Opposition party holds protest in Pakistan National Assembly post adjournment, PML-N leader Ayaz Sadiq calls for Supreme Court intervention.

Opposition party leader Ayaz Sadiq calls for Supreme Court intervention

After the dramatic turn of events at Pakistan National Assembly, the combined opposition on Sunday chose its own speaker and held a parallel session as the no-trust vote against Prime Minister Imran Khan was dismissed earlier.

Ayaz Sadiq has taken the chair of speaker. This is an unprecedented situation in Pakistan. 
 
The opposition had earlier&nbsp;announced to challenge the ruling of the speaker in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;It was also&nbsp;looking to organise a sit-in protest inside the parliament premises until the issue is resolved.

This comes as the deputy speaker rejected a no-confidence motion against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, citing Article 5 of Constitution. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Shehbaz Sharif, Leader of the Opposition, parliament, said, "We are going to challenge the ruling by the deputy speaker and advice by the prime minister to dissolve parliament in the Supreme Court." &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/im-the-dim-how-pakistan-pm-imran-khan-turned-out-to-be-a-terrible-caricature-of-the-champion-cricketer-467848" hreflang="en">Im the dim: How Imran turned out to be terrible caricature of great cricketer</a>

On Sunday, Khan also said that he has advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve National Assembly and call for fresh elections. &nbsp;

"What Imran Khan has done is against the laws. We're approaching our layers. The speaker has also done undemocratic work. Imran Khan has exposed himself through this move. We will be present inside the National Assembly until this decision is reversed. He is fleeing against the no-trust motion seeing defeat," Pakistan People’s Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said. &nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Pakistan Political Crisis: Key Opposition meet ahead of no-trust vote

<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/pakistan-political-crisis-key-opposition-meet-ahead-of-no-trust-vote-467886/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Our lawyers are on their way to Supreme Court. We call on ALL institutions to protect, uphold, defend &amp; implement the constitution of Pakistan," Zardari later tweeted. &nbsp;

As per several leaders, the opposition was also looking to hold a sit-in protest inside the parliament. The leaders may not leave its premises, said Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a Pakistan People’s Party leader. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Marriyum Aurangzeb said, "Imran Khan is a traitor (gaddar). He has taken an unconstitutional step and we are now protesting in National Assembly and will not go anywhere until this decision is cancelled". &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

After the dramatic turn of events at Pakistan National Assembly, the combined opposition on Sunday chose its own speaker and held a parallel session as the no-trust vote against Prime Minister Imran Khan was dismissed earlier.

After the dramatic turn of events at Pakistan National Assembly, the combined opposition on Sunday chose its own speaker and held a parallel session as the no-trust vote against Prime Minister Imran Khan was dismissed earlier. Ayaz Sadiq has taken the chair of speaker. This is an unprecedented situation in Pakistan. The opposition had earlier announced to challenge the ruling of the speaker in the Supreme Court. It was also looking to organise a sit-in protest inside the parliament premises until the issue is resolved. This comes as the deputy speaker rejected a no-confidence motion against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, citing Article 5 of Constitution. Shehbaz Sharif, Leader of the Opposition, parliament, said, "We are going to challenge the ruling by the deputy speaker and advice by the prime minister to dissolve parliament in the Supreme Court." Also Read: Im the dim: How Imran turned out to be terrible caricature of great cricketer On Sunday, Khan also said that he has advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve National Assembly and call for fresh elections. "What Imran Khan has done is against the laws. We're approaching our layers. The speaker has also done undemocratic work. Imran Khan has exposed himself through this move. We will be present inside the National Assembly until this decision is reversed. He is fleeing against the no-trust motion seeing defeat," Pakistan People’s Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said. Watch: Pakistan Political Crisis: Key Opposition meet ahead of no-trust vote × "Our lawyers are on their way to Supreme Court. We call on ALL institutions to protect, uphold, defend & implement the constitution of Pakistan," Zardari later tweeted. As per several leaders, the opposition was also looking to hold a sit-in protest inside the parliament. The leaders may not leave its premises, said Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a Pakistan People’s Party leader. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Marriyum Aurangzeb said, "Imran Khan is a traitor (gaddar). He has taken an unconstitutional step and we are now protesting in National Assembly and will not go anywhere until this decision is cancelled". (With inputs from agencies)

Now, Pak's opposition chooses own speaker, holds parallel session in parliament

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine plans to vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, ensuring that President Joe Biden’s nominee and the first Black woman to be put forward for the post will receive at least one Republican backer.

But whether Collins’ support is singular or opens the door to Jackson attracting the votes of other Republicans remained to be seen. The universe of potential backers from across the aisle shrunk Wednesday with an announcement by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., that he would oppose the nominee. Tillis, a member of the Judiciary Committee, had once been seen as a potential vote for confirmation.

Even as he praised Jackson’s “knowledge, her composure and her character,” Tillis said he could not vote to put her on the court.

Collins made her decision to back the nomination after a second personal meeting with the judge Tuesday afternoon. Collins said Jackson had alleviated some concerns that surfaced after last week’s hearings.

The centrist senator, often a key vote on Supreme Court clashes, said that she had been reassured that Jackson would not be “bending the law to meet a personal preference” and that the nominee met her personal standard for serving on the court.

If Democrats stay united, Collins' vote would avoid the spectacle of Vice President Kamala Harris having to break a tie to seat a nominee on the Supreme Court, an unprecedented outcome that some saw as potentially damaging to the court’s standing.

Among other Republicans on the White House wish list are two retiring senators, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Roy Blunt of Missouri, but it appeared unlikely that either of them would back her.

That leaves two other Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, as the most promising prospects for crossover support of Jackson. Romney met with the judge Tuesday but said he had not made up his mind and probably would not reveal his decision until the vote, now expected next week.

Murkowski, who is running for reelection this year in a contest projected to be the most expensive and challenging of her career, also may not make her decision known until next week.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine plans to vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, ensuring that President Joe Biden’s nominee and the first Black woman to be put forward for the post will receive at least one Republican backer.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine plans to vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, ensuring that President Joe Biden’s nominee and the first Black woman to be put forward for the post will receive at least one Republican backer. But whether Collins’ support is singular or opens the door to Jackson attracting the votes of other Republicans remained to be seen. The universe of potential backers from across the aisle shrunk Wednesday with an announcement by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., that he would oppose the nominee. Tillis, a member of the Judiciary Committee, had once been seen as a potential vote for confirmation. Even as he praised Jackson’s “knowledge, her composure and her character,” Tillis said he could not vote to put her on the court. Collins made her decision to back the nomination after a second personal meeting with the judge Tuesday afternoon. Collins said Jackson had alleviated some concerns that surfaced after last week’s hearings. The centrist senator, often a key vote on Supreme Court clashes, said that she had been reassured that Jackson would not be “bending the law to meet a personal preference” and that the nominee met her personal standard for serving on the court. If Democrats stay united, Collins' vote would avoid the spectacle of Vice President Kamala Harris having to break a tie to seat a nominee on the Supreme Court, an unprecedented outcome that some saw as potentially damaging to the court’s standing. Among other Republicans on the White House wish list are two retiring senators, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Roy Blunt of Missouri, but it appeared unlikely that either of them would back her. That leaves two other Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, as the most promising prospects for crossover support of Jackson. Romney met with the judge Tuesday but said he had not made up his mind and probably would not reveal his decision until the vote, now expected next week. Murkowski, who is running for reelection this year in a contest projected to be the most expensive and challenging of her career, also may not make her decision known until next week.

Collins to back Jackson for Supreme Court, giving her a GOP vote

Pakistan PM Imran Khan is facing revolt from his own party members. In a recent update on Pakistan political crisis, Supreme Court's senior Judge Justice Isa has raised questions over composition of SC larger bench. He pointed out that no senior judge was consulted while constituting this bench.

Pakistan political crisis: Justice Isa questions composition of SC bench

In a passionate speech,&nbsp;Senator Cory&nbsp;Booker&nbsp;- the only African-American&nbsp;senator on the&nbsp;Senate Judiciary Committee, praised&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;nominee&nbsp;Ketanji Brown&nbsp;Jackson, recalling the historical significance of&nbsp;her&nbsp;nomination and enthusiastically endorsing&nbsp;her&nbsp;candidacy.

As he spoke about&nbsp;her&nbsp;family and listed&nbsp;her&nbsp;career highlights, from Harvard Law School, to editor of the law review, to&nbsp;her&nbsp;legal internships, years as a public proseuctor, federal district judge and federal appellate judge,&nbsp;Booker&nbsp;beamed, saying he was embarrassed by the intense questioning by Republican&nbsp;senators and said he felt intense joy as he thought about&nbsp;her&nbsp;nomination.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-faith-are-you-asks-republican-graham-to-ketanji-brown-jackson-in-senate-hearing-464910">Republican Lindsey Graham draws flak after asking Ketanji Brown Jackson's religion during Senate hearing</a>

"I look at you, this is why I get emotional. I'm sorry. You're a person who is so much more than your race and gender," he said, as&nbsp;Jackson&nbsp;wiped away&nbsp;tears. "I see my ancestors and yours. Nobody is going to steal the joy of that woman in the street, or the calls that I'm getting or the texts. Nobody is going to steal that joy. You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American."

"It's not going to stop. They're going to accuse you of this and that. Heck, in honor of your person who shares your birthday (referring to former New York state&nbsp;senator Constance Baker Motley), you might be called a communist. But don't worry my sister. Don't worry. God has got you. And how do I know that?&nbsp;Because you're&nbsp;here and I know what it's taken for you to sit in that seat," he said.

Booker&nbsp;then compared&nbsp;Jackson&nbsp;to Harriet Tubman, a 19th-century escaped slave who risked&nbsp;her&nbsp;life to lead other&nbsp;slaves to freedom, saying&nbsp;Jackson&nbsp;was his "harbinger of hope."

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-black-woman-eyed-for-us-supreme-court-vows-to-uphold-democracy-be-independent-if-confirmed-464539">&nbsp;First black woman eyed for US supreme court vows to uphold democracy, be independent, if confirmed</a>

"I thought about&nbsp;her&nbsp;and how she looked up, she kept looking up. No matter what they did to&nbsp;her, she never stopped looking up. And that star, it was a harbinger of hope. Today, you are my star.&nbsp;You are my harbinger of hope&nbsp;This country is getting better and better and better. And when that final vote happens and you ascend onto the highest&nbsp;court&nbsp;of the land, I'm going to rejoice. And I'm going to tell you right now: the greatest country in the world, the United States of America will be better because of you. Thank you."

Jackson&nbsp;quietly responded, "Thank you," before the hearing took a short recess, before wrapping up&nbsp;her&nbsp;hearing Wednesday (March 23) night.

Outside experts scheduled for Thursday's final day of the hearing.

If confirmed,&nbsp;Jackson&nbsp;would be the 116th justice to serve on the high&nbsp;court, the sixth woman and the third Black person. With&nbsp;Jackson&nbsp;on the bench, the&nbsp;court&nbsp;for the first time would have four women and two Black justices.

Watch |&nbsp;US President Joe Biden arrives in Brussels, tighter sanctions against Russia likely

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-president-joe-biden-arrives-in-brussels-tighter-sanctions-against-russia-likely-465017/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In a passionate speech, Senator Cory Booker - the only African-American senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, recalling the historical significance of her nomination and enthusiastically endorsing her candidacy.

