The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement.

“The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement.

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas.

The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state.

The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion.

The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue.

Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.

A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday. A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement. “The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement. The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas. The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state. The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion. The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban

In pics | Washington's century-old secret subway that is used by politicians, judges and movie stars

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen.

A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari took note of the submission of lawyer A Karthik, appearing for the boat owner Freddy, that he be granted some time to respond to the plea of the surviving fishermen who wanted shares from his portion of Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) compensation&nbsp;yet to be disbursed.

"Three weeks time has been granted to file the counter affidavit (reply). One week thereafter (granted) for filing rejoinder. List after six weeks,"&nbsp;the bench said, adding that the state government can also file its response to the plea.

Earlier, the apex court had directed the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked for the owner of the fishing vessel.

The plea filed by seven, out of ten surviving fishermen who were also on the boat, said that they too were eligible for the compensation from Rs 2 crore&nbsp;( 20 million rupees) earmarked by the apex court for the boat owner.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had suggested that the fishermen's plea can be sent to the Kerala High Court which is entrusted with the task of disbursing the compensation, to which the bench had said a notice to vessel owner Freddy was necessary as any modification in the order will reduce his share.

"The notice of this application be given to the boat owner and in the meanwhile, we request the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount to the boat owner in terms of the June 15, 2021 order,"&nbsp;the bench had said in its order.

Freddy, for whom Rs two crore out of total Rs 10 crore compensation has been earmarked, was also paid Rs 17 lakh (1.7 million rupees) ex-gratia earlier for the damage to the vessel which was worth Rs 10 lakh only, the counsel for the fishermen had said.

Urging the top court to modify its June 15 order by providing some compensation to the surviving fishermen, the lawyer had said that one of the four grounds for seeking damages in the case was injuries, including mental, which were also sustained by his clients.

"Kerala government has now said no compensation will be given to us on account of the latest order of the Supreme Court and we just want that the Rs 2 crore compensation, payable to the boat owner, be stayed,"&nbsp;he had said.

The bench had said Freddy should be made party instead of the Centre as only he can oppose this plea.

On June 15, the top court had brought the curtains down on the 9-year old pending criminal proceedings in India against two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who were accused of killing the two fishermen, after Rs 10 crore in compensation was paid by Italy to the heirs of the deceased and the boat owner.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-closes-case-against-italian-marines-for-killing-indian-fishermen-compensation-announced-391718">Supreme Court closes case against Italian marines for killing Indian fishermen; compensation announced</a>

It had directed Rs 4 crore each be given to the dependents of two deceased fishermen and the rest Rs 2 crore would be given to the vessel owner.

The top court had referred the matter to the Kerala High Court to oversee the disbursement.

In the fresh plea, the fishermen said they were also injured in the incident and hence, entitled to compensation. They have sought a stay on the disbursement till their claims are determined.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/deposit-compensation-for-indian-fishermen-killed-by-italian-marines-sc-tells-centre-376270">Deposit compensation for Indian fishermen killed by Italian marines, SC tells Centre</a>

The top court had also said earlier that as per the international arbitral award accepted by India, Italy shall resume further investigation in the case against the two marines and quashed the FIR, registered at Coastal Police Station of Neendakara, Kollam in Kerala and re-registered by NIA in 2013, and all the proceedings in the case.

It had closed the case after the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on May 21, 2020, under which Italy agreed to pay Rs 10 crore compensation, over the ex-gratia amount already paid.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/indias-top-court-allows-italian-marine-to-stay-in-italy-6903">India's top court allows Italian marine to stay in Italy</a>

"We also further direct that the amount of Rs 10 crore (100 million rupees) now lying with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, out of which Rs 4 crore be paid to the heirs of each deceased and Rs 2 crores ( 2 million rupees) be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony,"&nbsp;the bench had said.

It had requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount to the heirs and ensure the compensation is duly received by them and not diverted/ misappropriated.

"The remaining amount of Rs two crore be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony by an account payee cheque,"&nbsp;the bench had said.

The top court noted that Kerala, the heirs of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat have agreed to accept the award.

In February 2012, India had accused the two marines on board the MV Enrica Lexie -- an Italian flagged oil tanker -- of killing two Indian fishermen who were on a fishing vessel in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Latorre, who had suffered a brain stroke on August 31, 2014, was first granted bail and allowed by the apex court on September 12, 2014, to go to Italy for four months and after that, extensions have been granted to him.

In Italy, Latorre underwent heart surgery after which the top court granted him an extension of his stay in his native country.

The complaint against the marines was lodged by Freddy on whose vessel two Kerala fishermen were killed when marines opened fire on them under the misconception that they were pirates.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen.

