The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons. The court's intervention could have unravelled President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden’s federal firearms conviction. Additionally, the court declined to entertain an appeal against an assault weapons ban in Illinois. The court instead sent the whole set of gun cases back to lower courts.

A law that has been used to convict Hunter Biden was sent to lower courts for review.

The SCOTUS justices directed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the high court's June ruling that struck down a longstanding ban on drug users having guns. Hunter's defence is now citing that ruling in a case filed against him for buying a gun when he was addicted to drugs.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hunter-biden-sues-fox-news-over-mock-trial-miniseries-736998" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/hunter-biden-sues-fox-news-over-mock-trial-miniseries-736998&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE">Hunter Biden sues Fox News over `mock trial` miniseries</a>

The SCOTUS also sent back other gun cases to lower courts challenging a law that bars people from having a gun after they are convicted of a crime. Earlier, an appeal court had ruled that a lifetime ban on convicts may violate his Second Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed to a lower court's decision that supported a blanket ban on assault weapons in Illinois. However, he still declined to take up the challenge as he chose to wait for the judgment by lower courts.

<h2>Bruen ruling of 2022</h2>

This move came after the famous 2022 ruling, known as Bruen, that expanded gun laws in the US, intended to protect victims of domestic violence.

The Bruen ruling said gun laws must be grounded in historic tradition to stay on the books.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-reiterates-wont-pardon-son-hunter-biden-id-abide-by-the-jury-decision-731644" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-reiterates-wont-pardon-son-hunter-biden-id-abide-by-the-jury-decision-731644&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE">Joe Biden reiterates won`t pardon son Hunter Biden: `I`d abide by the jury decision`</a>

However, this time around, the SCOTUS appeared reluctant to dive right into the mess.

“At least for now, the court seems unwilling to jump right back into the messy fight that it touched off two years ago in the Bruen case with respect to exactly what the Second Amendment does and doesn’t prohibit,” CNN quoted an analyst as saying.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons.

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons. The court's intervention could have unravelled President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden’s federal firearms conviction. Additionally, the court declined to entertain an appeal against an assault weapons ban in Illinois. The court instead sent the whole set of gun cases back to lower courts. A law that has been used to convict Hunter Biden was sent to lower courts for review. The SCOTUS justices directed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the high court's June ruling that struck down a longstanding ban on drug users having guns. Hunter's defence is now citing that ruling in a case filed against him for buying a gun when he was addicted to drugs. Also read: Hunter Biden sues Fox News over `mock trial` miniseries The SCOTUS also sent back other gun cases to lower courts challenging a law that bars people from having a gun after they are convicted of a crime. Earlier, an appeal court had ruled that a lifetime ban on convicts may violate his Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed to a lower court's decision that supported a blanket ban on assault weapons in Illinois. However, he still declined to take up the challenge as he chose to wait for the judgment by lower courts. Bruen ruling of 2022 This move came after the famous 2022 ruling, known as Bruen, that expanded gun laws in the US, intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The Bruen ruling said gun laws must be grounded in historic tradition to stay on the books. Also read: Joe Biden reiterates won`t pardon son Hunter Biden: `I`d abide by the jury decision` However, this time around, the SCOTUS appeared reluctant to dive right into the mess. “At least for now, the court seems unwilling to jump right back into the messy fight that it touched off two years ago in the Bruen case with respect to exactly what the Second Amendment does and doesn’t prohibit,” CNN quoted an analyst as saying. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal against law used in Hunter Biden’s conviction

The US Supreme Court has struck down a ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in America.

The ban was enacted&nbsp;after bump stocks were used during a mass shooting in 2017 when a gunman in Las Vegas&nbsp;had opened fire on a country music festival killing a total of 60 people and leaving around 400 others wounded.

<h2>About the SCOTUS ruling</h2>

The apex court, by a six-three majority on Friday (June 14),&nbsp;found the federal ban on bump stock devices, which enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, was unlawful.&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-top-court-says-trump-administration-broke-law-731865/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The ruling authored by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the SCOTUS is upholding a lower court’s decision which sided with Michael Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner who challenged the Trump-era ban.&nbsp;

Cargill said that the US agency improperly interpreted a federal law banning machine guns as extending to bump stocks. The decision was supported by the highest court’s conservative majority, with liberal justices dissenting.

The SCOTUS found that the Trump administration overstepped when it declared bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot, Thomas wrote.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who opposed the verdict said, “Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands,” adding that the decision “will have deadly consequences.”&nbsp;

During the hearing, justices on the conservative-led court appeared sceptical of the ban due to minor technical differences between bump-stock gun fires and machine guns.&nbsp;

The arguments in the case were focused&nbsp;on whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/house-approves-defense-policy-bill-with-divisive-provision-on-abortion-transgender-troops-731870">House approves defence policy bill with divisive provision on abortion, transgender troops</a>

The Las Vegas mass shooting was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror. The gunman later killed himself, leaving his motive a mystery.&nbsp;

<h2>SC ruling criticised</h2>

The ban was considered exceptional considering it was enacted by a Republican president who has been supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The incumbent ATF Director Steve Dettelbach said that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”&nbsp;

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, a Republican who has refused to sign several gun control measures passed by the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature, said while he supports Second Amendment rights he is “disappointed” by the court decision.&nbsp;

Victims of the 2017 mass shooting also expressed their shock and disappointment over the the ruling.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court has struck down a ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in America. The ban was enacted after bump stocks were used during a mass shooting in 2017 when a gunman in Las Vegas had opened fire on a country music festival killing a total of 60 people and leaving around 400 others wounded.

The US Supreme Court has struck down a ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in America. The ban was enacted after bump stocks were used during a mass shooting in 2017 when a gunman in Las Vegas had opened fire on a country music festival killing a total of 60 people and leaving around 400 others wounded. About the SCOTUS ruling The apex court, by a six-three majority on Friday (June 14), found the federal ban on bump stock devices, which enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, was unlawful. The ruling authored by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the SCOTUS is upholding a lower court’s decision which sided with Michael Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner who challenged the Trump-era ban. Cargill said that the US agency improperly interpreted a federal law banning machine guns as extending to bump stocks. The decision was supported by the highest court’s conservative majority, with liberal justices dissenting. The SCOTUS found that the Trump administration overstepped when it declared bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot, Thomas wrote. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who opposed the verdict said, “Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands,” adding that the decision “will have deadly consequences.” During the hearing, justices on the conservative-led court appeared sceptical of the ban due to minor technical differences between bump-stock gun fires and machine guns. The arguments in the case were focused on whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority. Also Read | House approves defence policy bill with divisive provision on abortion, transgender troops The Las Vegas mass shooting was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror. The gunman later killed himself, leaving his motive a mystery. SC ruling criticised The ban was considered exceptional considering it was enacted by a Republican president who has been supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The incumbent ATF Director Steve Dettelbach said that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.” Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, a Republican who has refused to sign several gun control measures passed by the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature, said while he supports Second Amendment rights he is “disappointed” by the court decision. Victims of the 2017 mass shooting also expressed their shock and disappointment over the the ruling. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on gun bump stocks

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)&nbsp;on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack.&nbsp;

The nine Supreme Court justices heard arguments related to Trump’s appeal of a December 19 ruling by Colorado’s top court which barred him from the state’s Republican primary ballot citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution due to his alleged participation in an insurrection.

WATCH |&nbsp;Former president Trump appeals to turn down the Colorado ruling

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/former-president-trump-appeals-to-turn-down-the-colorado-ruling-688420/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The amendment in question bars “officers of the United States” who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The verdict in this case has major implications for the upcoming November 5 elections.&nbsp;

<h2>What happened in the court?</h2>

The justices – a six-three conservative majority including three judges appointed by Trump – expressed concerns about states having the power on their own to take sweeping actions which would affect a presidential election nationwide.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Jason Murray, who is representing the Colorado voters who brought the case, that if the Colorado court’s decision is upheld, other states would also start disqualification proceedings for their own candidates from either of the parties.&nbsp;

“It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” said Roberts.&nbsp;

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray that the question to confront here is also if a “single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” adding that “whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection, to be president again...it sounds awfully national to me.”

