pollution,” it said in a statement.

 Opponents said the decision departed from the intent of the clean air act – that the EPA and states work together to cut pollution.

 "The Supreme Court majority has refused to allow the states to have any voice in the practicalities of determining the impact of their emissions on neighboring states," said Richard Faulk, director of the energy and law centre at George Mason University and a partner in a corporate law firm. |||||
A summary of this is?

– A Bible verse is getting heavy quotation today in a Supreme Court decision seen as a big victory for the EPA and the White House on air pollution. In her majority opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the Gospel according to John, notes the Washington Post: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.” In this case, she was talking about the wind that bloweth air pollution from coal-fired plants across state lines, and her ruling upheld the EPA's authority to regulate it. The New York Times calls it "a major environmental victory for the Obama administration," and SCOTUSblog agrees that it's a "clear victory for the EPA." The result is that about 1,000 power plants will have to put into place new pollution controls to limit nitrogen and sulfur emissions, reports the Guardian. The problem of air pollution blowing from coal-burning states into states downwind—think Ohio and Kentucky vs. Connecticut and New York—is a complex one, Ginsburg wrote, and the EPA must have the leeway to deal with the "vagaries of the wind." She thinks the EPA got it right with its current formula, though Antonin Scalia disagreed in his dissent. The case, he wrote, underscores "the major problem that many citizens have with the federal government these days: that they are governed not so much by their elected representatives as by an unelected bureaucracy operating under vague statutory standards.”


Write a summary based on this article:

Introducing the final episode of her long-running E! channel talk show, Chelsea Handler marveled at her once-unlikely run on Chelsea Lately, calling it “seven years of ridiculous stupidity.” Chelsea Handler is nothing if not self-aware.

 “And I am very impressed with myself,” she continued, addressing her E! audience for the last time before she heads to Netflix for a lucrative stand-up and talk show deal. “Way to go, girl.”

 Here’s the crazy thing, though. As exhibited through Tuesday night’s star-studded final hour of Chelsea Lately, Handler’s nightly show—which mixed a panel of comedians riffing on the most vapid of tabloid culture, superfluous and silly skits, and free-wheeling, often ribald celebrity interviews—was just exactly what she called it: ridiculous stupidity. And for that, believe it or not, she does deserve credit.

 Handler, you see, might have been the first late-night host who got it. She got that we’re tuning in to her show bleary-eyed and exasperated before bed. She got that we wanted idle chatter about the world’s most base-level news: celebrity gossip. She got that we carried a little bit of shame about having that craving, and she not only internalized some of that shame, but openly admitted it, even mocking herself for making money by telling jokes about Paris Hilton and Honey Boo Boo.

 She seemed like she couldn’t believe that this was her job for seven years, to joke about Kardashians and Biebers and Lohans. And that’s precisely why we loved listening to her talk about them. She took those things just about as seriously as we do—which is to say not very—but understood that, for some reason we can’t explain, we still lived for talking about them. (Compare her attitude to the often insufferable self-seriousness of her E! channel colleagues Giuliana Rancic or Jason Kennedy, for example.) She was a funnier version of our own inner monologue.

 It’s that irreverence, too, that made Chelsea Lately one of the more popular stops on celebrities’ press tours.

 Fatigued by an endless onslaught of carefully controlled interviews monitored by helicoptering PR chaperones and delivering answers that were practically scripted to the same batch of questions asked ad nauseum, celebrities found Handler’s couch to be an oasis for even the biggest A-listers. Sometimes Handler didn’t even bother to ask her guests what they were promoting, mostly because she just didn’t give a shit. It was a win-win attitude. We didn’t give a shit either, at least most of the time. And as for the celebrities, they were sick and tired of talking about it anyway.

 The result was that the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon, and Jennifer Aniston could chat with Handler and seem looser and edgier and more real than the public perception of them might indicate, all while being relieved from the pressure of “performing” that can accompany the major network talk shows. In all likelihood, Handler was going to ask them about pooping or bikini wax or binge drinking—and that’s a whole lot more fun of being asked about their “process” or how much of a prankster George Clooney was on set for the umpteenth time.

 To wit, Aniston, Sandra Bullock, and Mary McCormack appeared together for Handler’s last episode for a group interview that doubled as a fake intervention—either for her drinking problem or for adopting a ho-hum healthy lifestyle, depending on which actress was talking. Handler told the world that she’s “going to Netflix for a little while,” McCormack said, joking that the streaming service is actually just a euphemism for rehab. “Netflix is a wonderful facility that will give you all the help you really need.”