The Supreme Court Monday granted three weeks time to the owner of the fishing vessel to respond to a plea of some Kerala fishermen seeking shares from Rs two crore compensation, to be paid to him for the 2012 incident in which his boat 'St Antony' was fired at by the Italian marines killing two fishermen. A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari took note of the submission of lawyer A Karthik, appearing for the boat owner Freddy, that he be granted some time to respond to the plea of the surviving fishermen who wanted shares from his portion of Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) compensation yet to be disbursed. "Three weeks time has been granted to file the counter affidavit (reply). One week thereafter (granted) for filing rejoinder. List after six weeks," the bench said, adding that the state government can also file its response to the plea. Earlier, the apex court had directed the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked for the owner of the fishing vessel. The plea filed by seven, out of ten surviving fishermen who were also on the boat, said that they too were eligible for the compensation from Rs 2 crore ( 20 million rupees) earmarked by the apex court for the boat owner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had suggested that the fishermen's plea can be sent to the Kerala High Court which is entrusted with the task of disbursing the compensation, to which the bench had said a notice to vessel owner Freddy was necessary as any modification in the order will reduce his share. "The notice of this application be given to the boat owner and in the meanwhile, we request the Kerala High Court not to disburse any amount to the boat owner in terms of the June 15, 2021 order," the bench had said in its order. Freddy, for whom Rs two crore out of total Rs 10 crore compensation has been earmarked, was also paid Rs 17 lakh (1.7 million rupees) ex-gratia earlier for the damage to the vessel which was worth Rs 10 lakh only, the counsel for the fishermen had said. Urging the top court to modify its June 15 order by providing some compensation to the surviving fishermen, the lawyer had said that one of the four grounds for seeking damages in the case was injuries, including mental, which were also sustained by his clients. "Kerala government has now said no compensation will be given to us on account of the latest order of the Supreme Court and we just want that the Rs 2 crore compensation, payable to the boat owner, be stayed," he had said. The bench had said Freddy should be made party instead of the Centre as only he can oppose this plea. On June 15, the top court had brought the curtains down on the 9-year old pending criminal proceedings in India against two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, who were accused of killing the two fishermen, after Rs 10 crore in compensation was paid by Italy to the heirs of the deceased and the boat owner. Also read | Supreme Court closes case against Italian marines for killing Indian fishermen; compensation announced It had directed Rs 4 crore each be given to the dependents of two deceased fishermen and the rest Rs 2 crore would be given to the vessel owner. The top court had referred the matter to the Kerala High Court to oversee the disbursement. In the fresh plea, the fishermen said they were also injured in the incident and hence, entitled to compensation. They have sought a stay on the disbursement till their claims are determined. Also read | Deposit compensation for Indian fishermen killed by Italian marines, SC tells Centre The top court had also said earlier that as per the international arbitral award accepted by India, Italy shall resume further investigation in the case against the two marines and quashed the FIR, registered at Coastal Police Station of Neendakara, Kollam in Kerala and re-registered by NIA in 2013, and all the proceedings in the case. It had closed the case after the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS delivered its award on May 21, 2020, under which Italy agreed to pay Rs 10 crore compensation, over the ex-gratia amount already paid. Also read | India's top court allows Italian marine to stay in Italy "We also further direct that the amount of Rs 10 crore (100 million rupees) now lying with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, out of which Rs 4 crore be paid to the heirs of each deceased and Rs 2 crores ( 2 million rupees) be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony," the bench had said. It had requested the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount to the heirs and ensure the compensation is duly received by them and not diverted/ misappropriated. "The remaining amount of Rs two crore be paid to the owner of the boat - St. Antony by an account payee cheque," the bench had said. The top court noted that Kerala, the heirs of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat have agreed to accept the award. In February 2012, India had accused the two marines on board the MV Enrica Lexie -- an Italian flagged oil tanker -- of killing two Indian fishermen who were on a fishing vessel in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Latorre, who had suffered a brain stroke on August 31, 2014, was first granted bail and allowed by the apex court on September 12, 2014, to go to Italy for four months and after that, extensions have been granted to him. In Italy, Latorre underwent heart surgery after which the top court granted him an extension of his stay in his native country. The complaint against the marines was lodged by Freddy on whose vessel two Kerala fishermen were killed when marines opened fire on them under the misconception that they were pirates.

Italian marines: India's Supreme Court grants 3 weeks to vessel owner to reply to plea of fishermen for compensation

In pics | Washington's century-old secret subway that is used by politicians, Supreme Court judges and movie stars

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to "parallel debate" on social media by petitioners who are seeking a court-monitored probe into the reports of the government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus to spy on politicians, activists, and journalists.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioners to refrain from indulging in parallel debates outside the Court on social media platforms and told them to have faith in the system.

There has to be some discipline when the court is examining the matter, if they have some points to raise, they can do so by filing an affidavit, the Bench told counsels appearing for petitioners in the case.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/russia-africa-show-robust-support-for-indias-maritime-meet-at-unsc-404401">Russia, Africa show robust support for India's maritime meet at UNSC</a>

CJI Ramana said, "This is the message of me and my two brothers. All petitioners are expected to answer the queries of the court through the debate in the court. If they want to say something through social media, Twitter, etc., it is for them. You all have come to the court and you speak through the counsels. We don't want parallel debates. You must have faith in the system. There must be some discipline."