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-barred-from-colorado-ballot-for-role-in-january-6-attack-on-us-capitol-671523">Trump barred from Colorado ballot for role in January 6 attack on US Capitol</a>

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how Section 3 of the US Constitution would impact democracy, telling Murray that his position would be “disenfranchising voters to a significant degree”.&nbsp;

“The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that we be given another chance,” said Murrary bluntly.&nbsp;

Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas representing Trump opened the oral arguments and said that only Congress can disqualify a candidate.&nbsp;

“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed,” said Mitchell, adding that the decision would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.”

Meanwhile, Mitchell, after being questioned by Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the amendment in question does not apply to Trump as he was the president and not an “officer of the United States,” adding that the term could only be used for an appointed official of some kind.

Notably, justices spent little time discussing the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection when thousands of Trump supporters, in a bid to stop lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s win, attacked the US Capitol.&nbsp;

<h2>‘Very beautiful process’</h2>

Moments after the arguments concluded at the SCOTUS, the former president spoke to the press from Florida and said he was watching the hearing and thought it went well for him. “In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process,” said Trump.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/michigan-supreme-court-rejects-attempt-to-ban-former-us-president-donald-trump-from-2024-ballot-674242">Colorado Republicans seek intervention by US Supreme Court in Donald Trump's 2024 ballot disqualification</a>

He added, “I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received – I hope it was well-received.”&nbsp;

The Republican frontrunner also pointed out his dominance in the polls and said, “Can you take the person that’s leading everywhere and say, ‘Hey, we're not gonna let you run?’...but I’m leaving it up to the Supreme Court.”

A small crowd of around 20 protesters, some carrying signs reading “Trump Is A Traitor” and “Remove Trump,” were also seen outside the top court ahead of the hearing.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack.

As the first day of the hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday (Feb 8) ended, the judges appeared sceptical towards the decision kicking former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the US state of Colorado for his role in the 2021 Capitol attack. The nine Supreme Court justices heard arguments related to Trump’s appeal of a December 19 ruling by Colorado’s top court which barred him from the state’s Republican primary ballot citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution due to his alleged participation in an insurrection. WATCH | Former president Trump appeals to turn down the Colorado ruling The amendment in question bars “officers of the United States” who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The verdict in this case has major implications for the upcoming November 5 elections. What happened in the court? The justices – a six-three conservative majority including three judges appointed by Trump – expressed concerns about states having the power on their own to take sweeping actions which would affect a presidential election nationwide. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Jason Murray, who is representing the Colorado voters who brought the case, that if the Colorado court’s decision is upheld, other states would also start disqualification proceedings for their own candidates from either of the parties. “It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” said Roberts. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked Murray that the question to confront here is also if a “single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” adding that “whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection, to be president again...it sounds awfully national to me.” ALSO READ | Trump barred from Colorado ballot for role in January 6 attack on US Capitol Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how Section 3 of the US Constitution would impact democracy, telling Murray that his position would be “disenfranchising voters to a significant degree”. “The reason we’re here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him, and the Constitution doesn’t require that we be given another chance,” said Murrary bluntly. Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas representing Trump opened the oral arguments and said that only Congress can disqualify a candidate. “The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is wrong and should be reversed,” said Mitchell, adding that the decision would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.” Meanwhile, Mitchell, after being questioned by Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the amendment in question does not apply to Trump as he was the president and not an “officer of the United States,” adding that the term could only be used for an appointed official of some kind. Notably, justices spent little time discussing the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection when thousands of Trump supporters, in a bid to stop lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s win, attacked the US Capitol. ‘Very beautiful process’ Moments after the arguments concluded at the SCOTUS, the former president spoke to the press from Florida and said he was watching the hearing and thought it went well for him. “In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process,” said Trump. ALSO READ | Colorado Republicans seek intervention by US Supreme Court in Donald Trump's 2024 ballot disqualification He added, “I thought the presentation today was a very good one. I think it was well received – I hope it was well-received.” The Republican frontrunner also pointed out his dominance in the polls and said, “Can you take the person that’s leading everywhere and say, ‘Hey, we're not gonna let you run?’...but I’m leaving it up to the Supreme Court.” A small crowd of around 20 protesters, some carrying signs reading “Trump Is A Traitor” and “Remove Trump,” were also seen outside the top court ahead of the hearing. (With inputs from agencies)

US presidential election 2024: Supreme Court seems sceptical of Colorado's decision to kick Trump off ballot

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office.

The ruling came as a setback for special counsel Jack Smith, who wanted the case to be heard in an expedited manner.

Earlier on December 1, Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This led Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a bid to delay the trial.

Watch:&nbsp;US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-polls-donald-trump-barred-from-running-for-president-in-colorado-672700/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe><a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;
</div>
</div>

Responding to this move, Jack Smith&nbsp;directly approached the Supreme Court to hear the case.

However, in a one-line order, the SCOTUS declined to intervene, without providing any reason for the same.

<h2>Win for Donald Trump</h2>

The efforts being made by Trump and his team to delay the trial, set to begin in March, for as long as possible seem to be working for now.

The case will now&nbsp;wind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-files-for-bankruptcy-672309">Also read:&nbsp;Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy</a>

In August this year, Trump was indicted on election subversion charges. He is being investigated for&nbsp;alleged attempts to overturn the election leading up to the 6 January Capitol riot.

Trump appealed&nbsp;the decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkan&nbsp;paused the case.

<h2>Trump’s claims on immunity</h2>

Trump continues to claim that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as president before and during the riot.

While reacting to the SCOTUS ruling, Trump on his Truth Social platform said the Supreme Court had rejected a "desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution", adding that he was "entitled to Presidential Immunity".

<h2>Jack Smith’s argument</h2>

Jack Smith in his SCOTUS petition said that the highest court should take the matter up as it "concerned the heart of our democracy."

"The United States recognises that this is an extraordinary request," he said, adding "This is an extraordinary case."

The case presented "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune," he argued.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office.

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office. The ruling came as a setback for special counsel Jack Smith, who wanted the case to be heard in an expedited manner. Earlier on December 1, Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This led Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a bid to delay the trial. Watch: US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado × Responding to this move, Jack Smith directly approached the Supreme Court to hear the case. However, in a one-line order, the SCOTUS declined to intervene, without providing any reason for the same. Win for Donald Trump The efforts being made by Trump and his team to delay the trial, set to begin in March, for as long as possible seem to be working for now. The case will now wind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial. Also read: Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy In August this year, Trump was indicted on election subversion charges. He is being investigated for alleged attempts to overturn the election leading up to the 6 January Capitol riot. Trump appealed the decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused the case. Trump’s claims on immunity Trump continues to claim that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as president before and during the riot. While reacting to the SCOTUS ruling, Trump on his Truth Social platform said the Supreme Court had rejected a "desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution", adding that he was "entitled to Presidential Immunity". Jack Smith’s argument Jack Smith in his SCOTUS petition said that the highest court should take the matter up as it "concerned the heart of our democracy." "The United States recognises that this is an extraordinary request," he said, adding "This is an extraordinary case." The case presented "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune," he argued. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump immunity case, delaying trial

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.&nbsp;

Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement.&nbsp;

The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-more-than-110-people-have-been-killed-after-earthquake-in-gansu-province-671082">China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province</a>

Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18).&nbsp;

The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-to-cough-700mn-as-part-of-antitrust-settlement-week-after-defeat-against-epic-games-671324">Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games</a>

In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.”

Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old.

According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-loyalists-placed-in-pentagon-state-department-may-reshape-us-foreign-policy-report-671254">Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report</a>

<h2>Sidhwaney’s arrest</h2>

The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings. Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement. The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show. ALSO READ | China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18). The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts. “The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida. ALSO READ | Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.” Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old. According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment. ALSO READ | Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report Sidhwaney’s arrest The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill Supreme Court justice

An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse.

Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy.&nbsp;

The doctor advised her to have her labour induced, as her water had broken prematurely, meaning that there was no chance the baby would survive.