 The bit started funny, and was the perfect example of the genius of her show: a safe space for stars of Aniston and Bullock’s caliber to let their hair down and do something as ridiculous as a fake intervention. But, as with most bits on Chelsea Lately, it went on for way too long.

 Chelsea Lately, it must be said, for its modest-to-impressive audience (roughly 570,000 a night last year), was often not funny. She said herself Tuesday night that she loved “putting comedians who shouldn’t be on TV on TV” on her show, parading out the panelists who would rotate delivering jokes each night on her roundtable.

 A number of those panelists have springboarded to bigger things, Whitney Cummings, Ross Matthews, and Silicon Valley’s T.J. Miller among them. Maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that more of the stars didn’t break out, as the jockeying to deliver clearly pre-written eye-rollers about Miley Cyrus twerking often made for the most awkward, most stilted, and most fast-forwarded through segment of Handler’s show. Too silly and too scripted, those segments paled in comparison to the ones that Handler helmed solo. Left to her own devices, the host always proved a bit of an unpredictability that made for the best comedy and the show’s best moments.

 On the finale, for example, there was a performance from her ex-boyfriend, 50 Cent, which was infinitely less entertaining that Handler's flustered banter with him before his song started. “I haven’t seen you since we stopped seeing each other,” she said, barely able to stifle her red-faced giggles. “So I’m assuming that your new album is about me?”

 One of Handler’s best attributes is that you could always tell when she veered off script, her wily mind choosing mischief over the rehearsed line of questioning in interviews. Those unfiltered insights into Handler’s mind produced gems of hilarity, including her barely under-her-breath mutterings to 50 Cent about how she knows he changed his number because she’s been trying to text him about appearing on the show. The laughs mined from her off-the-cuff quips clearly trumped the scripted groaners remixing the staid “once you go black…” adage about their relationship.

 But beyond the execution of her show on a nightly basis, Chelsea Handler as a late-night host at all was revolutionary. Sure, because she was a woman. But also because of her point of view. Perhaps more than any of the white men in suits before her, she was a host for whom it wasn’t just acceptable, but expected, to have an opinion on.

 There are a lot of people who don’t find Chelsea Handler humorous. They find her comedy too offensive, or, worse, they find it faux-offensive: a type of comedy inciting instant pearl-clutching built merely because of a mythical reputation for being racy or button-pushing, but in execution is actually pretty bland and staid. This is to say that Handler is, at the very least, a polarizing personality. She certainly was the most polarizing personality in late night. She might even had been the only one, too.

 Think about it. Does anyone really hate Seth Meyers, the way so many do Handler? (Just Google it or check Twitter for confirmation of the latter.) There are plenty of people who don’t love him. Who have no passionate feelings about him in any way. But there’s no one who really hates him.

 And while there are people who are exuberant about their obsession with Jimmy Fallon, those who don’t share their uber-enthusiasm typically aren’t vehemently opposed to his existence the way Handler’s detractors are about her. They merely don’t like him as much as others seems to. Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman: they have passionate fans, sure, but they don’t really have passionate haters.

 Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

 But it’s the wildly opposing opinions of her—and her knowledge of those opinions’ existence—that’s always made Handler exciting to watch. Remember when Jay Leno was pissed off at NBC and every monologue of his was laced with bitterness? Remember how fun that was to witness? That’s Handler every day.

 She’s made her brand the middle finger. She gives it to the hand that feeds her, the E! Channel, and the insipid programming it produces and she’s asked to promote. She gives it to the celebrity culture that fuels her show’s entire existence. And she gives it to the people who think she’s too acerbic, too sloppy, too edgy, or too whatever to enjoy—because she thinks she is all those things, too, and doesn’t give a hoot about it. Each day, she gives the middle finger to herself.

 It’s a lack of self-seriousness that’s been really pretty refreshing. Barbara Walters might invite Academy Award winner Michael Douglas to be her final interview subject when she retires from television. Chelsea Handler asks Miley Cyrus to appear.

 The show ended with a group musical number featuring cameos from Gwen Stefani, Fergie, Gerard Butler, Melissa McCarthy, Kate Beckinsale, Anna Faris, Selena Gomez, Tim Allen (!), and a red carpet’s worth of major Hollywood stars, proving how popular she and her show became as a press stop. And so quickly after the song ended, Handler, for one last time, showed off why she’s become so popular in those circles. In an industry that thrives on ass-kissing, sucking-up, and stroking egos, Handler rejects it all.