"We asked some questions. There is an adjudication process. Sometimes it may be inconvenient to you. That's how this process is. Both sides have to face the music. If they want to bring something to our notice, you bring it through an affidavit. We expect they answer our queries through a proper debate in court and not outside," he added.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for senior journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar said he agreed that when a case is going on it should not be discussed outside.

Sibal mentioned that on the last date of hearing the CJI had enquired about a California court case regarding the use of Pegasus to infiltrate WhatsApp, and referred to the trolling of N Ram on Twitter regarding the issue.

It was taken out of context, but debates must not cross the limits, CJI said.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/as-india-leads-from-front-china-agrees-to-uns-sea-law-at-unsc-presidential-statement-404396">As India leads from front, China agrees to UN's sea law at UNSC presidential statement</a>

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government sought time to file a reply in the case till Friday. The Bench then posted the matter for August 16 to decide whether or not to issue a notice in the petitions seeking probe into the Pegasus snooping issue.

In the earlier hearing, the top court had asked the petitioners to serve a copy of their petitions to the Central government's law officers and it would take up the matter on Tuesday. It said without the Central government present in the hearing, the bench could not proceed as of now.

It had observed that the allegations about the Central government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus to spy on people "are serious if news reports are correct".

The apex court, however, asked people who approached the Court why was any criminal complaint not registered by persons affected by the snooping.

There are ten pleas before the top court which were filed by senior journalists N Ram, and Sashi Kumar, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas of Communist Marxist Party of India (Marxist) and advocate ML Sharma.

Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh, former minister Yashwant Sinha and Ipsa Shatakshi, who are reported to be on the potential list of snoop targets of Pegasus spyware, had also approached the top court along with The Editors Guild of India (EGI) among others. (ANI)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to "parallel debate" on social media by petitioners who are seeking a court-monitored probe into the reports of the government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus to spy on politicians, activists, and journalists.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took exception to "parallel debate" on social media by petitioners who are seeking a court-monitored probe into the reports of the government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus to spy on politicians, activists, and journalists. A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioners to refrain from indulging in parallel debates outside the Court on social media platforms and told them to have faith in the system. There has to be some discipline when the court is examining the matter, if they have some points to raise, they can do so by filing an affidavit, the Bench told counsels appearing for petitioners in the case. ALSO READ | Russia, Africa show robust support for India's maritime meet at UNSC CJI Ramana said, "This is the message of me and my two brothers. All petitioners are expected to answer the queries of the court through the debate in the court. If they want to say something through social media, Twitter, etc., it is for them. You all have come to the court and you speak through the counsels. We don't want parallel debates. You must have faith in the system. There must be some discipline." "We asked some questions. There is an adjudication process. Sometimes it may be inconvenient to you. That's how this process is. Both sides have to face the music. If they want to bring something to our notice, you bring it through an affidavit. We expect they answer our queries through a proper debate in court and not outside," he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for senior journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar said he agreed that when a case is going on it should not be discussed outside. Sibal mentioned that on the last date of hearing the CJI had enquired about a California court case regarding the use of Pegasus to infiltrate WhatsApp, and referred to the trolling of N Ram on Twitter regarding the issue. It was taken out of context, but debates must not cross the limits, CJI said. ALSO READ | As India leads from front, China agrees to UN's sea law at UNSC presidential statement During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government sought time to file a reply in the case till Friday. The Bench then posted the matter for August 16 to decide whether or not to issue a notice in the petitions seeking probe into the Pegasus snooping issue. In the earlier hearing, the top court had asked the petitioners to serve a copy of their petitions to the Central government's law officers and it would take up the matter on Tuesday. It said without the Central government present in the hearing, the bench could not proceed as of now. It had observed that the allegations about the Central government allegedly using Israeli software Pegasus to spy on people "are serious if news reports are correct". The apex court, however, asked people who approached the Court why was any criminal complaint not registered by persons affected by the snooping. There are ten pleas before the top court which were filed by senior journalists N Ram, and Sashi Kumar, Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas of Communist Marxist Party of India (Marxist) and advocate ML Sharma. Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh, former minister Yashwant Sinha and Ipsa Shatakshi, who are reported to be on the potential list of snoop targets of Pegasus spyware, had also approached the top court along with The Editors Guild of India (EGI) among others. (ANI)

Pegasus issue: Indian Supreme Court urges petitioners to refrain from parallel debate on social media

A former president of Israel's Supreme Court was appointed on Sunday to head its state commission of inquiry into a stampede at a Jewish pilgrimage site in April that killed 45 people, among them US&nbsp;and Canadian citizens. 
 
Retired Chief Justice Miriam Naor will be joined on the panel by Rabbi Mordechai Karelitz, a former mayor of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish city of Bnai Brak, and retired Israeli army general Shlomo Yanai, a courts spokesman said in a statement. 
 
Tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews thronged to the Galilee hillside tomb of 2nd-century sage Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai on April 30 for the annual Lag B'Omer festival that includes all-night prayer, mystical songs and dance. 
 