Doctors warned that if the non-viable foetus is not delivered, she would face a "significant risk" of death.

In the following days, Watts would go through a horrifying period, while making multiple trips to the hospital and eventually miscarrying in the toilet at home.&nbsp;

She reportedly flushed and plunged the foetus, which was later found stuck in pipes by police.

<h2>Case reaches jury</h2>

Watts’s case was sent to a grand jury last month. As per the testimony and autopsy reports, the foetus had died in utero before passing through the birth canal.

The case sparked a nationwide debate in the country&nbsp;about the treatment of pregnant women in the country after the overturning of Roe v Wade, especially Black women.

Watch:&nbsp;One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/one-year-since-roe-v-wade-was-overturned-608453/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump elevated Ms Watts's plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $US100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, medical bills and trauma counselling.

<h2>Predicament for pregnant women</h2>

Experts have pointed out how even those women with no intention to get an abortion were being hounded by the system and charged with crimes against their own pregnancies.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ros-vs-wade-fallout-13-year-old-girl-gives-birth-after-she-was-raped-and-denied-abortion-in-mississippi-625601">Also read:&nbsp;Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi</a>

"Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University.

"Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone."

<h2>What are the abortion laws in Ohio?</h2>

In Ohio, abortion is not illegal but restricted. Last year, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) overturned the historic Roe v Wade legal decision, leaving it up to&nbsp; the states to form their own laws.

A law signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019 prohibits most abortions after the first 21 weeks and six days in Ohio. When Watts first experienced the blood clots she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant.

(With inputs from agencies)

An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse. Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy.

An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse. Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy. The doctor advised her to have her labour induced, as her water had broken prematurely, meaning that there was no chance the baby would survive. Doctors warned that if the non-viable foetus is not delivered, she would face a "significant risk" of death. In the following days, Watts would go through a horrifying period, while making multiple trips to the hospital and eventually miscarrying in the toilet at home. She reportedly flushed and plunged the foetus, which was later found stuck in pipes by police. Case reaches jury Watts’s case was sent to a grand jury last month. As per the testimony and autopsy reports, the foetus had died in utero before passing through the birth canal. The case sparked a nationwide debate in the country about the treatment of pregnant women in the country after the overturning of Roe v Wade, especially Black women. Watch: One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned × Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump elevated Ms Watts's plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $US100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, medical bills and trauma counselling. Predicament for pregnant women Experts have pointed out how even those women with no intention to get an abortion were being hounded by the system and charged with crimes against their own pregnancies. Also read: Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi "Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University. "Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone." What are the abortion laws in Ohio? In Ohio, abortion is not illegal but restricted. Last year, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) overturned the historic Roe v Wade legal decision, leaving it up to the states to form their own laws. A law signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019 prohibits most abortions after the first 21 weeks and six days in Ohio. When Watts first experienced the blood clots she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Ohio woman charged with abuse of corpse after losing foetus in toilet

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims. The Justice Department has argued against this immunity after accusing them of flooding the country with highly addictive opioids and challenging its legality.&nbsp;

In August, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-halts-purdues-6-billion-opioid-settlement-pending-review-624448">temporarily blocked</a> a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family which controls the drugmaker from future litigation over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic.&nbsp;

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that the family earned tens of billions of dollars while flooding the country with the highly addictive pain medication OxyContin, which played a key role in the opioid epidemic that has caused over half a million deaths across the US.&nbsp;

<h2>How will the $6 billion settlement help people?</h2>

Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes.&nbsp;

The opioid epidemic in the US has caused more than 500,000 overdose deaths over two decades, according to American officials. In 1996, Purdue introduced OxyContin and marketed and promoted it aggressively.&nbsp;

The pain medication has been attributed to kickstarting the epidemic, according to the various plaintiffs who have argued in thousands of lawsuits against Purdue, across the US. The drugmaker has also been accused of encouraging the free-wheeling prescription of their products while hiding the addictive nature of the drugs.

Following an avalanche of litigation which involved legal officials from all 50 US states, in 2021, Purdue pled guilty to three criminal charges over its marketing of OxyContin. The drugmaker also pleaded guilty to misbranding and fraud charges over the marketing of its pain medication, in 2007 and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-charges-for-opioid-sales-337138">2020</a>.

However, the litigation&nbsp;prompted Purdue, in 2019, to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address its debts nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits.&nbsp;

Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company.&nbsp;

The settlement was revised a year later, to include more money from the Sacklers after the Attorneys General of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-states-drop-opposition-to-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan-396799">eight states</a> and the District of Columbia successfully appealed the bankruptcy court approval.

This was after Purdue had reached a bankruptcy settlement with creditors, including various state attorneys general, local governments and the DOJ’s criminal and civil divisions.&nbsp;

As a part of the revised deal, the Sackler family would pay up to $6 billion to a trust to settle claims filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and individual opioid plaintiffs.

A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the Supreme Court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family.

However, the settlement is opposed by the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog and some individual opioid plaintiffs.

<h2>DOJ argues against the settlement</h2>

The temporary block on the bankruptcy deal for Purdue came after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of the settlement and said it would hold oral arguments in December.&nbsp;

The order was filed by the US Trustee, an office within the DOJ that carries out an administrative function and performs a watchdog role in some instances.&nbsp;

The settlement, which was approved by a lower court, gave the families of Raymond Sackler and Mortimer Sackler protection from all future civil claims which would effectively protect their other assets from opioid-related lawsuits.&nbsp;

The objection filed by the DOJ argues that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers.

“The court of appeals’ decision is a roadmap for corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass-tort liability,” US Trustee told the SCOTUS.

Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue over the 11 years before the company filed for bankruptcy protection and later agreed to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration.

Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.”&nbsp;

The company also said that it was confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and the SCOTUS will agree with it.&nbsp;

<h2>How did the Sackler family use bankruptcy as a shield?</h2>

The Sacklers have consistently denied wrongdoing and expressed regret that OxyContin “unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis.” The billionaire family would <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharmas-sackler-family-to-receive-full-immunity-from-opioid-lawsuits-court-rules-598848">receive immunity</a> in exchange for paying the settlement amount, despite not being bankrupt themselves.&nbsp;

The Sacklers would shield themselves through what is called a non-debtor release, which the US Congress initially granted in the context of asbestos litigation.&nbsp;

Simply put, Sacklers for giving billions of dollars to Purdue – which as a part of the settlement deal would transform into a nonprofit and dedicate its assets to addressing the harms of opioid addiction across the US – cannot be held accountable for their role in the opioid crisis and don’t even have to declare bankruptcy to for that protection.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the SCOTUS hearing about?</h2>

In this context, the Supreme Court justices would decide whether members of the Sackler family should be shielded from current and future lawsuits connected with Purdue.&nbsp;

Ellen Isaacs, a former OxyContin user, who lost her son to overdose and is among those who oppose the $6 billion settlement, wrote to the justices saying that the settlement fails to hold the Sacklers responsible.&nbsp;

“In a case where so many lost everything priceless, including their lives, justice is served when the villains keep nothing at all,” she wrote. “But justice is not served by forcing victims, against their will, into a deal that leaves the Sacklers billionaires,” she added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims.