 “I’ll see you on Netflix!” she bellowed, plugging her new outlet while still on-air on the one that made her a star. It would’ve been a crippling faux pas for anyone else, but it was a cherished moment from Handler—flipping the middle finger until the bitter end. ||||| Chelsea Handler Bids a Star-Studded, Semi-Fond Farewell with Her Show's Finale (VIDEO)

 Want more stories like this? Sign up for our newsletter and other special offers: sign me up Thank you for signing up!

 Chelsea Handler's Chelsea Lately ended its seven-year run Tuesday night, and the host was duly impressed."I've made great friends, a lot of enemies, and I have personally lost and gained 3,500 pounds."The guest-star-jammed finale included cameos from a galaxy of stars, like Ellen DeGeneres , who demanded to know why she was never invited to be on the show – see below.Other guests for the evening included Sandra Bullock Jennifer Aniston and Handler's ex 50 Cent Miley Cyrus was on hand to perform as well, though the evening's biggest musical moment was saved for last.Dozens of stars, including Gwen Stefani , Alanis Morissette, Gerard Butler, Kevin Nealon, Dave Grohl and Tim Allen, joined Handler for a musical number called "Goodbye to E!.""It's time to move on," they sang. "[Handler] wants to sing. She wants to dance and get her groove on."Handler's groove will be next gotten on Netflix (a move she couldn't resist plugging at the end of her finale, yelling, "I'll see you on Netflix!" to the audience), with a stand-up special set to air next month. She's also been confirmed to host the streaming service's first talk show, though a date has not been set. ||||| Tonight, Chelsea Handler and her team wrapped up "seven years of stupidity" on Chelsea Lately. In celebration of her last day, three of her closest friends came to stop by, Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Aniston and Mary McCormack. Their reason for stopping by was not the reason Chelsea expected.

 They actually came to stage a friend intervention. Mary went on a long rant to Chelsea about how her friendship has changed her life, for the worse. She stated, "Now the closest I get to a vegetable is the potato, in potato vodka." She continued, "I urge you to get help. So if you have to tell the world 'You're going to Netflix' for a little while, I think everyone supports you and everyone understands." |||||

– Chelsea Lately ended its seven-year run last night, and Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Aniston, and Mary McCormack stopped by to stage an "intervention" for their close friend, E! reports. Ever since becoming friends with Handler, "the closest I get to a vegetable is the potato, in potato vodka," McCormack said, while Aniston complained about Handler's "foul-smelling body." And then Bullock, reading from a letter: "Dear George, your practical jokes are annoying. Oh sorry, I copy-and-pasted this format from my Clooney intervention." Also on hand were Ellen DeGeneres—who, like Bullock once did, confronted a naked Handler in the shower—and even Handler's ex, 50 Cent, who performed his new song. At the very end of the show, dozens of stars came onstage to sing "Goodbye to E!," People reports. Over at the Daily Beast, Kevin Fallon calls Handler's final moments onscreen "one last middle finger": "'I'll see you on Netflix!' she bellowed, plugging her new outlet while still on-air on the one that made her a star."


– The Museum of Modern Art has an odd mystery on its hands. First, somebody stole two photos of performance artist Carolee Schneemann worth $105,000 from a museum annex in Queens. Then somebody mailed them back, good as new. Now the NYPD has released surveillance video of the young woman believed to have done the mailing and is trying to track her down, reports People. Police traced the package with the photos back to a shipping store in Brooklyn, and the video shows a woman with a dark cap and glasses carrying the package into the store. Police say they don't know whether the woman was involved in the theft itself, what prompted the change of heart, or how the theft happened in the first place, reports CBS New York. The prints were discovered to be missing on the morning of Oct. 30, though the site's alarm had been set the previous night. Police also say there were no signs of forced entry, and the photos were returned less than a week later. The gelatin-silver prints were made by Alex V. Sobolewski to document Schneemann’s nude performance art and are part of the exhibit “Carolee Schneemann: Kinetic Painting," per artnet.

Expand this summary.

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The NYPD is looking for a woman in connection to the theft of a pair of high-priced photo prints from MoMA PS1 Annex in Long Island City, Queens last month.

 Police said an employee at the art center discovered two print photographs, with an estimated value of a combined $105,000, missing from the museum the morning of Monday, Oct. 30.

 That Friday, employees reported to police that the stolen snapshots had been mailed back to the museum.

 A police investigation uncovered surveillance video showing a woman mailing the photos in a large box from a shipping store on Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn the previous afternoon.

 “It’s crazy, right?” said museum patron Frank Heatley.