During the ceremony, part of the crowd surged into a narrow tunnel and 45 men and boys were asphyxiated or trampled to death. Israeli media said at least six of the fatalities had US&nbsp;citizenship and two had Canadian citizenship. 
 
Ordering the inquiry last week, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said it would help safeguard other mass-attendance events in Israel, which has sites sacred to Christianity and Islam as well as to Judaism.

A former president of Israel's Supreme Court was appointed on Sunday to head its state commission of inquiry into a stampede at a Jewish pilgrimage site in April that killed 45 people, among them US and Canadian citizens.

A former president of Israel's Supreme Court was appointed on Sunday to head its state commission of inquiry into a stampede at a Jewish pilgrimage site in April that killed 45 people, among them US and Canadian citizens. Retired Chief Justice Miriam Naor will be joined on the panel by Rabbi Mordechai Karelitz, a former mayor of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish city of Bnai Brak, and retired Israeli army general Shlomo Yanai, a courts spokesman said in a statement. Tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews thronged to the Galilee hillside tomb of 2nd-century sage Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai on April 30 for the annual Lag B'Omer festival that includes all-night prayer, mystical songs and dance. During the ceremony, part of the crowd surged into a narrow tunnel and 45 men and boys were asphyxiated or trampled to death. Israeli media said at least six of the fatalities had US citizenship and two had Canadian citizenship. Ordering the inquiry last week, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said it would help safeguard other mass-attendance events in Israel, which has sites sacred to Christianity and Islam as well as to Judaism.

Retired Israeli Supreme Court chief to head inquiry on lethal stampede

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday nominated first judge of colour to country's Supreme Court. Canada's Supreme Court has only ever had white justices in it 146 years of existence.

Prime Minister Trudeau has nominated Mahmud Jamal to the Supreme Court. Jamal has been a judge on Ontario's court of appeal since 2019. He trained as a lawyer and appeared before Supreme Court in 35 appeals addressing a range of civil, constitutional, criminal and regulatory issues.

"He'll be a valuable asset to the Supreme Court - and that's why, today, I'm announcing his historic nomination to our country's highest court," Trudeau said on Twitter.

Trudeau has frequently said there is a need to address systemic racism in Canada.

Jamal was born in 1967 in Nairobi, he emigrated with his family to Britain &nbsp;in 1969 where he said he was "taunted and harassed because of my name, religion, or the color of my skin."

<img alt="Jamal" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e25e2ff8-99a9-41b5-a46e-b5066a419100" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2021-06-18T142549Z_1_LYNXNPEH5H0UY_RTROPTP_3_CANADA-POLITICS-JUDGE.JPG" />

In 1981 the family moved to Canada, where his "experiences exposed me to some of the challenges and aspirations of immigrants, religious minorities, and racialized persons," he said in a document submitted to support his candidacy.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-discovery-of-childrens-remains-canada-announces-search-for-unmarked-indigenous-graves-391735">After discovery of children's remains, Canada announces search for unmarked indigenous graves</a>

Canada is a multicultural country, with more than 22% of the population comprised of minorities and another 5% aboriginal, according to the latest census.

"We know people are facing systemic discrimination, unconscious bias and anti-black racism every single day," Trudeau said last year.

Jamal will replace Justice Rosalie Abella, who is due to retire from the nine-person court on July 1.

(With inputs from agencies)

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday nominated first judge of colour to country's Supreme Court. Canada's Supreme Court has only ever had white justices in it 146 years of existence.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday nominated first judge of colour to country's Supreme Court. Canada's Supreme Court has only ever had white justices in it 146 years of existence. Prime Minister Trudeau has nominated Mahmud Jamal to the Supreme Court. Jamal has been a judge on Ontario's court of appeal since 2019. He trained as a lawyer and appeared before Supreme Court in 35 appeals addressing a range of civil, constitutional, criminal and regulatory issues. "He'll be a valuable asset to the Supreme Court - and that's why, today, I'm announcing his historic nomination to our country's highest court," Trudeau said on Twitter. Trudeau has frequently said there is a need to address systemic racism in Canada. Jamal was born in 1967 in Nairobi, he emigrated with his family to Britain in 1969 where he said he was "taunted and harassed because of my name, religion, or the color of my skin." In 1981 the family moved to Canada, where his "experiences exposed me to some of the challenges and aspirations of immigrants, religious minorities, and racialized persons," he said in a document submitted to support his candidacy. Also Read | After discovery of children's remains, Canada announces search for unmarked indigenous graves Canada is a multicultural country, with more than 22% of the population comprised of minorities and another 5% aboriginal, according to the latest census. "We know people are facing systemic discrimination, unconscious bias and anti-black racism every single day," Trudeau said last year. Jamal will replace Justice Rosalie Abella, who is due to retire from the nine-person court on July 1. (With inputs from agencies)

Canadian PM Trudeau nominates first judge of colour to Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.

