HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay of execution for Michael Ross, clearing away one of two obstacles that had blocked Connecticut from putting the serial killer to death.

The decision, on a 5-4 vote, brings Ross another step closer to becoming the first person executed in New England in 45 years. But it does not affect a separate 10-day restraining order that was issued on Wednesday after Ross’ father filed a civil rights lawsuit, against his son’s wishes, seeking to block the execution.

“Michael is relieved, but he knows we’re not out of the woods yet,” said T.R. Paulding, Ross’ lawyer who has been working with him to end all appeals. “I know it sounds strange to say he’s relieved, but he is still very firm and hoping the execution will go forward.”

The execution was rescheduled for Saturday at 2:01 a.m., “barring any legal impediments,” said Correction Department spokesman Brian Garnett.

Thursday’s ruling to lift the stay was opposed by the high court’s more liberal members – Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The decision was made without comment.

Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth said it ends his office’s attempts to block the execution.

“There will be no hearing on his mental competency,” Smyth said. “It appears he will be executed without anyone hearing all the evidence that we have that he is mentally incompetent.”

A hearing on the restraining order was scheduled for Friday at 10:30 a.m. before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he hopes the appeals court will follow the lead of the Supreme Court.

“Their claim is that the father has the right to a hearing on the issue of competence,” he said. “This is an issue that has already been decided by four courts. The Supreme Court is sending a message that there needs to be finality.”

Under a warrant issued in October, the state has until Monday at midnight to execute Ross, Blumenthal said. If the execution does not happen by then, the state would have to go back to court to seek a new execution date, a process that could delay the execution for up to six months.

Antonio Ponvert III, a lawyer for Ross’ father, Dan Ross, said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday.

“And I am outraged the court would decide a matter of life and death without having the dignity to explain their decision,” Ponvert said.

Ponvert said he was going to argue Friday in the Circuit Court that the state is rushing for no good reason to execute Ross and that the state’s determination that Ross is competent was based on a one-sided process that did not allow contradicting evidence.

Ross is on death row for strangling four young women and girls in eastern Connecticut in the early 1980s. He also has admitted murdering four other young women in Connecticut and New York. He raped most of the victims.

Ross last year decided to fire his public defenders and forgo any remaining appeals.

He was first scheduled to be put to death Wednesday morning. The state rescheduled the date twice after a flurry of legal action, including two rulings from U.S. Judge Robert Chatigny.

On Monday, Chatigny decided that state Division of Public Defenders Services should be allowed to present evidence that Ross was not mentally competent to accept his execution. The public defenders claimed that Ross has been coerced into his decision by the mental strain of living for years under the harsh conditions of the state’s death row. The Supreme Court disagreed.

“What would be the harm in postponing this for a reasonable period of time to hold a hearing and determine his mental competency?” Smyth said Thursday.

On Wednesday, Chatigny issued a 10-day restraining order after Dan Ross filed his federal civil rights lawsuit.

The elder Ross claims the state is denying him his constitutional rights to associate with his son by executing Michael Ross while knowing that he may not be competent to waive his appeals.

It’s a claim similar to that used in civil rights lawsuits filed by the families of people who have been killed by police officers, Ponvert said.

“Federal courts have ruled that the right to intimate family contact is a protected liberty interest,” Ponvert said.

The lawsuit also claims the state is denying Dan Ross due process rights by not postponing the execution until after the completion of an ongoing study into the fairness of the state’s death penalty. And, the lawsuit claims the Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Correction Commissioner Theresa C. Lantz are violating the state’s law against assisted suicide.

“What in the world is forcing the state to race ahead at breakneck speed, when they can’t be sure the execution is legal?” Ponvert said.

Kathy Yeager, Ross’ pastoral advocate, said she met with him Thursday afternoon at Osborn Correctional Institution. She said all the legal delays have frustrated Ross so much that he wants the execution to happen even more than before.

Yeager, who will be one of Ross’ four witnesses at the execution, said the Correction Department planned to move Ross Friday morning to a holding cell where he will meet with his father. Throughout the day, the four witnesses – his father is not one of them – will meet with Ross.

Ross is then scheduled to meet with his spiritual adviser between 11 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. if the execution remains on track, she said.

Also on Thursday, the Supreme Court, without comment, rejected a request by the Missionary Society of Connecticut to block the execution.

The society, a branch of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, had claimed the execution should be postponed until the state’s newly merged Board of Pardons and Parole adopts regulations for holding clemency hearings in death-penalty cases.

Robert Nave, head of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, criticized the high court.

“I’m mildly surprised and deeply disappointed the Supreme Court wouldn’t give time because there is no rush after 20 years,” he said. “There’s no reason why we couldn’t take some time to give a close examination of the law.”