In a passionate speech, Senator Cory Booker - the only African-American senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, recalling the historical significance of her nomination and enthusiastically endorsing her candidacy. As he spoke about her family and listed her career highlights, from Harvard Law School, to editor of the law review, to her legal internships, years as a public proseuctor, federal district judge and federal appellate judge, Booker beamed, saying he was embarrassed by the intense questioning by Republican senators and said he felt intense joy as he thought about her nomination. Also read | Republican Lindsey Graham draws flak after asking Ketanji Brown Jackson's religion during Senate hearing "I look at you, this is why I get emotional. I'm sorry. You're a person who is so much more than your race and gender," he said, as Jackson wiped away tears. "I see my ancestors and yours. Nobody is going to steal the joy of that woman in the street, or the calls that I'm getting or the texts. Nobody is going to steal that joy. You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American." "It's not going to stop. They're going to accuse you of this and that. Heck, in honor of your person who shares your birthday (referring to former New York state senator Constance Baker Motley), you might be called a communist. But don't worry my sister. Don't worry. God has got you. And how do I know that? Because you're here and I know what it's taken for you to sit in that seat," he said. Booker then compared Jackson to Harriet Tubman, a 19th-century escaped slave who risked her life to lead other slaves to freedom, saying Jackson was his "harbinger of hope." Also read | First black woman eyed for US supreme court vows to uphold democracy, be independent, if confirmed "I thought about her and how she looked up, she kept looking up. No matter what they did to her, she never stopped looking up. And that star, it was a harbinger of hope. Today, you are my star. You are my harbinger of hope This country is getting better and better and better. And when that final vote happens and you ascend onto the highest court of the land, I'm going to rejoice. And I'm going to tell you right now: the greatest country in the world, the United States of America will be better because of you. Thank you." Jackson quietly responded, "Thank you," before the hearing took a short recess, before wrapping up her hearing Wednesday (March 23) night. Outside experts scheduled for Thursday's final day of the hearing. If confirmed, Jackson would be the 116th justice to serve on the high court, the sixth woman and the third Black person. With Jackson on the bench, the court for the first time would have four women and two Black justices. Watch | US President Joe Biden arrives in Brussels, tighter sanctions against Russia likely

Supreme Court nominee Jackson moved to tears as Sen. Booker tells her 'You are my harbinger of hope'

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Friday ordered the suspension of messaging app Telegram over its hosting of misinformation and fabricated news content. <o:p></o:p>

The country’s internet regulators were instructed to block the use of Telegram with immediate effect after the Dubai-based company failed to remove profiles linked to one of the most prominent supporters of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and ignored multiple court ordered inquiries. <o:p></o:p>

“Telegram’s disrespect for Brazilian law and repeated failure to comply with countless court decisions … is completely incompatible with the rule of law,” Moraes wrote in his decision.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;</o:p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-russia-conflict-time-for-meaningful-talks-says-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-463642">Time for meaningful talks, says President Zelensky</a>

Telegram is widely regarded as the social media of choice for Bolsonaro and his campaign has used the platform in the past for rallying his base and for addressing the criticism over the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The president, who has over a million followers on Telegram, will be looking to seek re-election when the country goes to the polls in October later this year.<o:p></o:p>

According to Reuters, the judge said that Telegram also refused to comply with the rulings of the Superior Electoral Tribunal and the police along with the Supreme Court. &nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-have-not-had-unity-like-this-for-a-long-time-says-putin-at-a-concert-amid-ukraine-war-463574">We have not had unity like this for a long time, says Putin at a concert</a><o:p></o:p>

Bolsonaro took to Twitter on Friday to post a link for his Telegram account and asked his supporters to subscribe to his account before it was banned.

“Our Telegram informs people every day of many important actions of national interest, which many regrettably omit. Welcome, and share the truth.”<o:p></o:p>

The court decision was welcomed by Bolsonaro’s political opponents and political analyst and digital communications specialist Pablo Ortellado tweeted - The decision “will have big political and electoral repercussions. This could move one of the main game pieces of the campaign.”

(With inputs from agencies)

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Friday ordered the suspension of messaging app Telegram over its hosting of misinformation and fabricated news content.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Friday ordered the suspension of messaging app Telegram over its hosting of misinformation and fabricated news content. The country’s internet regulators were instructed to block the use of Telegram with immediate effect after the Dubai-based company failed to remove profiles linked to one of the most prominent supporters of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and ignored multiple court ordered inquiries. “Telegram’s disrespect for Brazilian law and repeated failure to comply with countless court decisions … is completely incompatible with the rule of law,” Moraes wrote in his decision. Also read | Time for meaningful talks, says President Zelensky Telegram is widely regarded as the social media of choice for Bolsonaro and his campaign has used the platform in the past for rallying his base and for addressing the criticism over the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The president, who has over a million followers on Telegram, will be looking to seek re-election when the country goes to the polls in October later this year. According to Reuters, the judge said that Telegram also refused to comply with the rulings of the Superior Electoral Tribunal and the police along with the Supreme Court. Also read | We have not had unity like this for a long time, says Putin at a concert Bolsonaro took to Twitter on Friday to post a link for his Telegram account and asked his supporters to subscribe to his account before it was banned. “Our Telegram informs people every day of many important actions of national interest, which many regrettably omit. Welcome, and share the truth.” The court decision was welcomed by Bolsonaro’s political opponents and political analyst and digital communications specialist Pablo Ortellado tweeted - The decision “will have big political and electoral repercussions. This could move one of the main game pieces of the campaign.” (With inputs from agencies)

Brazilian supreme court bans messaging app Telegram ahead of presidential elections

As President Joe Biden prepares to nominate the first Black woman to the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court, several leading candidates for the coveted seat on the nation's highest&nbsp;court&nbsp;have emerged.

The Democratic president has said he will reveal his choice by the end of February, and has interviewed three potential nominees so far according to US media.

The White House has been tight-lipped about the search for a justice to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, a liberal stalwart who plans to retire in June at the end of the&nbsp;court's current term.

"The president has not made a decision about who he is going to nominate," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday.

"I'm not -- still not -- going to get into details about the internal process," Psaki said.

The selection of a&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;justice involves extensive background checks to prevent unwelcome surprises during Senate nomination hearings.

There have been two African-American&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;justices: Thurgood Marshall, who served from 1967 to 1991, and Clarence Thomas, a conservative who succeeded Marshall and remains on the bench.

The following are reported to be at the top of the list for the seat on the nation's highest&nbsp;court:

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, a judge on the US Circuit&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals, does not have a background typical of other nominees.

While many judges have made their mark as prosecutors, Jackson spent two years as a federal public defender representing indigent defendants.

She has also served on the US Sentencing Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to address sentencing disparities.

And Jackson has personal experience with the harsh sentences meted out for drug crimes in the United States -- an uncle was sentenced to life in prison in 1989 for cocaine possession.

After graduation, she worked for a series of elite law firms in Boston and Washington, and as a law clerk for Breyer.

Jackson was nominated to be a US District&nbsp;Court&nbsp;judge by former president Barack Obama in 2013 and to the US&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals for the DC Circuit by Biden in March 2021.

Her most notable ruling came in 2019 when she said a former White House counsel to president Donald Trump had to obey a congressional subpoena.

"Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote.

Jackson is married to a surgeon. They have two daughters.

Michelle Childs

Michelle Childs, 55, an expert in labor law, is the first Black woman to become a partner in a major law firm in her home state of South Carolina.

Most&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;justices are products of Ivy League schools such as Harvard or Yale but Childs earned her law degree from the University of South Carolina.

Her South Carolina ties could prove decisive in securing her a place on the nine-member&nbsp;court.

Childs enjoys the backing of Jim Clyburn, a powerful Black congressman from South Carolina whose support helped Biden win the state's Democratic presidential primary and propel him to the White House.

Childs also has the vocal support of an influential Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Born in Detroit, Childs moved to South Carolina with her mother when she was 14 after her parents divorced.

Her father, a police officer, stayed in Detroit and died shortly afterwards of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Childs earned a full scholarship to the University of South Florida and won the Miss Black Florida beauty pageant in 1986.

She became a US District Judge in 2009 and was nominated to the US&nbsp;Court&nbsp;of Appeals for the DC Circuit by Biden in December.

Childs' candidacy has come under fire from some on the left because of her past representation of management against employees.

Childs is married to a gastroenterologist. They have a daughter.

Leondra Kruger&nbsp;

Leondra Kruger, 45, has had a meteoric rise through the judicial ranks and, if named to the&nbsp;court, would be the youngest of the justices on the bench.

Kruger graduated with honors from Harvard and earned her law degree at Yale, where she was the first Black editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal.

At the age of 31, Kruger went to work for the US Solicitor General's office in the Obama administration, representing the federal government in 12 cases before the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court.

When she was just 38, Kruger was nominated to the California&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;although she had no experience as a judge.

Kruger has forged a reputation as a moderate progressive and pragmatic justice.

Kruger grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles, the daughter of two doctors. Her mother is of Jamaican origin and her father, who died in 2005, was from a family of European Jewish immigrants.

She&nbsp;worked for a private law firm in Washington and then as a law clerk, notably to&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;Justice John Paul Stevens.

After Biden entered the White House, he reportedly asked Kruger on two occasions to return to Washington to become the solicitor general but she declined.

Kruger is married to a fellow lawyer. They have two children.

As President Joe Biden prepares to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, several leading candidates for the coveted seat on the nation's highest court have emerged.

As President Joe Biden prepares to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, several leading candidates for the coveted seat on the nation's highest court have emerged. The Democratic president has said he will reveal his choice by the end of February, and has interviewed three potential nominees so far according to US media. The White House has been tight-lipped about the search for a justice to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, a liberal stalwart who plans to retire in June at the end of the court's current term. "The president has not made a decision about who he is going to nominate," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday. "I'm not -- still not -- going to get into details about the internal process," Psaki said. The selection of a Supreme Court justice involves extensive background checks to prevent unwelcome surprises during Senate nomination hearings. There have been two African-American Supreme Court justices: Thurgood Marshall, who served from 1967 to 1991, and Clarence Thomas, a conservative who succeeded Marshall and remains on the bench. The following are reported to be at the top of the list for the seat on the nation's highest court: Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, a judge on the US Circuit Court of Appeals, does not have a background typical of other nominees. While many judges have made their mark as prosecutors, Jackson spent two years as a federal public defender representing indigent defendants. She has also served on the US Sentencing Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to address sentencing disparities. And Jackson has personal experience with the harsh sentences meted out for drug crimes in the United States -- an uncle was sentenced to life in prison in 1989 for cocaine possession. After graduation, she worked for a series of elite law firms in Boston and Washington, and as a law clerk for Breyer. Jackson was nominated to be a US District Court judge by former president Barack Obama in 2013 and to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by Biden in March 2021. Her most notable ruling came in 2019 when she said a former White House counsel to president Donald Trump had to obey a congressional subpoena. "Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. Jackson is married to a surgeon. They have two daughters. Michelle Childs Michelle Childs, 55, an expert in labor law, is the first Black woman to become a partner in a major law firm in her home state of South Carolina. Most Supreme Court justices are products of Ivy League schools such as Harvard or Yale but Childs earned her law degree from the University of South Carolina. Her South Carolina ties could prove decisive in securing her a place on the nine-member court. Childs enjoys the backing of Jim Clyburn, a powerful Black congressman from South Carolina whose support helped Biden win the state's Democratic presidential primary and propel him to the White House. Childs also has the vocal support of an influential Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Born in Detroit, Childs moved to South Carolina with her mother when she was 14 after her parents divorced. Her father, a police officer, stayed in Detroit and died shortly afterwards of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Childs earned a full scholarship to the University of South Florida and won the Miss Black Florida beauty pageant in 1986. She became a US District Judge in 2009 and was nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by Biden in December. Childs' candidacy has come under fire from some on the left because of her past representation of management against employees. Childs is married to a gastroenterologist. They have a daughter. Leondra Kruger Leondra Kruger, 45, has had a meteoric rise through the judicial ranks and, if named to the court, would be the youngest of the justices on the bench. Kruger graduated with honors from Harvard and earned her law degree at Yale, where she was the first Black editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. At the age of 31, Kruger went to work for the US Solicitor General's office in the Obama administration, representing the federal government in 12 cases before the Supreme Court. When she was just 38, Kruger was nominated to the California Supreme Court although she had no experience as a judge. Kruger has forged a reputation as a moderate progressive and pragmatic justice. Kruger grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles, the daughter of two doctors. Her mother is of Jamaican origin and her father, who died in 2005, was from a family of European Jewish immigrants. She worked for a private law firm in Washington and then as a law clerk, notably to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. After Biden entered the White House, he reportedly asked Kruger on two occasions to return to Washington to become the solicitor general but she declined. Kruger is married to a fellow lawyer. They have two children.