The decision, in the latest clash between anti-discrimination principles and claims of conscience, was a setback for gay rights and further evidence that religious groups almost always prevail in the current court.

The court’s surprising consensus on a case that pitted gay rights against religious rights masked deep divisions, with the three most conservative justices issuing caustic concurring opinions criticizing the decision as excessively timid and so narrow as to be meaningless.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for six members of the court, focused narrowly on the terms of the city’s contract with foster care agencies, which forbids discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation. But the contract allows city officials to make exceptions, he wrote, and that doomed the requirement that the Catholic agency must screen same-sex couples.

“The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the city’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures,” he wrote in the opinion, which was brisk and a little cryptic, suggesting it was the product of extended deliberation and compromise.

The Catholic agency, Roberts wrote, “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

The three most conservative justices cast the decision as a missed opportunity.

“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of postargument cogitation, the court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “Those who count on this court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.”

The court’s three-member liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — joined the majority opinion, which was a surprise and may have been part of an effort to avoid a broader ruling that might have allowed religious objections to override all sorts of government policies and programs.

The court’s newest members, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by President Donald Trump, also joined the majority opinion, writing separately to explain their reluctance to move too fast in addressing the larger constitutional issues.

For his part, Alito wrote that the ruling was so narrow as to be ephemeral.

“This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops,” he wrote. “If the city wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then, voila, today’s decision will vanish — and the parties will be back where they started.”

Philadelphia stopped placing children with foster families through the agency, Catholic Social Services, after a 2018 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer described its policy against placing children with same-sex couples. The agency and several foster parents sued the city, saying the decision violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free speech.

Lawyers for the city said the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123, was an easy one. When the government hires independent contractors like the Catholic agency, they said, it acts on its own behalf and can include provisions banning discrimination in its contracts.

Lawyers for the agency responded that it merely wanted to continue work that it had been doing for centuries, adding that no gay couple had ever applied to it. If one had, they said, the couple would have been referred to another agency.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, ruled against the agency. The city was entitled to require compliance with its nondiscrimination policies, the court said.

Alito’s concurring opinion on Thursday spanned 77 pages, five times the length of Roberts’ majority opinion. It made the case for overruling an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices.

The precedent, Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, ruled that general laws that do not single out religion could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

“Smith was wrongly decided,” Alito wrote. “As long as it remains on the books, it threatens a fundamental freedom. And while precedent should not lightly be cast aside, the court’s error in Smith should now be corrected.”

In Thursday’s decision, Roberts said the case from Philadelphia did not provide an opportunity to reconsider the Smith decision. “This case falls outside Smith because the city has burdened the religious exercise” of the agency, he wrote, “through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable.”

Barrett, in a concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh and, for the most part, Breyer, wrote that overruling the Smith decision would raise many difficult issues, ones the court did not need to wrestle with in the case from Philadelphia.

“I therefore see no reason to decide in this case whether Smith should be overruled, much less what should replace it,” she wrote.

Diana Cortes, Philadelphia’s city solicitor, expressed dismay at the ruling but said it could have been worse.

“Today’s decision is a difficult and disappointing setback for foster care youth and the foster parents who work so hard to support them,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, the city is gratified that the Supreme Court did not, as the plaintiffs sought, radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena.”

The chief justice wrote that the Catholic agency’s actions followed from its belief that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman.

“Because the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples — regardless of their sexual orientation — or same-sex married couples,” he wrote, adding that the agency “does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents or to placing gay and lesbian children.”

“Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature,” he wrote, citing the court’s 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled for a baker who had refused to create cakes for same-sex wedding on narrow ground. The decision said the baker had been mistreated by members of the state’s civil rights commission who had expressed hostility toward religion.

In his concurrence, Gorsuch wrote that court’s decision in the Colorado case was similar to the one on Thursday. “After being forced to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court, we ruled for” the baker, Jack Phillips, “on narrow grounds similar to those the majority invokes today.”

Litigation over Phillips’ business practices continue, Gorsuch wrote. “A nine-year odyssey thus barrels on,” he wrote. “No doubt, too, those who cannot afford such endless litigation under Smith’s regime have been and will continue to be forced to forfeit religious freedom that the Constitution protects.”