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Purdue Pharma’s $6 billion opioids settlement, on Monday (Dec 4) which would immunise the company’s billionaire Sackler family owners from future lawsuits brought by opioid victims. The Justice Department has argued against this immunity after accusing them of flooding the country with highly addictive opioids and challenging its legality. In August, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family which controls the drugmaker from future litigation over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that the family earned tens of billions of dollars while flooding the country with the highly addictive pain medication OxyContin, which played a key role in the opioid epidemic that has caused over half a million deaths across the US. How will the $6 billion settlement help people? Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes. The opioid epidemic in the US has caused more than 500,000 overdose deaths over two decades, according to American officials. In 1996, Purdue introduced OxyContin and marketed and promoted it aggressively. The pain medication has been attributed to kickstarting the epidemic, according to the various plaintiffs who have argued in thousands of lawsuits against Purdue, across the US. The drugmaker has also been accused of encouraging the free-wheeling prescription of their products while hiding the addictive nature of the drugs. Following an avalanche of litigation which involved legal officials from all 50 US states, in 2021, Purdue pled guilty to three criminal charges over its marketing of OxyContin. The drugmaker also pleaded guilty to misbranding and fraud charges over the marketing of its pain medication, in 2007 and 2020. However, the litigation prompted Purdue, in 2019, to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to address its debts nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits. Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. The settlement was revised a year later, to include more money from the Sacklers after the Attorneys General of eight states and the District of Columbia successfully appealed the bankruptcy court approval. This was after Purdue had reached a bankruptcy settlement with creditors, including various state attorneys general, local governments and the DOJ’s criminal and civil divisions. As a part of the revised deal, the Sackler family would pay up to $6 billion to a trust to settle claims filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and individual opioid plaintiffs. A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the Supreme Court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family. However, the settlement is opposed by the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog and some individual opioid plaintiffs. DOJ argues against the settlement The temporary block on the bankruptcy deal for Purdue came after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of the settlement and said it would hold oral arguments in December. The order was filed by the US Trustee, an office within the DOJ that carries out an administrative function and performs a watchdog role in some instances. The settlement, which was approved by a lower court, gave the families of Raymond Sackler and Mortimer Sackler protection from all future civil claims which would effectively protect their other assets from opioid-related lawsuits. The objection filed by the DOJ argues that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers. “The court of appeals’ decision is a roadmap for corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass-tort liability,” US Trustee told the SCOTUS. Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue over the 11 years before the company filed for bankruptcy protection and later agreed to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration. Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.” The company also said that it was confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and the SCOTUS will agree with it. How did the Sackler family use bankruptcy as a shield? The Sacklers have consistently denied wrongdoing and expressed regret that OxyContin “unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis.” The billionaire family would receive immunity in exchange for paying the settlement amount, despite not being bankrupt themselves. The Sacklers would shield themselves through what is called a non-debtor release, which the US Congress initially granted in the context of asbestos litigation. Simply put, Sacklers for giving billions of dollars to Purdue – which as a part of the settlement deal would transform into a nonprofit and dedicate its assets to addressing the harms of opioid addiction across the US – cannot be held accountable for their role in the opioid crisis and don’t even have to declare bankruptcy to for that protection. What is the SCOTUS hearing about? In this context, the Supreme Court justices would decide whether members of the Sackler family should be shielded from current and future lawsuits connected with Purdue. Ellen Isaacs, a former OxyContin user, who lost her son to overdose and is among those who oppose the $6 billion settlement, wrote to the justices saying that the settlement fails to hold the Sacklers responsible. “In a case where so many lost everything priceless, including their lives, justice is served when the villains keep nothing at all,” she wrote. “But justice is not served by forcing victims, against their will, into a deal that leaves the Sacklers billionaires,” she added. (With inputs from agencies)

Explained | US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Purdue’s $6bn deal. Will it affect opioid epidemic relief?

The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. This comes after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy settlement.&nbsp;

<h2>What did the SCOTUS say?</h2>

The US Supreme Court has paused the bankruptcy proceedings about Purdue and its affiliates, saying that they will hold oral arguments in December in the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement.&nbsp;

The order would possibly delay any payments to the thousands of plaintiffs who have sued the Sacklers and Purdue, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin which has been widely blamed for the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-charges-for-opioid-sales-337138">opioid crisis</a> in the US.&nbsp;

The order by the SCOTUS, whose new term begins in October, comes in response to an objection filed by the Department of Justice, which said that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers.

Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration.&nbsp;

<h2>Purdue settlement</h2>

Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes.&nbsp;

The top court justices said they will hear arguments about whether the agreement is authorised by the US bankruptcy code. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits.&nbsp;

Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. However, the Biden administration and eight states challenged the settlement, but the states later <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-states-drop-opposition-to-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan-396799">dropped the opposition</a>. &nbsp;

<h2>Purdue responds to court order</h2>

In a statement, Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee, the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog, filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.”&nbsp;

It added that the company is confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and that the SCOTUS will agree with it.&nbsp;

<h2>Plaintiffs respond to the settlement</h2>

A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the supreme court that they support the settlement, including <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharmas-sackler-family-to-receive-full-immunity-from-opioid-lawsuits-court-rules-598848">legal immunity</a> for the Sackler family.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic.

The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. This comes after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy settlement. What did the SCOTUS say? The US Supreme Court has paused the bankruptcy proceedings about Purdue and its affiliates, saying that they will hold oral arguments in December in the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement. The order would possibly delay any payments to the thousands of plaintiffs who have sued the Sacklers and Purdue, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin which has been widely blamed for the opioid crisis in the US. The order by the SCOTUS, whose new term begins in October, comes in response to an objection filed by the Department of Justice, which said that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers. Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration. Purdue settlement Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes. The top court justices said they will hear arguments about whether the agreement is authorised by the US bankruptcy code. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits. Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. However, the Biden administration and eight states challenged the settlement, but the states later dropped the opposition. Purdue responds to court order In a statement, Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee, the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog, filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.” It added that the company is confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and that the SCOTUS will agree with it. Plaintiffs respond to the settlement A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the supreme court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court halts Purdue’s $6 billion opioid settlement pending review

The United States Supreme Court, on Tuesday, upheld the controversial Trump-era immigration policy called Title 42. This comes after the apex court halted its expiration which was due on December 21 in a 5-4 ruling.&nbsp;

The policy was implemented during former US President Donald Trump’s time in office, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to limit the movement and spread of disease across the US-Mexico border.&nbsp;

What happened in the recent ruling?

As mentioned earlier, the SCOTUS upheld the policy Title 42, as it is called, by Chief Justice John Roberts. This comes after the incumbent US President Joe Biden’s administration had appealed to end the pandemic-era restriction. The case will be argued in February 2023, meanwhile, the restriction will remain in place at least until a decision is made potentially&nbsp;by the end of June.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/title-42-us-supreme-court-keeps-controversial-trump-era-border-restriction-policy-in-place-547198">Title 42: US Supreme Court keeps controversial Trump-era border restriction policy in place</a>

The ruling also followed a stay order on Title 42 which was imposed last week and also comes amid the recent surge of migrants at the border&nbsp;with thousands of people entering the US. Furthermore, the apex court’s decision also said that they will hear oral arguments on the issue of whether states have the right to intervene in the upcoming legal battle for Title 42.&nbsp;

Arguing against the Covid-era restriction, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that even if states have the right to intervene and the restriction in question is lawfully adopted, the emergency based on which “those orders were premised has long since lapsed.”&nbsp;

They added, “the current border crisis is not a Covid crisis,” and that the “courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

Additionally, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also voted to deny the stay but&nbsp;did not sign a dissent, unlike the aforementioned justices. Meanwhile, White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said on Tuesday, that the Biden administration will comply with the order and prepare for the February review.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-supreme-court-rules-to-keep-title-42-in-place-547308">U.S. Supreme Court rules to keep Title 42 in place</a>

She added, “At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration.” The press secretary also noted that Title 42 was a health measure and not an immigration enforcement measure, therefore, it should not be extended indefinitely.&nbsp;

What is Title 42?

Title 42 dates back to 1944 and is a public health law which grants emergency powers to US health officials to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and keep it outside the country. In this case, it included the Border Patrol turning away thousands of migrants&nbsp;at the southern US borders from entering, on the grounds that they could bring COVID-19 into the country.&nbsp;

In March 2020, the Trump administration implemented the law which had only been invoked one other time in American history, in 1929, during a meningitis outbreak when ships from China and the Philippines were barred from entering US ports.&nbsp;

The Trump administration's&nbsp;decision at the time was justified by saying that the order is designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through immigration detention facilities, where all migrants are typically briefly held before&nbsp;either being released or deported.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/migrants-at-us-mexico-border-brave-bitter-cold-title-42-restrictions-to-stay-or-go-546435">Migrants at US-Mexico border brave bitter cold; Title 42 restrictions to stay or go?</a>

Notably, the former US president and his administration who have been in favour of tightening restrictions along the border also claimed that for the first time they could use a public-health emergency order to turn away migrants.