Biden poised to nominate first Black woman on Supreme Court

The United States' Supreme Court has formally rejected former US President Donald Trump's request to block the release of White House records this was asked by the committee investigating last year's attack on US capitol.

US supreme court rejects Trump's legal bid to shield Capitol attack records

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of term-2 exams for classes 10 and 12 in the offline mode in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar and comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar dismissed the appeal, saying that such a petition creates "false hope" and "confusion" for all students.

"Let the students do their job and let the authorities do their jobs," the bench observed.

Authorities are already working on finalising dates and other arrangements. If there is any problem once those are finalised, then the aggrieved parties can approach the authorities, "the bench further observed, while junking the plea.

The plea sought the cancellation of class 10 and 12 board exams conducted by all state education boards and central boards such as the Central Board of Secondary Education, Indian Certificate of Secondary Education, and the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS).

The plea sought an alternative evaluation method by the educational boards or the conduction of exams online.

Last year, almost all state and central education boards had to cancel class 10 and class 12 final exams due to the second wave of COVID-19 and follow alternative methods of evaluation.

However, CBSE, CISCE, and some other state boards have decided to go with a two-term board exam system for 2021-22.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has announced the dates for class 10 and 12 term 2 exams. The term 2 exams will be held on April 26.

Meanwhile, the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) is likely to conduct the ICSE Class 10 and ISC Class 12 exams in the last week of April.

CISCE said in a statement that the detailed time table will be released shortly.

(With contributions from agencies)

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of term-2 exams for classes 10 and 12 in the offline mode in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of term-2 exams for classes 10 and 12 in the offline mode in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar and comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar dismissed the appeal, saying that such a petition creates "false hope" and "confusion" for all students. "Let the students do their job and let the authorities do their jobs," the bench observed. Authorities are already working on finalising dates and other arrangements. If there is any problem once those are finalised, then the aggrieved parties can approach the authorities, "the bench further observed, while junking the plea. The plea sought the cancellation of class 10 and 12 board exams conducted by all state education boards and central boards such as the Central Board of Secondary Education, Indian Certificate of Secondary Education, and the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). The plea sought an alternative evaluation method by the educational boards or the conduction of exams online. Last year, almost all state and central education boards had to cancel class 10 and class 12 final exams due to the second wave of COVID-19 and follow alternative methods of evaluation. However, CBSE, CISCE, and some other state boards have decided to go with a two-term board exam system for 2021-22. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has announced the dates for class 10 and 12 term 2 exams. The term 2 exams will be held on April 26. Meanwhile, the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) is likely to conduct the ICSE Class 10 and ISC Class 12 exams in the last week of April. CISCE said in a statement that the detailed time table will be released shortly. (With contributions from agencies)

India’s Supreme Court junks plea seeking cancellation of class 10 & 12 exams

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved.

The plea filed by a student has sought a stay on the direction of the high court, which is hearing the hijab issue, as well as the proceedings going on before the three-judge bench.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-remember-burkini-the-other-controversial-outfit-before-hijab-row-452193">Remember Burkini? The other controversial outfit before Hijab row</a>

The appeal contended that the high court has sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student women by not allowing them to wear the hijab.

The high court has posted the matter for Monday and also said educational institutions can resume classes for students.

The three-judge full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna S Dixit, which was formed on Wednesday, also said it wants the matter to be resolved at the earliest but till that time peace and tranquillity is to be maintained.

"Till the disposal of the matter, you people should not insist on wearing all these religious things," Awasthi had said.

"We will pass an order. Let the schools-colleges start. But till the matter is resolved, no student should insist on wearing religious dress", he had said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/hijab-row-indian-court-asks-students-not-to-wear-religious-things-till-disposal-of-the-matter-452163">Hijab row: Indian court asks students not to wear 'religious things' till disposal of the matter</a>

On Wednesday, Justice Dixit, who was hearing the case, referred the case to Justice Awasthi's consideration with a view that a larger bench may look into the case.

The Hijab row started in December end when a few students started coming to a government pre-university college in Udupi wearing Hijab. To protest against it, some Hindu students turned up wearing saffron scarves.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas Plus: Women, Hijab &amp; Choice

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-women-hijab-choice-370243/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The row spread to other educational institutions in different parts of the State, and the protests took a violent turn at some places earlier this week, prompting the government on Tuesday to declare three days holiday for the institutions.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved.

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the direction of the Karnataka High Court that has asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved. The plea filed by a student has sought a stay on the direction of the high court, which is hearing the hijab issue, as well as the proceedings going on before the three-judge bench. Also read | Remember Burkini? The other controversial outfit before Hijab row The appeal contended that the high court has sought to curtail the fundamental right of Muslim student women by not allowing them to wear the hijab. The high court has posted the matter for Monday and also said educational institutions can resume classes for students. The three-judge full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna S Dixit, which was formed on Wednesday, also said it wants the matter to be resolved at the earliest but till that time peace and tranquillity is to be maintained. "Till the disposal of the matter, you people should not insist on wearing all these religious things," Awasthi had said. "We will pass an order. Let the schools-colleges start. But till the matter is resolved, no student should insist on wearing religious dress", he had said. Also read | Hijab row: Indian court asks students not to wear 'religious things' till disposal of the matter On Wednesday, Justice Dixit, who was hearing the case, referred the case to Justice Awasthi's consideration with a view that a larger bench may look into the case. The Hijab row started in December end when a few students started coming to a government pre-university college in Udupi wearing Hijab. To protest against it, some Hindu students turned up wearing saffron scarves. Watch | Gravitas Plus: Women, Hijab & Choice The row spread to other educational institutions in different parts of the State, and the protests took a violent turn at some places earlier this week, prompting the government on Tuesday to declare three days holiday for the institutions.

Hijab row: Plea filed in SC challenging Karnataka HC order

Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men.

When it comes to power, white and male are silent, like the “u” in disguise. In this country, white men are the presumptive base of power from which everyone else is a deviation. They are the norm against which all others are judged to be anomalous.

When white men were the only people being considered for seats on the Supreme Court, qualifications didn’t always matter. James Francis Byrnes dropped out of school at the age of 14 and never went to college or law school. What he knew of the law he learned from working at law firms before he was admitted to the South Carolina bar and started his own practice.

His lack of any formal higher education didn’t prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from appointing him to the Supreme Court. He served for a little over a year before he quit. (He later became secretary of state under Harry Truman.)

Some justices, like John Archibald Campbell, enslaved Africans. Campbell would side with the majority in the horrendous Dred Scott case. In 1861, he resigned from the court, and the following year, he joined the Confederate government as its assistant secretary of war.

Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone.

So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women.

It is identity politics and affirmative action, they scream.

Ben Carson said on “The Vince Coglianese Show” that Biden’s pledge to choose a Black woman was a sign that “we’re reverting back to identity politics” and that it would “bring more division into our country.”

Carson hoped, he said, that people would “be incensed about it.” In the end, he called it “abominable.”

As Carson explained it, “We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates.”

This from one of the most unqualified secretaries of housing and urban development the country has ever had, a man who didn’t even know the basics of his job. When Rep. Katie Porter asked him at a congressional hearing if he knew what an REO was (the initials stand for “real estate owned,” a term used to describe property that has failed to sell at a foreclosure auction), Carson seemed to think she was referring to an Oreo cookie. Even after Porter clarified the three letters, Carson was still left guessing what the O stood for, at one point suggesting: “Real Estate e-organization.”

This from a man whom Donald Trump may have nominated to the post only because of Trump’s own constant, problematic conflation of “Black” with “urban,” even though most Black people in this country live in the suburbs.

The irony here is that Ronald Reagan, the Republicans’ patron saint before the rise of Trump, made a similar promise in 1980 when he was in trouble with women for not supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. He promised to nominate a woman — again the word “white” was silent — and that’s how we got Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Carson wasn’t the only conservative making a fuss about Biden and identity politics. Tucker Carlson also railed against the impending pick, saying, “Biden claims that his race counting is essential so that the court and the rest of his administration, quote, ‘looks like America.’ ” He continued, “Of all the lies that Joe Biden tells, this could be the easiest to check. We have the latest census numbers, and we can promise you with dead certainty that Joe Biden’s nominees look nothing like America, not even close.” Instead, Carlson said, a Black woman nominee will “represent about 7% of the population.”

I say, look at it another way.

Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94% — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women.

Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do.

There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion.

Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.

Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men.

Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men. When it comes to power, white and male are silent, like the “u” in disguise. In this country, white men are the presumptive base of power from which everyone else is a deviation. They are the norm against which all others are judged to be anomalous. When white men were the only people being considered for seats on the Supreme Court, qualifications didn’t always matter. James Francis Byrnes dropped out of school at the age of 14 and never went to college or law school. What he knew of the law he learned from working at law firms before he was admitted to the South Carolina bar and started his own practice. His lack of any formal higher education didn’t prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from appointing him to the Supreme Court. He served for a little over a year before he quit. (He later became secretary of state under Harry Truman.) Some justices, like John Archibald Campbell, enslaved Africans. Campbell would side with the majority in the horrendous Dred Scott case. In 1861, he resigned from the court, and the following year, he joined the Confederate government as its assistant secretary of war. Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone. So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women. It is identity politics and affirmative action, they scream. Ben Carson said on “The Vince Coglianese Show” that Biden’s pledge to choose a Black woman was a sign that “we’re reverting back to identity politics” and that it would “bring more division into our country.” Carson hoped, he said, that people would “be incensed about it.” In the end, he called it “abominable.” As Carson explained it, “We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates.” This from one of the most unqualified secretaries of housing and urban development the country has ever had, a man who didn’t even know the basics of his job. When Rep. Katie Porter asked him at a congressional hearing if he knew what an REO was (the initials stand for “real estate owned,” a term used to describe property that has failed to sell at a foreclosure auction), Carson seemed to think she was referring to an Oreo cookie. Even after Porter clarified the three letters, Carson was still left guessing what the O stood for, at one point suggesting: “Real Estate e-organization.” This from a man whom Donald Trump may have nominated to the post only because of Trump’s own constant, problematic conflation of “Black” with “urban,” even though most Black people in this country live in the suburbs. The irony here is that Ronald Reagan, the Republicans’ patron saint before the rise of Trump, made a similar promise in 1980 when he was in trouble with women for not supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. He promised to nominate a woman — again the word “white” was silent — and that’s how we got Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Carson wasn’t the only conservative making a fuss about Biden and identity politics. Tucker Carlson also railed against the impending pick, saying, “Biden claims that his race counting is essential so that the court and the rest of his administration, quote, ‘looks like America.’ ” He continued, “Of all the lies that Joe Biden tells, this could be the easiest to check. We have the latest census numbers, and we can promise you with dead certainty that Joe Biden’s nominees look nothing like America, not even close.” Instead, Carlson said, a Black woman nominee will “represent about 7% of the population.” I say, look at it another way. Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94% — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women. Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do. There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion. Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.