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children. The decision, in the latest clash between anti-discrimination principles and claims of conscience, was a setback for gay rights and further evidence that religious groups almost always prevail in the current court. The court’s surprising consensus on a case that pitted gay rights against religious rights masked deep divisions, with the three most conservative justices issuing caustic concurring opinions criticizing the decision as excessively timid and so narrow as to be meaningless. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for six members of the court, focused narrowly on the terms of the city’s contract with foster care agencies, which forbids discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation. But the contract allows city officials to make exceptions, he wrote, and that doomed the requirement that the Catholic agency must screen same-sex couples. “The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the city’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures,” he wrote in the opinion, which was brisk and a little cryptic, suggesting it was the product of extended deliberation and compromise. The Catholic agency, Roberts wrote, “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.” The three most conservative justices cast the decision as a missed opportunity. “After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of postargument cogitation, the court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “Those who count on this court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.” The court’s three-member liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — joined the majority opinion, which was a surprise and may have been part of an effort to avoid a broader ruling that might have allowed religious objections to override all sorts of government policies and programs. The court’s newest members, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by President Donald Trump, also joined the majority opinion, writing separately to explain their reluctance to move too fast in addressing the larger constitutional issues. For his part, Alito wrote that the ruling was so narrow as to be ephemeral. “This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops,” he wrote. “If the city wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then, voila, today’s decision will vanish — and the parties will be back where they started.” Philadelphia stopped placing children with foster families through the agency, Catholic Social Services, after a 2018 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer described its policy against placing children with same-sex couples. The agency and several foster parents sued the city, saying the decision violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free speech. Lawyers for the city said the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123, was an easy one. When the government hires independent contractors like the Catholic agency, they said, it acts on its own behalf and can include provisions banning discrimination in its contracts. Lawyers for the agency responded that it merely wanted to continue work that it had been doing for centuries, adding that no gay couple had ever applied to it. If one had, they said, the couple would have been referred to another agency. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, ruled against the agency. The city was entitled to require compliance with its nondiscrimination policies, the court said. Alito’s concurring opinion on Thursday spanned 77 pages, five times the length of Roberts’ majority opinion. It made the case for overruling an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices. The precedent, Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, ruled that general laws that do not single out religion could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. “Smith was wrongly decided,” Alito wrote. “As long as it remains on the books, it threatens a fundamental freedom. And while precedent should not lightly be cast aside, the court’s error in Smith should now be corrected.” In Thursday’s decision, Roberts said the case from Philadelphia did not provide an opportunity to reconsider the Smith decision. “This case falls outside Smith because the city has burdened the religious exercise” of the agency, he wrote, “through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable.” Barrett, in a concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh and, for the most part, Breyer, wrote that overruling the Smith decision would raise many difficult issues, ones the court did not need to wrestle with in the case from Philadelphia. “I therefore see no reason to decide in this case whether Smith should be overruled, much less what should replace it,” she wrote. Diana Cortes, Philadelphia’s city solicitor, expressed dismay at the ruling but said it could have been worse. “Today’s decision is a difficult and disappointing setback for foster care youth and the foster parents who work so hard to support them,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, the city is gratified that the Supreme Court did not, as the plaintiffs sought, radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena.” The chief justice wrote that the Catholic agency’s actions followed from its belief that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. “Because the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples — regardless of their sexual orientation — or same-sex married couples,” he wrote, adding that the agency “does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents or to placing gay and lesbian children.” “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature,” he wrote, citing the court’s 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled for a baker who had refused to create cakes for same-sex wedding on narrow ground. The decision said the baker had been mistreated by members of the state’s civil rights commission who had expressed hostility toward religion. In his concurrence, Gorsuch wrote that court’s decision in the Colorado case was similar to the one on Thursday. “After being forced to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court, we ruled for” the baker, Jack Phillips, “on narrow grounds similar to those the majority invokes today.” Litigation over Phillips’ business practices continue, Gorsuch wrote. “A nine-year odyssey thus barrels on,” he wrote. “No doubt, too, those who cannot afford such endless litigation under Smith’s regime have been and will continue to be forced to forfeit religious freedom that the Constitution protects.”

US Supreme Court backs Catholic agency in case on gay rights and foster care

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a federal law that requires only men to register for the military draft.

As is the court’s custom, it gave no reasons for turning down the case. But three justices issued a statement saying that Congress should be allowed more time to consider what they acknowledged was a significant legal issue.

“It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the statement, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. “But at least for now, the court’s long-standing deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/supreme-court-rules-against-immigrants-seeking-green-cards-390023" hreflang="en">Supreme Court rules against immigrants seeking green cards</a>

The requirement is one of the last sex-based distinctions in federal law, one that challengers say cannot be justified now that women are allowed to serve in every role in the military, including ground combat. Unlike men, though, they are not required to register with the Selective Service System, the government agency that maintains a database of Americans who would be eligible for the draft were it reinstated.

The unequal treatment “imposes selective burdens on men, reinforces the notion that women are not full and equal citizens, and perpetuates stereotypes about men’s and women’s capabilities,” lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a petition on behalf of two men who were required to register and the National Coalition for Men.

In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court rejected a sex-discrimination challenge to the registration requirement, reasoning that it was justified because women could not at that time serve in combat roles.

“Since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority, “men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.”

On Monday, Sotomayor wrote that “the role of women in the military has changed dramatically since then.”

“Beginning in 1991,” she wrote, “thousands of women have served with distinction in a wide range of combat roles, from operating military aircraft and naval vessels to participating in boots-on-the-ground infantry missions.”

Lower courts had agreed with that assessment.

In 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller of U.S. District Court in Houston ruled that since women can now serve in combat, the men-only registration requirement was no longer justified. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, agreed that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed.” But it said that only the Supreme Court could overrule its own precedent.