“Every week, our border agents encounter thousands of unscreened, unvetted and unauthorised entries from dozens of countries. But now it’s with the national emergencies and all of the other things that we’ve declared, we can actually do something about it,” the now-former President had said at the time, reported the Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;

This also included those who are seeking asylum which under the country’s immigration law should typically invoke a process under which the migrant must be allowed to stay in the country long enough to plead their case. So far, the policy has been used 2.5 million times to expel migrants at&nbsp;the border, although this&nbsp;also accounts for people who repeatedly tried to enter the country.&nbsp;

Furthermore, while the Biden administration continued the policy many from his Democratic party had pushed the president to end these measures, while others, particularly in the border states said that the restriction should remain in place and that the US is not prepared to deal with the sudden influx of asylum-seekers.&nbsp; 
 
What has happened in the courts, so far?

Last year, a group representing immigrants were denied the right to seek asylum and they in turn filed a lawsuit to end the use of Title 42. Thus began the long court battle which could decide the fate of thousands at the country’s southern borders.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-stays-title-42-which-blocks-mexican-migrants-from-entering-the-country-544656">US Supreme Court stays 'Title 42' which blocks Mexican migrants from entering the country</a>

In April, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicated that they would lift Title 42 as vaccines and treatments were mitigating the pandemic situation in the country. However, the next month, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled in the favour of 19 Republican-led states which sought the continuation of the restriction till 2025 and kept the order in place. &nbsp;

Meanwhile, the Biden administration also attempted to end the policy, earlier this year, in May, by arguing that the policy is no longer justified on the grounds that it was implemented. However, before they could do so, a Louisiana federal judge blocked them and said they had not used the correct administrative procedure which required public notice and time to gather public comment to end the policy in place.&nbsp;

However, in November, Washington Judge Emmet Sullivan’s ruling rendered the decision moot, saying that the policy’s implementation must end on December 21. Meanwhile, a group of Republican-led states intervened and argued that the cancellation of Title 42 would cause “an enormous disaster” at the border and will cost the state law enforcement, education, and health care.&nbsp;

Therefore, the case reached the SCOTUS who last week put a stay on the order and temporarily continued the implementation of the restriction to thoroughly study each side’s argument. The decision, on Tuesday, extended this temporary stay indefinitely with the next hearing in February.&nbsp;

Which migrants are getting affected by Title 42?

Notably, not all asylum seekers are getting affected by the policy as the Biden administration does not enforce Title 42 with children travelling alone but only single adults and families. Furthermore, the enforcement also differs by nationality, affecting migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-judge-blocks-joe-bidens-plan-to-end-title-42-481121">US judge blocks Joe Biden's plan to end 'Title 42'</a>

Additionally, Mexico allows them to be returned from the US and last month also began accepting Venezuelans expelled from the American border due to Title 42 which led to a massive drop in the number of people from Venezuela applying for asylum. Meanwhile, countries like Cuba make it difficult for the US to get their country’s migrants back, causing their numbers to increase at the border.&nbsp; 
 
What would happen if Title 42 was no longer in effect?

If the restriction was to be lifted, border experts believe that there might be an influx of migrants and those who had been refused entry due to Title 42,&nbsp;will make another attempt to enter&nbsp;the US. However, the asylum-seekers will be interviewed by the border authorities and determine who has a credible threat of being persecuted in their home countries, but the process could take years till then they can stay in the country until a final decision is made.&nbsp;

What does the Biden administration plan to do about the sudden influx of migrants at the US borders?

Earlier this year, the border city of El Paso, Texas announced a seven-day emergency, which the city’s Mayor Oscar Leeser, a Democrat, said would help local authorities to deal with the influx of migrants sleeping on the streets. He also warned that the city is at capacity with more than 2,500 migrants arriving from Mexico each day.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/political-stunt-85-migrants-dropped-outside-vp-kamala-harris-house-amid-18-degree-temprature-546644">Political 'stunt': 85 migrants dropped outside VP Kamala Harris' house amid -18 degree temperature</a>

On Tuesday, in the aforementioned press briefing the White House press secretary said that the government is working to manage the border in a secure, orderly and humane manner when Title 42 is lifted.&nbsp;

“Today’s orders give Republicans in Congress plenty of time to move past and join their Democratic colleagues in solving the challenge at our border by passing comprehensive reform measures and delivering the additional funds for border security that President Biden has requested,” Jean-Pierre added.&nbsp;

This is in reference to the increase in funding the Biden administration has asked for the Department of Homeland Security which outlined a plan, in a statement, earlier this month, should Title 42 be lifted to tackle the issue in a safe and humane method. According to the government, it will help the department during the transition phase.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The United States Supreme Court, on Tuesday, upheld the controversial Trump-era immigration policy called Title 42. This comes after the apex court halted its expiration which was due on December 21 in a 5-4 ruling.