Opinion: When all-white was all right

One of the liberal Justices on the US Supreme Court is retiring paving the way for President Joe Biden to name his pick.

Joe Biden to name his pick for Supreme Court vacancy as liberal Justice Breyer is retiring

For the first time, a female judge has been appointed in Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan. Justice Ayesha Malik made history by taking the oath for the coveted post on Monday. &nbsp;&nbsp;

On Thursday, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the nomination of Malik for her appointment as an SC judge with a vote of five to four in her favour. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-supporting-chinese-repression-of-uyghurs-report-446768" hreflang="en">Pakistan supporting Chinese repression of Uyghurs: Report</a>

Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed administered the oath to Justice Malik at the SC building. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The elevation of Justice Ayesha as an SC judge was not a cakewalk as lawyers from across the country had opposed her promotion, making seniority a basis, as she is ranked fourth in the Lahore High Court in terms of seniority. &nbsp;

The Pakistan Bar Council had also declared a strike against the appointment of Malik. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-using-80-of-covid-19-testing-kits-of-substandard-quality-report-446769" hreflang="en">Pakistan using 80% of COVID-19 testing kits of substandard quality: Report</a>

Out of the posts for 17 judges in the SC, Justice Ayesha Malik was nominated for the seat, which became vacant after the retirement of Justice Mushir Alam on August 17. &nbsp;

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who has been nominated as the next top judge of Pakistan, and other SC judges, also attended the ceremony. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

For the first time, a female judge has been appointed in Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan. Justice Ayesha Malik made history by taking the oath for the coveted post on Monday.

For the first time, a female judge has been appointed in Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan. Justice Ayesha Malik made history by taking the oath for the coveted post on Monday. On Thursday, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the nomination of Malik for her appointment as an SC judge with a vote of five to four in her favour. Also Read | Pakistan supporting Chinese repression of Uyghurs: Report Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed administered the oath to Justice Malik at the SC building. The elevation of Justice Ayesha as an SC judge was not a cakewalk as lawyers from across the country had opposed her promotion, making seniority a basis, as she is ranked fourth in the Lahore High Court in terms of seniority. The Pakistan Bar Council had also declared a strike against the appointment of Malik. Also Read | Pakistan using 80% of COVID-19 testing kits of substandard quality: Report Out of the posts for 17 judges in the SC, Justice Ayesha Malik was nominated for the seat, which became vacant after the retirement of Justice Mushir Alam on August 17. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, who has been nominated as the next top judge of Pakistan, and other SC judges, also attended the ceremony. (With inputs from agencies)

In a first, Pakistan gets a female Supreme Court judge

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by former president Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;to block the release to a congressional committee of documents related to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

Trump, citing executive privilege, had sought to prevent the documents held by the National Archives from being given to the committee investigating the assault on Congress by&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;supporters.

Trump, who has been accused of fomenting the assault on the Capitol, had asked the nation's highest court to stay a ruling this month by a federal appeals court which rejected his attempt to keep the documents and records secret.

But the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, refused to issue a stay and upheld the appeals court ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, was the only justice in favor of issuing a stay.

Trump&nbsp;had sought to exercise his privilege as a former president to keep under wraps White House records and communications that might relate to the attack.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by former president Donald Trump to block the release to a congressional committee of documents related to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by former president Donald Trump to block the release to a congressional committee of documents related to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Trump, citing executive privilege, had sought to prevent the documents held by the National Archives from being given to the committee investigating the assault on Congress by Trump supporters. Trump, who has been accused of fomenting the assault on the Capitol, had asked the nation's highest court to stay a ruling this month by a federal appeals court which rejected his attempt to keep the documents and records secret. But the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, refused to issue a stay and upheld the appeals court ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, was the only justice in favor of issuing a stay. Trump had sought to exercise his privilege as a former president to keep under wraps White House records and communications that might relate to the attack.

US: Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to block Capitol attack document release

Two Indian Supreme Court judges have recused from the Krishna river dispute. Both judges hail from the litigant states and reportedly feared accusations of bias. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Indian Supreme Court judges recuse from key case

India's Supreme Court on Monday (January 10) agreed to set up an independent committee to probe Prime Minister Narendra Modi's security breach in the northern state of India, Punjab.&nbsp;

The committee will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge as it will investigate the details of the incident that led to the January 5 incident.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, PM Modi was on his way to address a rally in the Ferozepur district of Punjab. His convoy was exposed in the open and was left stranded in a serious security breach in Ferozepur when some protestors blocked his convoy when it reached a flyover.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-starts-administering-precaution-dose-of-covid-jab-to-60-age-group-healthcare-frontline-workers-443489">India starts administering 'precaution dose' of Covid jab to 60+ age group, healthcare, frontline workers</a>

The Indian Prime Minister was supposed to lay the foundation stone of development projects, however, his convoy was blocked and he was stuck on the flyover for 15-20 minutes.&nbsp;

Now, in the latest development, a three-bench judge, headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, asked the Centre and Punjab governments not to go ahead with their inquiries in the matter.

Other members of the bench are Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli. The decision came after the Punjab government urged the apex court to set up a court-monitored probe into the incident.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/virus-is-evolving-continuously-indian-pm-narendra-modi-holds-a-covid-review-meet-as-cases-surge-443428">'Virus is evolving continuously': Indian PM Narendra Modi holds a Covid review meet as cases surge</a>

A day after the incident, Indian President Ram Nath Kovind met PM Modi and expressed his concerns over the massive security breach. The Rashtrapati Bhavan handle after the meeting tweeted, "President Ram Nath Kovind met Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Rashtrapati Bhavan today and received from him a first-hand account of the security breach in his convoy in Punjab yesterday."&nbsp;

India's Supreme Court on Monday (January 10) agreed to set up an independent committee to probe Prime Minister Narendra Modi's security breach in the northern state of India, Punjab.

India's Supreme Court on Monday (January 10) agreed to set up an independent committee to probe Prime Minister Narendra Modi's security breach in the northern state of India, Punjab. The committee will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge as it will investigate the details of the incident that led to the January 5 incident. On Wednesday, PM Modi was on his way to address a rally in the Ferozepur district of Punjab. His convoy was exposed in the open and was left stranded in a serious security breach in Ferozepur when some protestors blocked his convoy when it reached a flyover. ALSO READ | India starts administering 'precaution dose' of Covid jab to 60+ age group, healthcare, frontline workers The Indian Prime Minister was supposed to lay the foundation stone of development projects, however, his convoy was blocked and he was stuck on the flyover for 15-20 minutes. Now, in the latest development, a three-bench judge, headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, asked the Centre and Punjab governments not to go ahead with their inquiries in the matter. Other members of the bench are Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli. The decision came after the Punjab government urged the apex court to set up a court-monitored probe into the incident. ALSO READ | 'Virus is evolving continuously': Indian PM Narendra Modi holds a Covid review meet as cases surge A day after the incident, Indian President Ram Nath Kovind met PM Modi and expressed his concerns over the massive security breach. The Rashtrapati Bhavan handle after the meeting tweeted, "President Ram Nath Kovind met Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Rashtrapati Bhavan today and received from him a first-hand account of the security breach in his convoy in Punjab yesterday."

India's Supreme Court to set up panel headed by ex-judge to probe security breach of PM Modi's convoy

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates.

The challengers — states led by Republican officials, businesses, religious groups and others — say Congress has not authorized the measures, adding that they are unnecessary and in some ways counterproductive.

The administration says that workplace safety and health care laws have given it ample authority to take bold action in the face of a lethal pandemic.

The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would impose a vaccine-or-testing mandate on more than 84 million workers. The administration estimated that the rule would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalisations.

The other measure requires workers at hospitals and other health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The requirement would affect more than 17 million workers, the administration said, and would “save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month.”

The Supreme Court remains closed to the public, but the justices are taking the bench to hear the arguments in person and the court will provide a live audio feed on its website.

All of the justices are fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot, a court spokesperson said.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. The cases before the court are different, as they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements.

The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes and on whether the administration followed proper procedures in issuing the requirements.

The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees with religious objections and those who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, like those who work at home or exclusively outdoors.

Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary.

States, businesses and others challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure.

After the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure.

“The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.”

In dissent, Judge Joan L. Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement.

“The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.”

In the Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the challengers argued that the regulation did not address a workplace issue and so exceeded the agency’s lawful authority.

“COVID-19 is not an occupational danger that OSHA may regulate,” lawyers for Ohio and 26 other states told the justices in a recent brief.

They added that agencies seeking to issue regulations on “major questions” with broad economic or political implications must have clear congressional authorization.

The second case, Biden v. Missouri, concerns a regulation issued in November requiring health care workers at facilities that receive federal money under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

States led by Republican officials challenged the regulation, obtaining injunctions against it covering about half of the nation. Two federal appeals courts, in New Orleans and St. Louis, refused to stay those injunctions while appeals moved forward.

A third federal appeals court, in Atlanta, sided with the Biden administration.

“Health care workers have long been required to obtain inoculations for infectious diseases, such as measles, rubella, mumps and others,” Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Jill A. Pryor wrote for a divided three-judge panel, “because required vaccination is a common-sense measure designed to prevent health care workers, whose job it is to improve patients’ health, from making them sicker.”

The Biden administration argued that a federal statute gave it broad authority to impose regulations concerning the health and safety of patients at facilities that receive federal money. The statute gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the general power to issue regulations to ensure the “efficient administration” of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and parts of the statute concerning various kinds of facilities generally also authorize the secretary to impose requirements to protect the health and safety of patients.

“It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote in a Supreme Court brief.

In response, lawyers for Missouri and other states wrote that the “sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for health care workers threatens to create a crisis in health care facilities in rural America.”

“The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate,” they wrote. Had a judge not issued an injunction, they added, “last year’s health care heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.”

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Friday on the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace through vaccine mandates. The challengers — states led by Republican officials, businesses, religious groups and others — say Congress has not authorized the measures, adding that they are unnecessary and in some ways counterproductive. The administration says that workplace safety and health care laws have given it ample authority to take bold action in the face of a lethal pandemic. The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would impose a vaccine-or-testing mandate on more than 84 million workers. The administration estimated that the rule would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalisations. The other measure requires workers at hospitals and other health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The requirement would affect more than 17 million workers, the administration said, and would “save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month.” The Supreme Court remains closed to the public, but the justices are taking the bench to hear the arguments in person and the court will provide a live audio feed on its website. All of the justices are fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot, a court spokesperson said. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. The cases before the court are different, as they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements. The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes and on whether the administration followed proper procedures in issuing the requirements. The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees with religious objections and those who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, like those who work at home or exclusively outdoors. Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary. States, businesses and others challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure. After the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure. “The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.” In dissent, Judge Joan L. Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement. “The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.” In the Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the challengers argued that the regulation did not address a workplace issue and so exceeded the agency’s lawful authority. “COVID-19 is not an occupational danger that OSHA may regulate,” lawyers for Ohio and 26 other states told the justices in a recent brief. They added that agencies seeking to issue regulations on “major questions” with broad economic or political implications must have clear congressional authorization. The second case, Biden v. Missouri, concerns a regulation issued in November requiring health care workers at facilities that receive federal money under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. States led by Republican officials challenged the regulation, obtaining injunctions against it covering about half of the nation. Two federal appeals courts, in New Orleans and St. Louis, refused to stay those injunctions while appeals moved forward. A third federal appeals court, in Atlanta, sided with the Biden administration. “Health care workers have long been required to obtain inoculations for infectious diseases, such as measles, rubella, mumps and others,” Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum and Jill A. Pryor wrote for a divided three-judge panel, “because required vaccination is a common-sense measure designed to prevent health care workers, whose job it is to improve patients’ health, from making them sicker.” The Biden administration argued that a federal statute gave it broad authority to impose regulations concerning the health and safety of patients at facilities that receive federal money. The statute gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the general power to issue regulations to ensure the “efficient administration” of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and parts of the statute concerning various kinds of facilities generally also authorize the secretary to impose requirements to protect the health and safety of patients. “It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote in a Supreme Court brief. In response, lawyers for Missouri and other states wrote that the “sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for health care workers threatens to create a crisis in health care facilities in rural America.” “The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate,” they wrote. Had a judge not issued an injunction, they added, “last year’s health care heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.”