The Trump administration defended the differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, but it did not defend the constitutionality of the law. Instead, it asked the justices to give Congress more time to consider the matter.

Last year, a congressional commission concluded that expanding the registration requirement to women was “a necessary — and overdue — step” that “signals that both men and women are valued for their contributions in defending the nation.” That echoed recommendations from military leaders. But Congress, which has long been studying the question, has yet to act.

Men who fail to register can face harsh punishments, including criminal prosecution, denial of student loans and disqualification from citizenship. Eight states do not let men enroll in public universities unless they have registered.

The government has not drafted anyone since the Vietnam War, and there is no reason to think that will change. The challengers said that was a reason for the court to act now, before a crisis arises.

“Should the court declare the men-only registration requirement unconstitutional,” their brief said, “Congress has considerable latitude to decide how to respond. It could require everyone between the ages of 18 and 26, regardless of sex, to register; it could rescind the registration requirement entirely; or it could adopt a new approach altogether, such as replacing” the registration requirement “with a more expansive national service requirement.”

A group of retired military officers, along with the Center for Military Readiness, urged the court to deny review, saying the 1981 precedent was sound.

The brief said that Congress rather than the court should decide who must register. It added that the challengers “also fail to address the elephant in the room: Men, as a group, are stronger, bigger, faster and have greater endurance than women as a group.”

Another group of retired military officers — including Michael V. Hayden, who directed both the CIA and the National Security Agency; Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander in Afghanistan; and Claudia J. Kennedy, first woman to become a three-star general in the Army — urged the court to hear the case.

“Including women in the Selective Service would double the pool of candidates available to draft,” their brief said, “raising the overall quality of the conscripted force and enabling the nation to better meet its military needs.”

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a federal law that requires only men to register for the military draft. As is the court’s custom, it gave no reasons for turning down the case.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a federal law that requires only men to register for the military draft. As is the court’s custom, it gave no reasons for turning down the case. But three justices issued a statement saying that Congress should be allowed more time to consider what they acknowledged was a significant legal issue. “It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the statement, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. “But at least for now, the court’s long-standing deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.” Also read | Supreme Court rules against immigrants seeking green cards The requirement is one of the last sex-based distinctions in federal law, one that challengers say cannot be justified now that women are allowed to serve in every role in the military, including ground combat. Unlike men, though, they are not required to register with the Selective Service System, the government agency that maintains a database of Americans who would be eligible for the draft were it reinstated. The unequal treatment “imposes selective burdens on men, reinforces the notion that women are not full and equal citizens, and perpetuates stereotypes about men’s and women’s capabilities,” lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a petition on behalf of two men who were required to register and the National Coalition for Men. In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court rejected a sex-discrimination challenge to the registration requirement, reasoning that it was justified because women could not at that time serve in combat roles. “Since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority, “men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.” On Monday, Sotomayor wrote that “the role of women in the military has changed dramatically since then.” “Beginning in 1991,” she wrote, “thousands of women have served with distinction in a wide range of combat roles, from operating military aircraft and naval vessels to participating in boots-on-the-ground infantry missions.” Lower courts had agreed with that assessment. In 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller of U.S. District Court in Houston ruled that since women can now serve in combat, the men-only registration requirement was no longer justified. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, agreed that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed.” But it said that only the Supreme Court could overrule its own precedent. The Trump administration defended the differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear the case, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, but it did not defend the constitutionality of the law. Instead, it asked the justices to give Congress more time to consider the matter. Last year, a congressional commission concluded that expanding the registration requirement to women was “a necessary — and overdue — step” that “signals that both men and women are valued for their contributions in defending the nation.” That echoed recommendations from military leaders. But Congress, which has long been studying the question, has yet to act. Men who fail to register can face harsh punishments, including criminal prosecution, denial of student loans and disqualification from citizenship. Eight states do not let men enroll in public universities unless they have registered. The government has not drafted anyone since the Vietnam War, and there is no reason to think that will change. The challengers said that was a reason for the court to act now, before a crisis arises. “Should the court declare the men-only registration requirement unconstitutional,” their brief said, “Congress has considerable latitude to decide how to respond. It could require everyone between the ages of 18 and 26, regardless of sex, to register; it could rescind the registration requirement entirely; or it could adopt a new approach altogether, such as replacing” the registration requirement “with a more expansive national service requirement.” A group of retired military officers, along with the Center for Military Readiness, urged the court to deny review, saying the 1981 precedent was sound. The brief said that Congress rather than the court should decide who must register. It added that the challengers “also fail to address the elephant in the room: Men, as a group, are stronger, bigger, faster and have greater endurance than women as a group.” Another group of retired military officers — including Michael V. Hayden, who directed both the CIA and the National Security Agency; Stanley A. McChrystal, a former commander in Afghanistan; and Claudia J. Kennedy, first woman to become a three-star general in the Army — urged the court to hear the case. “Including women in the Selective Service would double the pool of candidates available to draft,” their brief said, “raising the overall quality of the conscripted force and enabling the nation to better meet its military needs.”