The United States Supreme Court, on Tuesday, upheld the controversial Trump-era immigration policy called Title 42. This comes after the apex court halted its expiration which was due on December 21 in a 5-4 ruling. The policy was implemented during former US President Donald Trump’s time in office, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to limit the movement and spread of disease across the US-Mexico border. What happened in the recent ruling? As mentioned earlier, the SCOTUS upheld the policy Title 42, as it is called, by Chief Justice John Roberts. This comes after the incumbent US President Joe Biden’s administration had appealed to end the pandemic-era restriction. The case will be argued in February 2023, meanwhile, the restriction will remain in place at least until a decision is made potentially by the end of June. ALSO READ | Title 42: US Supreme Court keeps controversial Trump-era border restriction policy in place The ruling also followed a stay order on Title 42 which was imposed last week and also comes amid the recent surge of migrants at the border with thousands of people entering the US. Furthermore, the apex court’s decision also said that they will hear oral arguments on the issue of whether states have the right to intervene in the upcoming legal battle for Title 42. Arguing against the Covid-era restriction, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that even if states have the right to intervene and the restriction in question is lawfully adopted, the emergency based on which “those orders were premised has long since lapsed.” They added, “the current border crisis is not a Covid crisis,” and that the “courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.” Additionally, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also voted to deny the stay but did not sign a dissent, unlike the aforementioned justices. Meanwhile, White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said on Tuesday, that the Biden administration will comply with the order and prepare for the February review. ALSO WATCH | U.S. Supreme Court rules to keep Title 42 in place She added, “At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration.” The press secretary also noted that Title 42 was a health measure and not an immigration enforcement measure, therefore, it should not be extended indefinitely. What is Title 42? Title 42 dates back to 1944 and is a public health law which grants emergency powers to US health officials to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and keep it outside the country. In this case, it included the Border Patrol turning away thousands of migrants at the southern US borders from entering, on the grounds that they could bring COVID-19 into the country. In March 2020, the Trump administration implemented the law which had only been invoked one other time in American history, in 1929, during a meningitis outbreak when ships from China and the Philippines were barred from entering US ports. The Trump administration's decision at the time was justified by saying that the order is designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through immigration detention facilities, where all migrants are typically briefly held before either being released or deported. ALSO WATCH | Migrants at US-Mexico border brave bitter cold; Title 42 restrictions to stay or go? Notably, the former US president and his administration who have been in favour of tightening restrictions along the border also claimed that for the first time they could use a public-health emergency order to turn away migrants. “Every week, our border agents encounter thousands of unscreened, unvetted and unauthorised entries from dozens of countries. But now it’s with the national emergencies and all of the other things that we’ve declared, we can actually do something about it,” the now-former President had said at the time, reported the Wall Street Journal. This also included those who are seeking asylum which under the country’s immigration law should typically invoke a process under which the migrant must be allowed to stay in the country long enough to plead their case. So far, the policy has been used 2.5 million times to expel migrants at the border, although this also accounts for people who repeatedly tried to enter the country. Furthermore, while the Biden administration continued the policy many from his Democratic party had pushed the president to end these measures, while others, particularly in the border states said that the restriction should remain in place and that the US is not prepared to deal with the sudden influx of asylum-seekers. What has happened in the courts, so far? Last year, a group representing immigrants were denied the right to seek asylum and they in turn filed a lawsuit to end the use of Title 42. Thus began the long court battle which could decide the fate of thousands at the country’s southern borders. ALSO READ | US Supreme Court stays 'Title 42' which blocks Mexican migrants from entering the country In April, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) indicated that they would lift Title 42 as vaccines and treatments were mitigating the pandemic situation in the country. However, the next month, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled in the favour of 19 Republican-led states which sought the continuation of the restriction till 2025 and kept the order in place. Meanwhile, the Biden administration also attempted to end the policy, earlier this year, in May, by arguing that the policy is no longer justified on the grounds that it was implemented. However, before they could do so, a Louisiana federal judge blocked them and said they had not used the correct administrative procedure which required public notice and time to gather public comment to end the policy in place. However, in November, Washington Judge Emmet Sullivan’s ruling rendered the decision moot, saying that the policy’s implementation must end on December 21. Meanwhile, a group of Republican-led states intervened and argued that the cancellation of Title 42 would cause “an enormous disaster” at the border and will cost the state law enforcement, education, and health care. Therefore, the case reached the SCOTUS who last week put a stay on the order and temporarily continued the implementation of the restriction to thoroughly study each side’s argument. The decision, on Tuesday, extended this temporary stay indefinitely with the next hearing in February. Which migrants are getting affected by Title 42? Notably, not all asylum seekers are getting affected by the policy as the Biden administration does not enforce Title 42 with children travelling alone but only single adults and families. Furthermore, the enforcement also differs by nationality, affecting migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador. ALSO WATCH | US judge blocks Joe Biden's plan to end 'Title 42' Additionally, Mexico allows them to be returned from the US and last month also began accepting Venezuelans expelled from the American border due to Title 42 which led to a massive drop in the number of people from Venezuela applying for asylum. Meanwhile, countries like Cuba make it difficult for the US to get their country’s migrants back, causing their numbers to increase at the border. What would happen if Title 42 was no longer in effect? If the restriction was to be lifted, border experts believe that there might be an influx of migrants and those who had been refused entry due to Title 42, will make another attempt to enter the US. However, the asylum-seekers will be interviewed by the border authorities and determine who has a credible threat of being persecuted in their home countries, but the process could take years till then they can stay in the country until a final decision is made. What does the Biden administration plan to do about the sudden influx of migrants at the US borders? Earlier this year, the border city of El Paso, Texas announced a seven-day emergency, which the city’s Mayor Oscar Leeser, a Democrat, said would help local authorities to deal with the influx of migrants sleeping on the streets. He also warned that the city is at capacity with more than 2,500 migrants arriving from Mexico each day. ALSO WATCH | Political 'stunt': 85 migrants dropped outside VP Kamala Harris' house amid -18 degree temperature On Tuesday, in the aforementioned press briefing the White House press secretary said that the government is working to manage the border in a secure, orderly and humane manner when Title 42 is lifted. “Today’s orders give Republicans in Congress plenty of time to move past and join their Democratic colleagues in solving the challenge at our border by passing comprehensive reform measures and delivering the additional funds for border security that President Biden has requested,” Jean-Pierre added. This is in reference to the increase in funding the Biden administration has asked for the Department of Homeland Security which outlined a plan, in a statement, earlier this month, should Title 42 be lifted to tackle the issue in a safe and humane method. According to the government, it will help the department during the transition phase. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Explained: US Supreme Court upholds Trump-era border policy 'Title 42'. What does it mean?

According to a report by the New York Times, a former evangelical activist in a letter claimed that he knew the outcome of the 2014 Supreme Court decision involving contraception and the Affordable Care Act prior to the formal ruling. The information was supposedly given to him by a wealthy political donor who was allegedly told about the ruling by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during a dinner at his residence.&nbsp;

The letter in question was sent by Rev. Rob Schenck earlier this year to Chief Justice John Roberts and was later procured by the Times, said that he was told about the upcoming ruling by Gayle Wright weeks before the public announcement after the two had dinner at Justice Alito’s home with his wife Martha-Ann Alito.&nbsp;

Notably, Alito wrote the majority opinion in 2014 for the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby which ruled in the favour of family-owned corporations like Hobby Lobby which had objected to a provision of the Affordable Care Act mandating employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception coverage.

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/leaked-draft-shows-us-court-set-to-strike-down-abortion-rights-politico-475914">Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico</a>&nbsp;

This comes months after the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to abortion, was leaked and reported first by Politico in May, also written by Justice Alito. However, since the New York Times report emerged, the supreme court justice in a statement to the media has vehemently denied these allegations and called them “completely false”.&nbsp;

“The allegation that the Wrights were told the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or the authorship of the opinion of the Court, by me or my wife is completely false,” said Justice Alito in a statement. He added, “My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship”. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Wrights also never made any effort to obtain “confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity”, said Alito and would be “shocked and offended if those allegations are true,” to ABC news. Meanwhile, Gayle Wright, in a telephonic interview with the Times also denied obtaining or passing along any such information.&nbsp;

ALSO WATCH:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/roe-v-wade-pro-anti-abortion-activists-come-face-to-face-in-us-476934">Roe v Wade: Pro &amp; anti-abortion activists come face-to-face in US</a>

Schenck said that he came forward with the letter now to help with the ongoing investigation into the leaked draft of the majority opinion to overturn Roe. However, his account of the leak “has gaps”, said the Times report, but a series of exchanged emails and conservations imply that he knew about the ruling beforehand.&nbsp; 
 
The former evangelical activist also wrote that since there may be a “severe penalty” levied on the person responsible for the initial leak or the recent draft opinion he thought that the 2014 incident might, “bear some consideration”.&nbsp;

This comes as the SCOTUS has been under scrutiny since May 2022 after the leak of the majority opinion to overturn Roe with many accusing&nbsp;the conservative majority of&nbsp;politicisation. Several recent polls have indicated that the supreme court's&nbsp;public approval has reached record lows. Earlier this year, Alito had called the draft opinion leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case a “grave betrayal”, the ruling for which was announced in June.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, several mostly Democrat lawmakers have called for an investigation including US Representative Mondaire Jones, a Democrat from New York, who took to Twitter and said, “Today’s well-sourced NY Times article strongly suggests Justice Alito leaked the 2014 opinion in Hobby Lobby, and describes a conspiracy by the far-right donor class to influence the Supreme Court Justices. The House Judiciary Committee must investigate this while we still can.”&nbsp;

ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-abortion-us-supreme-court-may-go-after-contraception-same-sex-marriage-say-experts-476339">After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts</a>

The executive director of the judicial group, Demand Justice, Brian Fallon, also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee “to investigate the apparent leak.” He added, “The whistleblower in this report…should be called to testify about both the leak and the yearslong lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices,” he said in a statement.&nbsp;

The Times report was the latest proof of “Republican justices on the Court are little more than politicians in robes,” said Fallon. Meanwhile, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a statement said the panel is reviewing these “serious allegations” and urged the passage of pending legislation in Congress which would create a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

“It is unacceptable that members of the highest court in the land are exempted from the judicial code of ethics when wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars in dark money to influence the Court’s decisions,” said Durbin in a written statement on Saturday.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

According to a report by the New York Times, a former evangelical activist in a letter claimed that he knew the outcome of the 2014 Supreme Court decision involving contraception and the Affordable Care Act prior to the formal ruling.