Supreme court hears major challenges to Biden’s vaccine mandates

Russia’s oldest human rights group which was founded in 1980s to document the political suppressions under the Soviet Union was ordered to closed down by the country’s Supreme Court.

The court ordered the closure of the Memorial International under Russia’s controversial “foreign agent” law, which has targeted dozens of NGOs and media outlets who were perceived as critical of the government.

About 100 supporters of the organisation had gathered outside the court on Tuesday,&nbsp;with many chanting “shame” after the verdict was delivered. Police made several arrests, according to reports.

The NGO tweeted images of police carrying away a protester.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Задерживали сегодня в том числе так <a href="https://t.co/S8CmmtOmbb">pic.twitter.com/S8CmmtOmbb</a>
— Memorial (@MemorialMoscow) <a href="https://twitter.com/MemorialMoscow/status/1475773315776192513?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2021</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>

The designation “foreign agent” is used on those organisations who receive funding from abroad.

The memorial had been working to recover the memory of the millions of innocent people executed, imprisoned or persecuted in the Soviet era.

In court, prosecutor Alexei Zhafyarov labelled the Memorial as “public threat” which was distorting history.

He also accused the group of being in the pay of the West to focus attention on Soviet crimes instead of highlighting a “glorious past”.

Judge Alla Nazarova ordered that the organisation be closed for “repeated and gross” violations of Russia’s foreign agent laws.

Apart from that, various other organists run by the group, including Memorial International Historical, Educational, Charitable, and Human Rights Society, and “its regional branches and other structural units”, have been ordered to shut down.

Genri Reznik, a lawyer who represented Memorial on Tuesday, told the Guardian that decision reeked of politics, adding that the hearing reminded him of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s.

(With inputs from agencies)

Russia’s oldest human rights group which was founded in 1980s to document the political suppressions under the Soviet Union was ordered to closed down by the country’s Supreme Court.

Russia’s oldest human rights group which was founded in 1980s to document the political suppressions under the Soviet Union was ordered to closed down by the country’s Supreme Court. The court ordered the closure of the Memorial International under Russia’s controversial “foreign agent” law, which has targeted dozens of NGOs and media outlets who were perceived as critical of the government. About 100 supporters of the organisation had gathered outside the court on Tuesday, with many chanting “shame” after the verdict was delivered. Police made several arrests, according to reports. The NGO tweeted images of police carrying away a protester. Задерживали сегодня в том числе так pic.twitter.com/S8CmmtOmbb — Memorial (@MemorialMoscow) December 28, 2021 × The designation “foreign agent” is used on those organisations who receive funding from abroad. The memorial had been working to recover the memory of the millions of innocent people executed, imprisoned or persecuted in the Soviet era. In court, prosecutor Alexei Zhafyarov labelled the Memorial as “public threat” which was distorting history. He also accused the group of being in the pay of the West to focus attention on Soviet crimes instead of highlighting a “glorious past”. Judge Alla Nazarova ordered that the organisation be closed for “repeated and gross” violations of Russia’s foreign agent laws. Apart from that, various other organists run by the group, including Memorial International Historical, Educational, Charitable, and Human Rights Society, and “its regional branches and other structural units”, have been ordered to shut down. Genri Reznik, a lawyer who represented Memorial on Tuesday, told the Guardian that decision reeked of politics, adding that the hearing reminded him of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s. (With inputs from agencies)

Russian Supreme Court shuts down country’s oldest human rights group Memorial International

The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening said it would hold a special hearing next month to assess the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace.

The court said it would move with exceptional speed on the two measures, a vaccine-or-testing mandate aimed at large employers and a vaccination requirement for certain health care workers, setting the cases for argument Jan. 7. The justices had not been scheduled to return to the bench until Jan. 10.

Both sets of cases had been on what critics call the court’s shadow docket, in which the court decides emergency applications, sometimes on matters of great consequence, without full briefing and argument. The court’s decision to hear arguments on the applications may have been a response to mounting criticism of that practice.

The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would affect more than 84 million workers and is central to the administration’s efforts to address the pandemic. The administration estimated that the measure would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations.

The second measure requires health care workers at hospitals that receive federal money to be vaccinated against the virus. It “will save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month,” the administration wrote in an emergency application.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. But the new cases are different, because they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements.

The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes, but there is reason to think that the court’s six-justice conservative majority will be skeptical of broad assertions of executive power.

The last time the Supreme Court considered a Biden administration program addressing the pandemic — a moratorium on evictions — the justices shut it down.

“Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,” the court said in August in an unsigned opinion, over the dissents of the three liberal justices.

In a statement Wednesday night, the Biden administration vowed to vigorously defend the initiatives.

“Especially as the U.S. faces the highly transmissible omicron variant, it is critical to protect workers with vaccination requirements and testing protocols that are urgently needed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, adding: “We are confident in the legal authority for both policies.”

The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.

Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, such as those who work at home or exclusively outdoors.

Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary.

States, businesses and religious groups challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, had ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure.

Last week, after the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure.

“The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.”

In dissent, Judge Joan Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement.

“The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.”

Almost immediately, more than a dozen challengers asked the Supreme Court to block the measure.

The second set of cases the court agreed to hear concerns a requirement that health care workers at hospitals that receive federal money be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

Federal judges in Missouri and Louisiana blocked the requirement, which has exemptions for people with medical or religious objections, in rulings that apply in about half of the states.

In the Missouri case, brought by 10 states, Judge Matthew Schelp ruled that the administration had exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the requirement and that it had not followed proper procedures in doing so. A divided three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, declined to stay that ruling while an appeal moved forward.

In the Louisiana case, brought by 14 states, Judge Terry Doughty blocked the requirement for similar reasons. Calling it a “close call,” a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit refused to issue a stay while the administration appealed.

The requirement, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court, was supported by “both science and common sense.”

“Requiring health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid to be vaccinated,” she wrote, “protects the health and safety of patients at those facilities by reducing their risk of contracting the virus that causes COVID-19.”

The Supreme Court had previously asked for responses to the emergency applications in the two sets of cases by Jan. 30, suggesting it would issue orders shortly afterward without hearing arguments. Its decision to do so followed a roughly similar move in challenges to a Texas abortion law. There, too, the justices scheduled arguments on an exceptionally expedited schedule.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening said it would hold a special hearing next month to assess the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening said it would hold a special hearing next month to assess the legality of two initiatives at the heart of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the coronavirus in the workplace. The court said it would move with exceptional speed on the two measures, a vaccine-or-testing mandate aimed at large employers and a vaccination requirement for certain health care workers, setting the cases for argument Jan. 7. The justices had not been scheduled to return to the bench until Jan. 10. Both sets of cases had been on what critics call the court’s shadow docket, in which the court decides emergency applications, sometimes on matters of great consequence, without full briefing and argument. The court’s decision to hear arguments on the applications may have been a response to mounting criticism of that practice. The more sweeping of the two measures, directed at businesses with 100 or more employees, would affect more than 84 million workers and is central to the administration’s efforts to address the pandemic. The administration estimated that the measure would cause 22 million people to get vaccinated and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations. The second measure requires health care workers at hospitals that receive federal money to be vaccinated against the virus. It “will save hundreds or even thousands of lives each month,” the administration wrote in an emergency application. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in a variety of settings against constitutional challenges. But the new cases are different, because they primarily present the question of whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements. The answer will mostly turn on the language of the relevant statutes, but there is reason to think that the court’s six-justice conservative majority will be skeptical of broad assertions of executive power. The last time the Supreme Court considered a Biden administration program addressing the pandemic — a moratorium on evictions — the justices shut it down. “Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,” the court said in August in an unsigned opinion, over the dissents of the three liberal justices. In a statement Wednesday night, the Biden administration vowed to vigorously defend the initiatives. “Especially as the U.S. faces the highly transmissible omicron variant, it is critical to protect workers with vaccination requirements and testing protocols that are urgently needed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, adding: “We are confident in the legal authority for both policies.” The vaccination-or-testing requirement for large employers was issued in November by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA. Employers are allowed to give their workers the option to be tested weekly instead of getting the vaccine, although they are not required to pay for the testing. The rule makes an exception for employees who do not come into close contact with other people at their jobs, such as those who work at home or exclusively outdoors. Under a 1970 law, OSHA has the authority to issue emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can show that workers are exposed to a grave danger and that the rule is necessary. States, businesses and religious groups challenged the measure in appeals courts around the nation, and a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, had ruled in favor of some of the challengers, blocking the measure. Last week, after the challenges were consolidated before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, a divided three-judge panel reinstated the measure. “The record establishes that COVID-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs,” Judge Jane Stranch wrote for the majority. “To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.” In dissent, Judge Joan Larsen wrote that the administration “likely lacks congressional authority” to impose the vaccine-or-testing requirement. “The mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices,” she wrote. “Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time.” Almost immediately, more than a dozen challengers asked the Supreme Court to block the measure. The second set of cases the court agreed to hear concerns a requirement that health care workers at hospitals that receive federal money be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Federal judges in Missouri and Louisiana blocked the requirement, which has exemptions for people with medical or religious objections, in rulings that apply in about half of the states. In the Missouri case, brought by 10 states, Judge Matthew Schelp ruled that the administration had exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the requirement and that it had not followed proper procedures in doing so. A divided three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, declined to stay that ruling while an appeal moved forward. In the Louisiana case, brought by 14 states, Judge Terry Doughty blocked the requirement for similar reasons. Calling it a “close call,” a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit refused to issue a stay while the administration appealed. The requirement, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court, was supported by “both science and common sense.” “Requiring health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid to be vaccinated,” she wrote, “protects the health and safety of patients at those facilities by reducing their risk of contracting the virus that causes COVID-19.” The Supreme Court had previously asked for responses to the emergency applications in the two sets of cases by Jan. 30, suggesting it would issue orders shortly afterward without hearing arguments. Its decision to do so followed a roughly similar move in challenges to a Texas abortion law. There, too, the justices scheduled arguments on an exceptionally expedited schedule.

Supreme Court to hold special hearing on Biden vaccine mandates

US Supreme Court in a landmark judgement upheld Texas six-week abortion law but provides relief to clinics by allowing them to sue Texas over the ban.

US Supreme Court upheld Texas six-week abortion law but allows clinics to sue Texas over ban

The US Supreme Court is considering a case that could fundamentally transform abortion rights in America, it is being asked to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

United States: An end to America's abortion debate?

India's Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay High Court verdict that said 'skin-to-skin' contact is needed for sexual assault under POCSO. The lower court had acquitted a man accused of groping a minor because there was no 'skin-to-skin' contact. Palki Sharma has the details.

Gravitas: India's Supreme Court sets aside 'skin-to-skin' verdict

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court.

According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court.

If the recommendation is approved by the central government, Kirpal will be the first openly gay judge of a constitutional court in India.