 As CBS2’s Brian Conybeare reported, the stolen works included a female nude. They are part of an exhibit featuring feminist performance artist Carolee Schneemann.

 Museumgoers were puzzled by the theft and who might be behind it

 “Maybe they were really just in love with her artwork that they wanted it for herself, and that maybe they had a change of heart and decided to mail back,” said museum patron Kelvi Diaz.

 “I don’t see how you could steal from the museum and then feel guilty about it, because it’s such a dramatic thing to do,” said museum patron Natalie Bade.

 Investigators said it is not clear if the mystery woman actually stole the photos.

 No one from MoMA or its PS1 branch would comment on the caper.

 Meanwhile, sources confirm the museum security alarm was set that night, but it never went off. Sources said it is possible somebody was hiding inside waiting for the museum to close and then pulled off the heist.

 The museum does not have surveillance cameras.

 “I’m shocked that they don’t, because the fact that somebody got in here to steal prints says enough that their security clearly should be a step up,” Bade said.

 One artist, Jenny Morgan, said maybe the thief never intended to keep the photos.

 “I would guess that it’s someone else’s own artistic reaction, if I want to go with the creative answer,” she said.

 Morgan suggested that it could all be some kind of performance art – “a reaction to the performance art that she’s seeing.”

 The woman seen in the surveillance video is described as white, in her twenties who was last seen wearing a dark cap, glasses, a black overcoat, tan pants, and tan shoes.

 Anyone with information in regards to this incident is asked to call the NYPD’s Crime Stoppers Hotline at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477) or for Spanish, 1-888-57-PISTA (74682). The public can also submit their tips by logging onto the Crime stoppers website at WWW.NYPDCRIMESTOPPERS.COM or by texting their tips to 274637 (CRIMES) then enter TIP577. ||||| Rating is available when the video has been rented.

 This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. ||||| The theft was resolved in less than a week, but the mystery remains: Who stole two Carolee Schneemann photographs from MoMA PS1, only to mail them back a mere four days later?

 The artworks, worth $55,000 and $50,000 each, according to the New York Post, were discovered missing from the exhibition “Carolee Schneemann: Kinetic Painting” (on view through March 11) by a facilities manager around 11 a.m. on Monday, October 30.

 That Friday, the museum received a oversize package. Inside were the missing gelatin-silver prints, taken by Alex V. Sobolewski to document Schneemann’s nude performance art. There was no note, and it remains unclear whether the thief had a change of heart or the works were returned by a third party.

 Police investigated the shipment and uncovered surveillance footage from the previous evening at Office 11211, a shipping store in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The video, a 20-second clip released by the police, shows a woman in a dark knit hat, glasses, tan pants, and a black coat arranging to send the package to the museum.

 Anyone who might have insight into her identity are being asked to contact the police, who are investigating the matter. If connected to the theft, the suspect could face charges of criminal possession of stolen property and grand larceny, according to authorities.

 The two works are titled CS in the broken mirrors on the back of Four Fur Cutting Boards (1965) and CS With Gloves (Radiator), 1965, on loan from the artist and New York galleries P.P.O.W. Gallery and Galerie Lelong.

 A press representative for MoMA PS1 declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. There was no sign of forced entry, and the security alarm, while activated, never went off.

 UPDATE: This story originally cited a CBS report that incorrectly claimed that PS1 does not have security cameras. The museum is, in fact, under video surveillance.

 Follow artnet News on Facebook: ||||| The New York City Police Department wants to question a woman whom they say mailed stolen art back to MoMA PS1 just days after it vanished.

 Two photographs — estimated to be worth more than $105,000 dollars — were part of the exhibit Carolee Schneemann: Kinetic Painting. The photos were first discovered missing on Oct. 30. There were no signs of forced entry into the museum, in Queens, and authorities had no leads. The theft was not caught on video, and there appeared to be no witnesses.

 But despite scant evidence, the photos have since been recovered. According to the NYPD, the pictures were anonymously mailed back to the museum on Nov. 3.

 There was no damage to the photos, and police recovered no note of explanation. Authorities traced the package back to a Brooklyn shipping store.

 Surveillance video appears to show a young woman wearing a dark cap, glasses and black overcoat entering the shipping store. She was carrying a large FedEx box. Authorities allege that the photographs were inside.

 On Sunday, the NYPD released the surveillance video and asked for the public’s assistance in identifying the woman. The burglary’s motive was unclear.

 An NYPD spokesperson tells PEOPLE that no arrest has been made, but that the case is still under investigation.

 An after-hours call to the museum was not immediately returned. |||||