According to a report by the New York Times, a former evangelical activist in a letter claimed that he knew the outcome of the 2014 Supreme Court decision involving contraception and the Affordable Care Act prior to the formal ruling. The information was supposedly given to him by a wealthy political donor who was allegedly told about the ruling by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito during a dinner at his residence. The letter in question was sent by Rev. Rob Schenck earlier this year to Chief Justice John Roberts and was later procured by the Times, said that he was told about the upcoming ruling by Gayle Wright weeks before the public announcement after the two had dinner at Justice Alito’s home with his wife Martha-Ann Alito. Notably, Alito wrote the majority opinion in 2014 for the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby which ruled in the favour of family-owned corporations like Hobby Lobby which had objected to a provision of the Affordable Care Act mandating employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception coverage. ALSO READ: Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico This comes months after the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to abortion, was leaked and reported first by Politico in May, also written by Justice Alito. However, since the New York Times report emerged, the supreme court justice in a statement to the media has vehemently denied these allegations and called them “completely false”. “The allegation that the Wrights were told the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or the authorship of the opinion of the Court, by me or my wife is completely false,” said Justice Alito in a statement. He added, “My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship”. The Wrights also never made any effort to obtain “confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity”, said Alito and would be “shocked and offended if those allegations are true,” to ABC news. Meanwhile, Gayle Wright, in a telephonic interview with the Times also denied obtaining or passing along any such information. ALSO WATCH: Roe v Wade: Pro & anti-abortion activists come face-to-face in US Schenck said that he came forward with the letter now to help with the ongoing investigation into the leaked draft of the majority opinion to overturn Roe. However, his account of the leak “has gaps”, said the Times report, but a series of exchanged emails and conservations imply that he knew about the ruling beforehand. The former evangelical activist also wrote that since there may be a “severe penalty” levied on the person responsible for the initial leak or the recent draft opinion he thought that the 2014 incident might, “bear some consideration”. This comes as the SCOTUS has been under scrutiny since May 2022 after the leak of the majority opinion to overturn Roe with many accusing the conservative majority of politicisation. Several recent polls have indicated that the supreme court's public approval has reached record lows. Earlier this year, Alito had called the draft opinion leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case a “grave betrayal”, the ruling for which was announced in June. Meanwhile, several mostly Democrat lawmakers have called for an investigation including US Representative Mondaire Jones, a Democrat from New York, who took to Twitter and said, “Today’s well-sourced NY Times article strongly suggests Justice Alito leaked the 2014 opinion in Hobby Lobby, and describes a conspiracy by the far-right donor class to influence the Supreme Court Justices. The House Judiciary Committee must investigate this while we still can.” ALSO READ: After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts The executive director of the judicial group, Demand Justice, Brian Fallon, also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee “to investigate the apparent leak.” He added, “The whistleblower in this report…should be called to testify about both the leak and the yearslong lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices,” he said in a statement. The Times report was the latest proof of “Republican justices on the Court are little more than politicians in robes,” said Fallon. Meanwhile, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a statement said the panel is reviewing these “serious allegations” and urged the passage of pending legislation in Congress which would create a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. “It is unacceptable that members of the highest court in the land are exempted from the judicial code of ethics when wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars in dark money to influence the Court’s decisions,” said Durbin in a written statement on Saturday. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US: Justice Alito denies allegations of involvement in 2014 Supreme Court leak, amid calls for probe

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs.

NBC News reported that the prison staff kept trying to connect the two required intravenous lines connected to Kenneth Eugene Smith, but failed. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told they got one line established but were not able to get the second after trying several locations on Smith’s body. “We went to our protocol of a central line. We were not able to have time to complete that, so we called off the execution,” Hamm said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm comments on the case of Kenneth Smith, who was scheduled to be executed by the state this evening. <a href="https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO">https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO</a>
— Lee Hedgepeth (@lee_hedgepeth) <a href="https://twitter.com/lee_hedgepeth/status/1593481943726817280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Read More:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-journalist-stopped-from-attending-execution-because-her-skirt-was-too-short-502861">Alabama: Journalist stopped from attending execution because her skirt was ‘too short’</a>

Earlier, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a stay on Smith’s execution, after he filed an appeal before the court. However, the stay was later dismissed by the US Supreme Court at about 10:20 p.m. The state reached the conclusion an hour later that the lethal drug won’t be injected that evening, due to difficulties with establishing an IV.

Now, the state will have to seek a new execution date from the court as the death warrant has expired at Thursday midnight. &nbsp;Idaho Press reported that Smith was one of the two persons convicted of killing Elizabeth Sennett in return for a $1000 prize proffered to him by Elizabeth’s husband. Reportedly, Elizabeth’s spouse was buried in deep debt and wanted to bag the hefty insurance money.

Alabama governor Kay Ivey expressed his disappointment by suggesting that Smith’s last-minute appeals had helped him avert the execution process.

In September too, the state had to call off the execution of Alan Miller because of the same issue. Earlier, the execution of Joe Nathan James had taken several hours to get completed because of problems faced while establishing an IV line.

(With inputs from agencies)

<o:p></o:p>

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs.

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs. NBC News reported that the prison staff kept trying to connect the two required intravenous lines connected to Kenneth Eugene Smith, but failed. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told they got one line established but were not able to get the second after trying several locations on Smith’s body. “We went to our protocol of a central line. We were not able to have time to complete that, so we called off the execution,” Hamm said. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm comments on the case of Kenneth Smith, who was scheduled to be executed by the state this evening. https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO — Lee Hedgepeth (@lee_hedgepeth) November 18, 2022 × Read More: Alabama: Journalist stopped from attending execution because her skirt was ‘too short’ Earlier, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a stay on Smith’s execution, after he filed an appeal before the court. However, the stay was later dismissed by the US Supreme Court at about 10:20 p.m. The state reached the conclusion an hour later that the lethal drug won’t be injected that evening, due to difficulties with establishing an IV. Now, the state will have to seek a new execution date from the court as the death warrant has expired at Thursday midnight. Idaho Press reported that Smith was one of the two persons convicted of killing Elizabeth Sennett in return for a $1000 prize proffered to him by Elizabeth’s husband. Reportedly, Elizabeth’s spouse was buried in deep debt and wanted to bag the hefty insurance money. Alabama governor Kay Ivey expressed his disappointment by suggesting that Smith’s last-minute appeals had helped him avert the execution process. In September too, the state had to call off the execution of Alan Miller because of the same issue. Earlier, the execution of Joe Nathan James had taken several hours to get completed because of problems faced while establishing an IV line. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Alabama calls off murderer's execution after staff fails to find a suitable vein to inject lethal drugs

In what is being described as a judgement that has pushed America nearly 50 years back, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has overturned the landmark Roe vs Wade judgement of 1973 that made abortions for women a constitutional right in the US last month. This development has ramifications across all states in the US as it will not be possible for women to access abortion clinics legally after 15 weeks. More than half of the states are set to bring in laws that will ban abortion with immediate effect, with nine states having already worked them out.&nbsp;

Women in the US staged several protests everywhere, from Atlanta to New York. The ruling has made many women rethink their freedom and equality in society, as they reel under the pressure to safeguard their dignity and have autonomy in their decisions.&nbsp;

Women have been tied back for centuries by the shackles of patriarchy and misogyny. It’s interesting to note that the US boasts about development and considers itself the custodian of human rights. Still, the SCOTUS deems it fit to scrap a landmark judgment granting women autonomy over their bodies and lives.&nbsp;

US becomes an outlier

The scrapping of the judgement not only makes the US an outlier among developed nations but will also propel developing nations to use this ruling as a precedent to cage women where life is already difficult for them.

Several nations have condemned the move, with New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern terming the decision as a loss for women. The move has re-ignited several debates and discussions that question the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. Women in the US will now have to travel to states where abortion is still legal after the specified period. This will only bring more obstacles for women along with the limited time window for abortions.&nbsp;

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/roe-v-wade-overturned-heres-what-the-ruling-means-for-millions-of-american-women-491461#the-latest-judgement-491443">Roe v Wade overturned: Here's what the ruling means for millions of American women</a>

It had long been a priority for Christian conservatives and the Republicans to overturn the landmark verdict. US President Joe Biden expressed his sadness over the decision and said it was a sad day for the court, women and the country. It will be interesting to see if Biden can bring in a law in Congress that will restore women’s abortion rights, given the bipartisan nature of the House.

US needs to look inward

Even though developing countries such as India have progressive abortion laws, it is challenging for women to access safe abortions and health care, especially in rural India. The lack of awareness and education about the rules amongst women makes it a dicey situation for them.&nbsp;However, Indian laws guarantee abortion to women in case of threat to the woman’s life, risk of the fetus bearing abnormalities, or in case of rape.&nbsp;

The truth is that women have been let down everywhere in the world. Be it the freedom to choose their career path or their bodily autonomy. A country like the US should redefine and refine its boundaries on the issue, as it will give many in positions of power the right to snatch away women’s freedom and status as equal citizens worldwide.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

In what is being described as a judgement that has pushed America nearly 50 years back, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has overturned the landmark Roe vs Wade judgement of 1973 that made abortions for women a constitutional right in the US last month.