“The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 11th November, 2021, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Saurabh Kirpal, advocate, as judge in the Delhi High Court,” read the collegium’s resolution stated.

49-year-old Kripal&nbsp;has been an advocate for LGBTQ rights in India. He was the lawyer for Navtej Singh Johar and Ritu Dalmia, the two petitioners who fought against the removal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality.

It was in this landmark case&nbsp;that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in India in 2018.

However, this is not the first time that he was recommended for the judge post. Earlier in 2017, the intelligence officials were tasked to carry out mandatory background check on him after his name was recommended.

But his elevation was deferred after the officials came out with an adverse report in 2018 and 2019, suggesting Kirpal’s partner, who is a foreign national, might pose a security risk.

In March 2021, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bobde, writing to the Union government, sought additional information and more clarity on its reservations over his elevation.

But the government reiterated its apprehensions against his partner in April.

Later that time, Kirpal was designated as a senior advocate by the Delhi high court after all 31 judges of the high court unanimously endorsed his designation.

Following the recommendations by the judges of Delhi high court, the current CJI justice Ramana and the four other most senior judges of the collegium, after consulting the other judges in the top court, decided to send Kirpal’s name for appointment as a judge in the Delhi high court.

(With inputs from agencies)

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court.

Soon, India will get its first openly gay person as a judge of a high court. According to reports, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge in the Delhi high court. If the recommendation is approved by the central government, Kirpal will be the first openly gay judge of a constitutional court in India. “The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 11th November, 2021, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Saurabh Kirpal, advocate, as judge in the Delhi High Court,” read the collegium’s resolution stated. 49-year-old Kripal has been an advocate for LGBTQ rights in India. He was the lawyer for Navtej Singh Johar and Ritu Dalmia, the two petitioners who fought against the removal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality. It was in this landmark case that the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality in India in 2018. However, this is not the first time that he was recommended for the judge post. Earlier in 2017, the intelligence officials were tasked to carry out mandatory background check on him after his name was recommended. But his elevation was deferred after the officials came out with an adverse report in 2018 and 2019, suggesting Kirpal’s partner, who is a foreign national, might pose a security risk. In March 2021, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bobde, writing to the Union government, sought additional information and more clarity on its reservations over his elevation. But the government reiterated its apprehensions against his partner in April. Later that time, Kirpal was designated as a senior advocate by the Delhi high court after all 31 judges of the high court unanimously endorsed his designation. Following the recommendations by the judges of Delhi high court, the current CJI justice Ramana and the four other most senior judges of the collegium, after consulting the other judges in the top court, decided to send Kirpal’s name for appointment as a judge in the Delhi high court. (With inputs from agencies)

India likely to get first openly gay person as judge of high court

Delhi state government on Monday, said that it was ready for a lockdown to tackle air pollution in the city. Delhi's Environment Minister Gopal Rai said that the government had conveyed this to the Supreme Court of India. However, he stressed that the lockdown was possible only when it is implemented in Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR)

The NCR comes under the jurisdiction of various states around Delhi.

"We've told Supreme Court that we're ready for a lockdown...possible only when there's lockdown in NCR regions too. We're ready to take all measures with Centre, States; will follow whatever SC directs. Joint-action plan is needed," said Gopal Rai. He was quoted by ANI.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central government to call for an "emergency meeting" on November 16 with Punjab, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh and sought an action plan to curb the air pollution in Delhi-NCR.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant concluded that the major culprits of air pollution in the national capital are construction activities, industries, power plants, and vehicular transportation apart from stubble burning in some areas.

Posting the matter for hearing on November 17, the top court asked Haryana and Punjab governments to persuade the farmers to stop the stubble burning for a week. Following the Supreme Court`s suggestion, schools in Delhi and Haryana have been closed and all construction activities have also been suspended.

Delhi`s air quality on Monday witnessed marginal improvement as the air quality in the capital city reached the lower end of `very poor` category with Air Quality Index (AQI) at 318 (overall), according to the System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research.

(With inputs from agencies)

Delhi state government on Monday, said that it was ready for a lockdown to tackle air pollution in the city. Delhi's Environment Minister Gopal Rai said that the government had conveyed this to the Supreme Court of India.

Delhi state government on Monday, said that it was ready for a lockdown to tackle air pollution in the city. Delhi's Environment Minister Gopal Rai said that the government had conveyed this to the Supreme Court of India. However, he stressed that the lockdown was possible only when it is implemented in Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR) The NCR comes under the jurisdiction of various states around Delhi. "We've told Supreme Court that we're ready for a lockdown...possible only when there's lockdown in NCR regions too. We're ready to take all measures with Centre, States; will follow whatever SC directs. Joint-action plan is needed," said Gopal Rai. He was quoted by ANI. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central government to call for an "emergency meeting" on November 16 with Punjab, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh and sought an action plan to curb the air pollution in Delhi-NCR. A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant concluded that the major culprits of air pollution in the national capital are construction activities, industries, power plants, and vehicular transportation apart from stubble burning in some areas. Posting the matter for hearing on November 17, the top court asked Haryana and Punjab governments to persuade the farmers to stop the stubble burning for a week. Following the Supreme Court`s suggestion, schools in Delhi and Haryana have been closed and all construction activities have also been suspended. Delhi`s air quality on Monday witnessed marginal improvement as the air quality in the capital city reached the lower end of `very poor` category with Air Quality Index (AQI) at 318 (overall), according to the System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research. (With inputs from agencies)

Ready for lockdown to curb air pollution, Delhi govt tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against a New York law that imposes strict limits on who can carry guns in public, which could radically reshape the nation’s relationship with guns.

This is undoubtedly a big deal — the court’s first major Second Amendment case in more than decade — but you might be wondering what it has to do with California.

Well, California is one of a few states with concealed carry restrictions similar to New York’s. So the fate of our state’s law, which greatly limits the number of people here with weapons in public, hinges on the Supreme Court decision.

“If the New York law fails, then basically, automatically California’s law is also invalid,” Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, told me.

Such a change would probably lead to a major jump in the number of Californians able to carry guns in public, particularly in places where concealed carry permits are currently rare, such as the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego.

How we got here

Since the early 1980s, states have been relaxing gun laws and making it easier for people to carry loaded weapons in public.

Most Americans now live in a state that either doesn’t require a permit to carry a concealed weapon or that grants one to anyone who meets basic criteria, such as passing a background check and being older than 21.

Between 1999 and 2016, the number of Americans with concealed carry permits skyrocketed to more than 14.5 million from 2.7 million.

But about seven states — home to a quarter of the U.S. population — have retained laws that make it tougher to obtain the permits.

In California and New York, for example, people who want to carry a weapon in public must show a specific reason they need a gun more than the average person, such as an ongoing threat to their safety. This “good cause” criteria gives officials discretion to deny concealed carry permits if they don’t think the applicant deserves one.

And that is what’s at issue in the Supreme Court case — whether New York’s limitations on who can obtain concealed carry permits violates the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs in the case received licenses to carry weapons for hunting but were denied permission to keep guns on them at all times because they couldn’t prove they had a special need for them.

Similar gun lawsuits have been taken up by lower courts in recent years, but the Supreme Court has declined to weigh in until now, following recent appointments of conservative justices.

“The question has to be, ‘Why did they do so now?’” Chin said. “And I think the answer is that now they’re confident about how it’s going to come out.”

How this could play out in California

Currently, about 120,000 Californians have concealed carry permits. But they’re heavily concentrated in San Bernardino, Shasta, Fresno, Orange, Sacramento and Kern counties.

That’s because law enforcement officials in each county determine who can receive a permit. In Fresno County, where more people are authorized to carry a weapon than anywhere else in the state, the sheriff sometimes carries the paper applications around and hands them out to encourage people to apply, according to The Fresno Bee.

By contrast, in San Francisco, there are only two active concealed carry permits in the whole city. And while Los Angeles County accounts for more than 25% of the state’s population, it’s home to less than half a percent of California’s concealed carry permits.

If the New York law (and therefore the California law) is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the California Legislature is likely to try to find other ways to regulate guns, experts say. Intense political will here has led California to enact more gun control laws than any other state.

But still, without a “good cause” provision, California counties would in most cases be unable to deny concealed carry permits to people who want them.

“The fact that there are just a handful of permits in San Francisco County and Los Angeles County isn’t because of a lack of desire for concealed carry permits — it’s because of the restrictive policy,” Chin said. “I think there’s a high probability that in the near future we’re going to have a lot more permits.”

The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against a New York law that imposes strict limits on who can carry guns in public, which could radically reshape the nation’s relationship with guns.

The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against a New York law that imposes strict limits on who can carry guns in public, which could radically reshape the nation’s relationship with guns. This is undoubtedly a big deal — the court’s first major Second Amendment case in more than decade — but you might be wondering what it has to do with California. Well, California is one of a few states with concealed carry restrictions similar to New York’s. So the fate of our state’s law, which greatly limits the number of people here with weapons in public, hinges on the Supreme Court decision. “If the New York law fails, then basically, automatically California’s law is also invalid,” Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, told me. Such a change would probably lead to a major jump in the number of Californians able to carry guns in public, particularly in places where concealed carry permits are currently rare, such as the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego. How we got here Since the early 1980s, states have been relaxing gun laws and making it easier for people to carry loaded weapons in public. Most Americans now live in a state that either doesn’t require a permit to carry a concealed weapon or that grants one to anyone who meets basic criteria, such as passing a background check and being older than 21. Between 1999 and 2016, the number of Americans with concealed carry permits skyrocketed to more than 14.5 million from 2.7 million. But about seven states — home to a quarter of the U.S. population — have retained laws that make it tougher to obtain the permits. In California and New York, for example, people who want to carry a weapon in public must show a specific reason they need a gun more than the average person, such as an ongoing threat to their safety. This “good cause” criteria gives officials discretion to deny concealed carry permits if they don’t think the applicant deserves one. And that is what’s at issue in the Supreme Court case — whether New York’s limitations on who can obtain concealed carry permits violates the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs in the case received licenses to carry weapons for hunting but were denied permission to keep guns on them at all times because they couldn’t prove they had a special need for them. Similar gun lawsuits have been taken up by lower courts in recent years, but the Supreme Court has declined to weigh in until now, following recent appointments of conservative justices. “The question has to be, ‘Why did they do so now?’” Chin said. “And I think the answer is that now they’re confident about how it’s going to come out.” How this could play out in California Currently, about 120,000 Californians have concealed carry permits. But they’re heavily concentrated in San Bernardino, Shasta, Fresno, Orange, Sacramento and Kern counties. That’s because law enforcement officials in each county determine who can receive a permit. In Fresno County, where more people are authorized to carry a weapon than anywhere else in the state, the sheriff sometimes carries the paper applications around and hands them out to encourage people to apply, according to The Fresno Bee. By contrast, in San Francisco, there are only two active concealed carry permits in the whole city. And while Los Angeles County accounts for more than 25% of the state’s population, it’s home to less than half a percent of California’s concealed carry permits. If the New York law (and therefore the California law) is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the California Legislature is likely to try to find other ways to regulate guns, experts say. Intense political will here has led California to enact more gun control laws than any other state. But still, without a “good cause” provision, California counties would in most cases be unable to deny concealed carry permits to people who want them. “The fact that there are just a handful of permits in San Francisco County and Los Angeles County isn’t because of a lack of desire for concealed carry permits — it’s because of the restrictive policy,” Chin said. “I think there’s a high probability that in the near future we’re going to have a lot more permits.”

How the SC’s gun case could affect California

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday.

The law requires people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to show a “proper cause,” and a majority of the justices seemed prepared to say that it imposes an intolerable burden on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But several justices seemed open to allowing the state to exclude guns from crowded public settings or other sensitive places.