In what is being described as a judgement that has pushed America nearly 50 years back, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has overturned the landmark Roe vs Wade judgement of 1973 that made abortions for women a constitutional right in the US last month. This development has ramifications across all states in the US as it will not be possible for women to access abortion clinics legally after 15 weeks. More than half of the states are set to bring in laws that will ban abortion with immediate effect, with nine states having already worked them out. Women in the US staged several protests everywhere, from Atlanta to New York. The ruling has made many women rethink their freedom and equality in society, as they reel under the pressure to safeguard their dignity and have autonomy in their decisions. Women have been tied back for centuries by the shackles of patriarchy and misogyny. It’s interesting to note that the US boasts about development and considers itself the custodian of human rights. Still, the SCOTUS deems it fit to scrap a landmark judgment granting women autonomy over their bodies and lives. US becomes an outlier The scrapping of the judgement not only makes the US an outlier among developed nations but will also propel developing nations to use this ruling as a precedent to cage women where life is already difficult for them. Several nations have condemned the move, with New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern terming the decision as a loss for women. The move has re-ignited several debates and discussions that question the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. Women in the US will now have to travel to states where abortion is still legal after the specified period. This will only bring more obstacles for women along with the limited time window for abortions. Read more: Roe v Wade overturned: Here's what the ruling means for millions of American women It had long been a priority for Christian conservatives and the Republicans to overturn the landmark verdict. US President Joe Biden expressed his sadness over the decision and said it was a sad day for the court, women and the country. It will be interesting to see if Biden can bring in a law in Congress that will restore women’s abortion rights, given the bipartisan nature of the House. US needs to look inward Even though developing countries such as India have progressive abortion laws, it is challenging for women to access safe abortions and health care, especially in rural India. The lack of awareness and education about the rules amongst women makes it a dicey situation for them. However, Indian laws guarantee abortion to women in case of threat to the woman’s life, risk of the fetus bearing abnormalities, or in case of rape. The truth is that women have been let down everywhere in the world. Be it the freedom to choose their career path or their bodily autonomy. A country like the US should redefine and refine its boundaries on the issue, as it will give many in positions of power the right to snatch away women’s freedom and status as equal citizens worldwide. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Roe vs Wade: A judgement gone wrong?

Amid the ongoing abortion rights row, US President Joe Biden has signed an executive order to ease access to abortion medicines. Women rights activists welcomed the move.

US President Joe Biden calls SCOTUS 'out of control' as he signs an executive order

US President Joe Biden calls SCOTUS 'out of control'

Amid the ongoing abortion rights row in the US, President Joe Biden advocates for abortion rights. He also said that Republicans will try to ban abortions nationwide.

US abortion rights row: US President Joe Biden advocates abortion rights

In another major blow, sharply cutting down President Joe Biden's administration's power to combat climate change the US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot issue wide limitations on greenhouse gases. Derailing Biden's plans to use the EPA to reduce emissions in order to achieve global climate targets, the court determined that the government's primary environmental agency lacked the authority to impose substantial limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants. These plants produce close to 20 per cent of the electricity used in the US. The judge concluded that while EPA had the authority to regulate specific plants, Congress had not granted it the broad authority to impose restrictions on all electricity-generating facilities.

The coal mining and coal power industries, which had been targeted for strict constraints in 2015 by the administration of then-president Barack Obama in an effort to reduce carbon emissions, gained a huge victory with the 6-3 vote.

Watch |&nbsp;U.S. Capitol Riots Hearing: Shocking revelations on Trump emerge before Senate Committee

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-capitol-riots-hearing-shocking-revelations-on-trump-emerge-before-senate-committee-492850/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

It was also a triumph for conservatives who opposed government regulation of the economy.

The three-person liberal minority, however, criticised the majority for exercising authority that they claimed the EPA actually did have.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/they-are-willing-to-let-me-die-protests-rock-us-as-abortion-ban-takes-effect-in-trigger-law-states-492386">'They are willing to let me die': Protests rock US as abortion ban takes effect in 'trigger law' states</a>

"Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" they claimed.

A majority of the judges acknowledged that limiting carbon dioxide emissions in order to move away from the power produced by coal "may be a sensible solution" to global warming.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/ahead-of-un-ocean-conference-mermaids-call-for-ocean-protection-in-portugal-climate-protest-492230">Ahead of UN Ocean conference, mermaids call for ocean protection in Portugal climate protest</a>

However, they claimed that the case raised "major questions" about US law and government and that the EPA would need particular legislative authorization to exercise these powers.

"It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme," they said.

"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body," they added.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In another major blow, sharply cutting down President Joe Biden's administration's power to combat climate change the US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot issue wide limitations on greenhouse gases.

In another major blow, sharply cutting down President Joe Biden's administration's power to combat climate change the US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot issue wide limitations on greenhouse gases. Derailing Biden's plans to use the EPA to reduce emissions in order to achieve global climate targets, the court determined that the government's primary environmental agency lacked the authority to impose substantial limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants. These plants produce close to 20 per cent of the electricity used in the US. The judge concluded that while EPA had the authority to regulate specific plants, Congress had not granted it the broad authority to impose restrictions on all electricity-generating facilities. The coal mining and coal power industries, which had been targeted for strict constraints in 2015 by the administration of then-president Barack Obama in an effort to reduce carbon emissions, gained a huge victory with the 6-3 vote. Watch | U.S. Capitol Riots Hearing: Shocking revelations on Trump emerge before Senate Committee It was also a triumph for conservatives who opposed government regulation of the economy. The three-person liberal minority, however, criticised the majority for exercising authority that they claimed the EPA actually did have. Also read | 'They are willing to let me die': Protests rock US as abortion ban takes effect in 'trigger law' states "Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" they claimed. A majority of the judges acknowledged that limiting carbon dioxide emissions in order to move away from the power produced by coal "may be a sensible solution" to global warming. Also read | Ahead of UN Ocean conference, mermaids call for ocean protection in Portugal climate protest However, they claimed that the case raised "major questions" about US law and government and that the EPA would need particular legislative authorization to exercise these powers. "It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme," they said. "A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body," they added. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION LIVE HERE: You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

SCOTUS strikes again, limits US government powers to curb greenhouse emissions

With Roe Vs Wade overturned, US Democrats are taking the abortion battle to November midterms. They are warning of grim consequences for women, contraception and gay marriage if Republicans regain control of Congress. Molly Gambhir decodes whether this strategy will work for the Democrats.

WION Fineprint | US Democrats bet on Roe's ballot power

The US Supreme Court decision ending the right to abortion established by Roe Vs Wade in 1973 has put other hard-won rights at risk, including the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception. Could same-sex marriage go the way of abortion? Molly Gambhir tells you.

WION Fineprint | Could Same-Sex Marriage Go the Way of Abortion?

The United States is witnessing widespread protest against the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling. It was overturned after 50 years.

Protest in the US against abortion ruling by the Supreme Court

'They are willing to let me die': Protests rock US as abortion ban takes effect in 'trigger law' states

The US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. US President Joe Biden said that it is a sad day for the United States.

Historic abortion ruling overturned: US President Joe Biden says it is a sad day for the United States

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, making abortion illegal in most US states, people from across the world are criticising it. UN warns that women's health is at risk.

Global outrage over SCOTUS ruling on abortion rights: UN warns women's health at risk

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, making abortion illegal in most US states, people from across the world are criticising it. However, the Vatican praised the new abortion ruling.

Amid global outrage over SCOTUS ruling, Vatican praises new abortion ruling

The US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. Now, Trump says God made this decision.

US abortion law overturned after 50 years: Trump says God made this decision

scotus

Scotus, News on Scotus, stories on Scotus, articles on Scotus, Scotus stories at Wion, Scotus news, Scotus latest news