The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right just as the First Amendment does, Chief Justice John Roberts said. People seeking to exercise either of those rights, he said, should not have to demonstrate to the government that they have a good reason or special need to do so.

“You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” he said. “So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”

At the same time, Roberts was among the justices who asked whether guns could be barred at settings as varied as subways, protests, Yankee Stadium, Times Square on New Year’s Eve and college campuses in New York City.

The hearing “provided a road map for New York to follow,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”

“The justices appeared convinced that restrictions on guns in sensitive places were constitutionally permissible, with Times Square and the subway as potential illustrations,” he said. “Perhaps we will see New York loosen its permitting requirements but strengthening the restrictions on sensitive places to make it very difficult for carry in New York City.”

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, including two men who were denied licenses to carry handguns at all times, gave cautious answers to questions about restrictions on guns in sensitive places, saying those issues were not part of the dispute before the justices and should be resolved in future cases.

In general, though, and without defining what counts as “sensitive,” he said that “New York is entitled to have laws that say that you can’t have weapons in sensitive places.”

The main point, Clement said, was that “carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right,” one allowed with few restrictions in 43 states. Those states, he said, included major cities like Phoenix, Houston and Chicago.

Justice Elena Kagan responded that “most people think that Chicago is, like, the world’s worst city with respect to gun violence.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court should limit its ruling to what he called “the permitting regime.”

“We don’t have to answer all the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt,” he said.

Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, told the court that limits on guns in sensitive places would not be a complete solution.

“You end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive,” she said. “It has an attractive quality to it, but in implementation, I think it would be unsuccessful.”

But Underwood’s defense of New York’s licensing system did not seem to satisfy a majority of the justices.

She said that “unrestricted permits are more readily available in less populated areas,” setting off a discussion of where it is most valuable to have a gun for self-defense.

“If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,” Roberts said, “that’s implicated when you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.”

Underwood said it made sense to allow guns where there is little law enforcement presence. Roberts asked, “How many muggings take place in the forest?”

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether people who work late in Manhattan — “it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes” — would be granted a license if they said they had a dangerous commute through a high-crime area.

“They do not get licenses, is that right?” Alito asked.

Underwood said that was generally correct. “The core right to self-defense,” she said, “doesn’t allow for all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.”

There was much discussion of history, including repeated references to the Statute of Northampton of 1328, which appeared to forbid carrying arms to fairs and markets and is cited by some proponents of gun regulation as evidence that the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to preclude limits on the public carrying of firearms.

Clement said that statute was not understood to be “a general prohibition on carrying outside the home but was a prohibition on either carrying unusual and dangerous weapons or using common weapons in a way that terrorized the public.”

Underwood said the statute and the long history of regulating guns where people gather, including in the American colonies and in states at the time of the founding, supported New York’s law.

That point had been pressed by several prominent conservative lawyers, notably J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, in a brief supporting New York. Drawing on originalism, the interpretive method embraced by the conservative legal movement, the brief argued that history showed that government regulations on the carrying of guns in public have been commonplace for centuries.

But several justices said the historical evidence was contested. Justice Stephen Breyer added that judges were ill-suited to the task of doing authentic historical research, calling what they do “law office history.”

“This is a wonderful case for showing both sides,” he said. “So I’m not sure how to deal with the history.”

Kavanaugh said the solution was to start with the text of the Second Amendment, which speaks of a right to keep and bear arms, suggesting that bearing arms happens outside the home.

“There will be tough questions, as the arguments revealed, about what the historical practice shows, but the default or baseline is the text,” he said.

The question of how the Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in public is an open one. When the Supreme Court established an individual right to own guns in 2008 by a 5-4 vote in District of Columbia v. Heller, it addressed only the right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense.

At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote for the majority.

The question the justices agreed to decide in Wednesday’s case, New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

But the issue of restricting guns in sensitive places got a lot of attention at Wednesday’s argument. Roberts asked Clement, for instance, whether states could say “you’re not allowed to carry on a university campus.”

He said, “I think the answer to your question is yes.”

Kagan seemed to think that was an important concession. “You know, anybody can walk around the NYU campus,” she said, referring to New York University’s many buildings in and around Greenwich Village.

Clement responded, to laughter, that “NYU doesn’t have much of a campus.”

Kagan disagreed, as did Breyer. “To my mind,” he said, to more laughter, “I think NYU does have a campus.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the masses of people who sometimes gather in Manhattan.

“Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place because now we’ve seen, you know, people are on top of each other?” she said. “We’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.”

Underwood said that Times Square is, at least in the absence of a pandemic, always crowded. “When commerce is in full swing,” she said, “Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people.”

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday.

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday. The law requires people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to show a “proper cause,” and a majority of the justices seemed prepared to say that it imposes an intolerable burden on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But several justices seemed open to allowing the state to exclude guns from crowded public settings or other sensitive places. The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right just as the First Amendment does, Chief Justice John Roberts said. People seeking to exercise either of those rights, he said, should not have to demonstrate to the government that they have a good reason or special need to do so. “You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” he said. “So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?” At the same time, Roberts was among the justices who asked whether guns could be barred at settings as varied as subways, protests, Yankee Stadium, Times Square on New Year’s Eve and college campuses in New York City. The hearing “provided a road map for New York to follow,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The justices appeared convinced that restrictions on guns in sensitive places were constitutionally permissible, with Times Square and the subway as potential illustrations,” he said. “Perhaps we will see New York loosen its permitting requirements but strengthening the restrictions on sensitive places to make it very difficult for carry in New York City.” Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, including two men who were denied licenses to carry handguns at all times, gave cautious answers to questions about restrictions on guns in sensitive places, saying those issues were not part of the dispute before the justices and should be resolved in future cases. In general, though, and without defining what counts as “sensitive,” he said that “New York is entitled to have laws that say that you can’t have weapons in sensitive places.” The main point, Clement said, was that “carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right,” one allowed with few restrictions in 43 states. Those states, he said, included major cities like Phoenix, Houston and Chicago. Justice Elena Kagan responded that “most people think that Chicago is, like, the world’s worst city with respect to gun violence.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court should limit its ruling to what he called “the permitting regime.” “We don’t have to answer all the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt,” he said. Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, told the court that limits on guns in sensitive places would not be a complete solution. “You end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive,” she said. “It has an attractive quality to it, but in implementation, I think it would be unsuccessful.” But Underwood’s defense of New York’s licensing system did not seem to satisfy a majority of the justices. She said that “unrestricted permits are more readily available in less populated areas,” setting off a discussion of where it is most valuable to have a gun for self-defense. “If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,” Roberts said, “that’s implicated when you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.” Underwood said it made sense to allow guns where there is little law enforcement presence. Roberts asked, “How many muggings take place in the forest?” Justice Samuel Alito asked whether people who work late in Manhattan — “it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes” — would be granted a license if they said they had a dangerous commute through a high-crime area. “They do not get licenses, is that right?” Alito asked. Underwood said that was generally correct. “The core right to self-defense,” she said, “doesn’t allow for all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.” There was much discussion of history, including repeated references to the Statute of Northampton of 1328, which appeared to forbid carrying arms to fairs and markets and is cited by some proponents of gun regulation as evidence that the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to preclude limits on the public carrying of firearms. Clement said that statute was not understood to be “a general prohibition on carrying outside the home but was a prohibition on either carrying unusual and dangerous weapons or using common weapons in a way that terrorized the public.” Underwood said the statute and the long history of regulating guns where people gather, including in the American colonies and in states at the time of the founding, supported New York’s law. That point had been pressed by several prominent conservative lawyers, notably J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, in a brief supporting New York. Drawing on originalism, the interpretive method embraced by the conservative legal movement, the brief argued that history showed that government regulations on the carrying of guns in public have been commonplace for centuries. But several justices said the historical evidence was contested. Justice Stephen Breyer added that judges were ill-suited to the task of doing authentic historical research, calling what they do “law office history.” “This is a wonderful case for showing both sides,” he said. “So I’m not sure how to deal with the history.” Kavanaugh said the solution was to start with the text of the Second Amendment, which speaks of a right to keep and bear arms, suggesting that bearing arms happens outside the home. “There will be tough questions, as the arguments revealed, about what the historical practice shows, but the default or baseline is the text,” he said. The question of how the Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in public is an open one. When the Supreme Court established an individual right to own guns in 2008 by a 5-4 vote in District of Columbia v. Heller, it addressed only the right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense. At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote for the majority. The question the justices agreed to decide in Wednesday’s case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” But the issue of restricting guns in sensitive places got a lot of attention at Wednesday’s argument. Roberts asked Clement, for instance, whether states could say “you’re not allowed to carry on a university campus.” He said, “I think the answer to your question is yes.” Kagan seemed to think that was an important concession. “You know, anybody can walk around the NYU campus,” she said, referring to New York University’s many buildings in and around Greenwich Village. Clement responded, to laughter, that “NYU doesn’t have much of a campus.” Kagan disagreed, as did Breyer. “To my mind,” he said, to more laughter, “I think NYU does have a campus.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the masses of people who sometimes gather in Manhattan. “Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place because now we’ve seen, you know, people are on top of each other?” she said. “We’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.” Underwood said that Times Square is, at least in the absence of a pandemic, always crowded. “When commerce is in full swing,” she said, “Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people.”

Supreme Court appears likely to strike limits on carrying firearms

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it.

Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/cop26-why-the-world-is-worried-about-china-and-co2-levels-425836">Also read |&nbsp;COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels</a>

Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue.

The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state. That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it. Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.” Also read | COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue. The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

Supreme court hints it may allow challenge to Texas abortion law

Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a comedian who mocked a disabled teenaged singer, saying that the remarks, while disgraceful, would not lead people to discriminate as the singer had claimed.

It thus marks an end to one of the nearly decade-long case, which raised questions over satire and the limits of freedom of speech in Canada.

In a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that jokes told about the singer, who was a child at the time, did not amount to discrimination.

The justices wrote that comedian Mike Ward had ridiculed Jeremy Gabriel, a young man with Treacher Collins syndrome, but he was chosen as a target because of his fame rather than his disability.

“Although Ward said some nasty and disgraceful things about Gabriel’s disability, his comments did not incite the audience to treat Gabriel as subhuman,” the justices wrote.

Gabriel, who was 13 at that time, was born with a congenital disorder marked by a skull and facial deformities as well as deafness. He gained fame as a singer after he performed with legendary Canadian singer Celine Dion and for Pope Benedict XVI.

In a series of shows between 2010 and 2013, comedian Mike Ward said people were being nice to the teenager&nbsp;only because they thought he would soon die. Ward joked that when he realised this was not going to happen, he had tried to drown Gabriel.

Reasonable people would not view the comments as inciting others to vilify Gabriel on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination in Quebec law, the majority justices wrote.

Known for sometimes offensive humour, the justices wrote that Ward’s comments “exploited, rightly or wrongly, a feeling of discomfort in order to entertain, but they did little more than that”.

“We did it … we won,” Ward tweeted after the decision was announced on Friday.

Gabriel told a news conference that Ward’s jokes caused him to become suicidal at age 13.

(With inputs from agencies)

Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a comedian who mocked a disabled teenaged singer, saying that the remarks, while disgraceful, would not lead people to discriminate as the singer had claimed.

Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a comedian who mocked a disabled teenaged singer, saying that the remarks, while disgraceful, would not lead people to discriminate as the singer had claimed. It thus marks an end to one of the nearly decade-long case, which raised questions over satire and the limits of freedom of speech in Canada. In a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that jokes told about the singer, who was a child at the time, did not amount to discrimination. The justices wrote that comedian Mike Ward had ridiculed Jeremy Gabriel, a young man with Treacher Collins syndrome, but he was chosen as a target because of his fame rather than his disability. “Although Ward said some nasty and disgraceful things about Gabriel’s disability, his comments did not incite the audience to treat Gabriel as subhuman,” the justices wrote. Gabriel, who was 13 at that time, was born with a congenital disorder marked by a skull and facial deformities as well as deafness. He gained fame as a singer after he performed with legendary Canadian singer Celine Dion and for Pope Benedict XVI. In a series of shows between 2010 and 2013, comedian Mike Ward said people were being nice to the teenager only because they thought he would soon die. Ward joked that when he realised this was not going to happen, he had tried to drown Gabriel. Reasonable people would not view the comments as inciting others to vilify Gabriel on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination in Quebec law, the majority justices wrote. Known for sometimes offensive humour, the justices wrote that Ward’s comments “exploited, rightly or wrongly, a feeling of discomfort in order to entertain, but they did little more than that”. “We did it … we won,” Ward tweeted after the decision was announced on Friday. Gabriel told a news conference that Ward’s jokes caused him to become suicidal at age 13. (With inputs from agencies)

Canada’s top court rules in favour of comedian who mocked disabled teenager

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday formed a committee of experts to look into the alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus for surveillance of Indian citizens.

A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said the three-member committee will be headed by former apex court judge RV Raveendran.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government had argued in the court that disclosing the details on the use of Pegasus spyware involves national security issues, but it agreed to disclose all information before a committee of technical experts and urged the court to let it appoint the committee.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/121-indian-users-targeted-in-pegasus-spyware-attack-full-extent-may-never-be-known-whatsapp-263433">121 Indian users targeted in Pegasus spyware attack, full extent may never be known: Whatsapp</a>

The top court, in its judgment, said mere raising national security by the state would not stop it from taking up the issue, and emphasized that national security can’t be a bug bear and refused to accept the omnibus denial by the Centre.

“Of course, the…Union of India may decline to provide information when constitutional considerations exist, such as those pertaining to the security of the State. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of ‘national security’ is raised,” the SC said.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israels-national-security-council-looking-into-nso-pegasus-spyware-allegations-399484">&nbsp;Israel's National Security Council 'looking into' NSO Pegasus spyware allegations</a>

The bench noted that the government filed a limited affidavit, which didn’t make anything clear despite it repeatedly saying that the court is not concerned with issues of national security.

“We live in the era of information. We must recognise that while technology is important, it is important to safeguard the right to privacy,” the SC said, adding, “not only journalists, etc., but privacy is important for all citizens.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/algeria-launches-probe-into-pegasus-spyware-claim-399844">Algeria launches probe into Pegasus spyware claim</a>

The bench noted that the government’s counsel Tushar Mehta submitted that many petitions were self-service, but it cannot accept such omnibus contention.

“Centre should have justified its stand here and not render the court a mute spectator,” the bench noted.

The matter will be taken up again after eight weeks.

The ruling came in response to a batch of 12 petitions which sought an independent probe into the allegations that surfaced in the media about the unauthorised surveillance.

(With inputs from agencies)

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday formed a committee of experts to look into the alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus for surveillance of Indian citizens. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said the three-member committee will be headed by former apex court judge RV Raveendran.

India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday formed a committee of experts to look into the alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus for surveillance of Indian citizens. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said the three-member committee will be headed by former apex court judge RV Raveendran. Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government had argued in the court that disclosing the details on the use of Pegasus spyware involves national security issues, but it agreed to disclose all information before a committee of technical experts and urged the court to let it appoint the committee. Also read | 121 Indian users targeted in Pegasus spyware attack, full extent may never be known: Whatsapp The top court, in its judgment, said mere raising national security by the state would not stop it from taking up the issue, and emphasized that national security can’t be a bug bear and refused to accept the omnibus denial by the Centre. “Of course, the…Union of India may decline to provide information when constitutional considerations exist, such as those pertaining to the security of the State. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of ‘national security’ is raised,” the SC said. Also read | Israel's National Security Council 'looking into' NSO Pegasus spyware allegations The bench noted that the government filed a limited affidavit, which didn’t make anything clear despite it repeatedly saying that the court is not concerned with issues of national security. “We live in the era of information. We must recognise that while technology is important, it is important to safeguard the right to privacy,” the SC said, adding, “not only journalists, etc., but privacy is important for all citizens.” Also read | Algeria launches probe into Pegasus spyware claim The bench noted that the government’s counsel Tushar Mehta submitted that many petitions were self-service, but it cannot accept such omnibus contention. “Centre should have justified its stand here and not render the court a mute spectator,” the bench noted. The matter will be taken up again after eight weeks. The ruling came in response to a batch of 12 petitions which sought an independent probe into the allegations that surfaced in the media about the unauthorised surveillance. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s top court forms committee to probe snooping using Israeli spyware Pegasus

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on November 1 legal challenges to a restrictive abortion law passed in Texas, but meanwhile declined to block the controversial law. President Joe Biden's administration and abortion providers have been asked the court to reverse this Texas law.

US' Supreme Court refuses to block Texas' controversial abortion law

&nbsp;A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers&nbsp;protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors.

The body of Lakhbir Singh, 35, from Punjab's Taran Taran district, was found tied to an overturned police barricade at the site where farmers are protesting three Central farm laws for over 10 months.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/4-para-military-personnel-injured-in-accidental-blast-as-container-of-detonators-slips-while-boarding-train-421202">4 para military personnel injured in accidental blast as container of detonators slips while boarding train</a>

His body bore over 10 wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and the incident is being blamed on a group of Nihangs.

Referring to the incident, a fresh plea has been filed for urgent hearing of the PIL, pending since March this year, saying "The right to freedom of speech and expression cannot supersede the right to life and if this protest is allowed to go in like this, the nation at large will be at a loss."

The interim application has been filed by Swati Goel and Sanjeev Newar in their pending PIL through lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha.

"After the incident of mutilating and murder of the Dalit man, I have moved an urgent mentioning application before Supreme Court," the lawyer said, adding, "Anti-human activities are happening in the name of protests, including rape of a woman and killing of and mutilating a Dalit man. It cannot be allowed to continue."

Besides seeking the removal of protesting farmers, the plea has also sought the issuance of guidelines by the Centre to the states and Union Territories to stop all kinds of protests and not permit them until the pandemic gets over.

"A protest which in itself is illegal cannot be continued when it is witnessing anti-humanitarian acts," the PIL said, adding the protests have seen many unforeseen and unacceptable things including the tractor rally on Republic Day, rape of a woman and its cover-up at the site and murder of Lakhbir Singh on Dusshera.

The plea said at a time when there is a ban on celebrating festivals, visiting temples, going to school and colleges, allowing such protests will serve no good.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/yamuna-river-in-indias-national-capital-delhi-littered-with-waste-despite-curbs-421206">Yamuna river in India's national capital Delhi littered with waste despite curbs</a>

"Protestors are not only putting their life at risk but of millions of people of India and such a prolonged agitation cannot be allowed especially during ongoing pandemic since prolonged protests on public places are not only a clear violation of Supreme Court rulings but is violating Right of Life of others who are directly or indirectly affected by the said protests," it said.

The plea said the PIL, which was listed first on May 10, could not be heard due to the crash of a server at the apex court on that day and later dates of hearings also, it could not be taken up.

Meanwhile, the top court is also hearing a separate plea of a Noida&nbsp;resident Monicca Agrawaal. 
She has sought the removal of blockades saying earlier it took 20 minutes to reach Delhi and now it is taking over two hours and that people of the area are facing hardships due to the protests at the UP Gate on the Delhi border.

On October 4, the top court sought responses from 43 farmers' bodies and their leaders, including Rakesh Tikait, Darshan Pal and Gurnam Singh, leading protests at Delhi borders, on a plea of the Haryana government alleging they have not been participating in talks with its panel to resolve the impasses over road blockade here.

Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-power-crisis-eases-on-account-of-increased-coal-supply-onset-of-winter-421204">&nbsp;India’s power crisis eases on account of increased coal supply, onset of winter</a>

Haryana has moved an application seeking to make 43 bodies and individual leaders of various farmers&nbsp;organisations in the PIL filed by Agrawaal.

The farmers are protesting for the last 10 months against the passage of three laws -- Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020.

Initially, the protests started from Punjab in November last year and later spread mainly to Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors.

A day after a man's body with a hand chopped off was found at the farmers protest site at the Singhu border, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing of a pending petition which has sought removal of protestors. The body of Lakhbir Singh, 35, from Punjab's Taran Taran district, was found tied to an overturned police barricade at the site where farmers are protesting three Central farm laws for over 10 months. Also Read | 4 para military personnel injured in accidental blast as container of detonators slips while boarding train His body bore over 10 wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and the incident is being blamed on a group of Nihangs. Referring to the incident, a fresh plea has been filed for urgent hearing of the PIL, pending since March this year, saying "The right to freedom of speech and expression cannot supersede the right to life and if this protest is allowed to go in like this, the nation at large will be at a loss." The interim application has been filed by Swati Goel and Sanjeev Newar in their pending PIL through lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha. "After the incident of mutilating and murder of the Dalit man, I have moved an urgent mentioning application before Supreme Court," the lawyer said, adding, "Anti-human activities are happening in the name of protests, including rape of a woman and killing of and mutilating a Dalit man. It cannot be allowed to continue." Besides seeking the removal of protesting farmers, the plea has also sought the issuance of guidelines by the Centre to the states and Union Territories to stop all kinds of protests and not permit them until the pandemic gets over. "A protest which in itself is illegal cannot be continued when it is witnessing anti-humanitarian acts," the PIL said, adding the protests have seen many unforeseen and unacceptable things including the tractor rally on Republic Day, rape of a woman and its cover-up at the site and murder of Lakhbir Singh on Dusshera. The plea said at a time when there is a ban on celebrating festivals, visiting temples, going to school and colleges, allowing such protests will serve no good. Also Read | Yamuna river in India's national capital Delhi littered with waste despite curbs "Protestors are not only putting their life at risk but of millions of people of India and such a prolonged agitation cannot be allowed especially during ongoing pandemic since prolonged protests on public places are not only a clear violation of Supreme Court rulings but is violating Right of Life of others who are directly or indirectly affected by the said protests," it said. The plea said the PIL, which was listed first on May 10, could not be heard due to the crash of a server at the apex court on that day and later dates of hearings also, it could not be taken up. Meanwhile, the top court is also hearing a separate plea of a Noida resident Monicca Agrawaal. She has sought the removal of blockades saying earlier it took 20 minutes to reach Delhi and now it is taking over two hours and that people of the area are facing hardships due to the protests at the UP Gate on the Delhi border. On October 4, the top court sought responses from 43 farmers' bodies and their leaders, including Rakesh Tikait, Darshan Pal and Gurnam Singh, leading protests at Delhi borders, on a plea of the Haryana government alleging they have not been participating in talks with its panel to resolve the impasses over road blockade here. Also Read | India’s power crisis eases on account of increased coal supply, onset of winter Haryana has moved an application seeking to make 43 bodies and individual leaders of various farmers organisations in the PIL filed by Agrawaal. The farmers are protesting for the last 10 months against the passage of three laws -- Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 and Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020. Initially, the protests started from Punjab in November last year and later spread mainly to Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

Plea seeks early hearing of PIL in India's Supreme Court on removing protesting farmers from Delhi borders

supreme-court

Supreme Court, News on Supreme Court, stories on Supreme Court, articles on Supreme Court, Supreme Court stories at Wion, Supreme Court news, Supreme Court latest news