Supreme Court won’t hear case on limiting military draft to men

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that immigrants allowed to stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons may not apply for green cards if they had entered the country unlawfully.

The case, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315, could affect tens of thousands of immigrants. It was brought by Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, natives of El Salvador who entered the United States unlawfully in the late 1990s.

In 2001, after earthquakes devastated El Salvador, the United States made that country’s nationals eligible for the “temporary protected status” program. The program shields immigrants from parts of the world undergoing armed conflicts and natural disasters from deportation and allows them to work in the United States.

Sanchez and Gonzalez, a married couple, were granted protection under the program. In 2014, they applied for lawful permanent residency, commonly known as a green card. After their application was denied, they sued.

The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, ruled against them, saying they were ineligible under a part of the immigration laws that requires applicants to have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States.

Temporary protected status, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel, “does not constitute an admission.”

“As its name suggests,” he wrote, “this protection is meant to be temporary.”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Supreme Court on Monday, agreed, saying that two parts of the immigration laws operate on separate tracks. One part allows some people who have entered the country lawfully to apply for green cards.

That first part “imposes an admission requirement twice over,” she wrote. It says that applicants for green cards must have been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” And it adds that people who had worked in the United States without authorization, as Sanchez had before he was granted temporary protected status, are eligible only if their presence in the United States was “pursuant to a lawful admission.”

The other relevant part of the immigration laws, Kagan wrote, allows immigrants, whether they entered the country lawfully or not, to apply for temporary protected status, or TPS.

“The government may designate a country for the program when it is beset by especially bad or dangerous conditions, such as arise from natural disasters or armed conflicts,” she wrote. “The country’s citizens, if already present in the United States, may then obtain TPS. That status protects them from removal and authorizes them to work here for as long as the TPS designation lasts.”

The two tracks can sometimes merge, Kagan wrote, if the recipient of temporary protected status had entered the country lawfully. But she added that people who entered without authorisation do not become eligible for green cards thanks to temporary protected status.

“Lawful status and admission, as the court below recognized,” she wrote, “are distinct concepts in immigration law: Establishing one does not necessarily establish the other.”

“On the one hand, a foreign national can be admitted but not in lawful status — think of someone who legally entered the United States on a student visa, but stayed in the country long past graduation,” Kagan wrote. “On the other hand, a foreign national can be in lawful status but not admitted — think of someone who entered the country unlawfully, but then received asylum. The latter is the situation Sanchez is in, except that he received a different kind of lawful status.”

“Because a grant of TPS does not come with a ticket of admission,” she wrote, “it does not eliminate the disqualifying effect of an unlawful entry.”

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that immigrants allowed to stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons may not apply for green cards if they had entered the country unlawfully.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that immigrants allowed to stay in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons may not apply for green cards if they had entered the country unlawfully. The case, Sanchez v. Mayorkas, No. 20-315, could affect tens of thousands of immigrants. It was brought by Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, natives of El Salvador who entered the United States unlawfully in the late 1990s. In 2001, after earthquakes devastated El Salvador, the United States made that country’s nationals eligible for the “temporary protected status” program. The program shields immigrants from parts of the world undergoing armed conflicts and natural disasters from deportation and allows them to work in the United States. Sanchez and Gonzalez, a married couple, were granted protection under the program. In 2014, they applied for lawful permanent residency, commonly known as a green card. After their application was denied, they sued. The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, ruled against them, saying they were ineligible under a part of the immigration laws that requires applicants to have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. Temporary protected status, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel, “does not constitute an admission.” “As its name suggests,” he wrote, “this protection is meant to be temporary.” Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Supreme Court on Monday, agreed, saying that two parts of the immigration laws operate on separate tracks. One part allows some people who have entered the country lawfully to apply for green cards. That first part “imposes an admission requirement twice over,” she wrote. It says that applicants for green cards must have been “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” And it adds that people who had worked in the United States without authorization, as Sanchez had before he was granted temporary protected status, are eligible only if their presence in the United States was “pursuant to a lawful admission.” The other relevant part of the immigration laws, Kagan wrote, allows immigrants, whether they entered the country lawfully or not, to apply for temporary protected status, or TPS. “The government may designate a country for the program when it is beset by especially bad or dangerous conditions, such as arise from natural disasters or armed conflicts,” she wrote. “The country’s citizens, if already present in the United States, may then obtain TPS. That status protects them from removal and authorizes them to work here for as long as the TPS designation lasts.” The two tracks can sometimes merge, Kagan wrote, if the recipient of temporary protected status had entered the country lawfully. But she added that people who entered without authorisation do not become eligible for green cards thanks to temporary protected status. “Lawful status and admission, as the court below recognized,” she wrote, “are distinct concepts in immigration law: Establishing one does not necessarily establish the other.” “On the one hand, a foreign national can be admitted but not in lawful status — think of someone who legally entered the United States on a student visa, but stayed in the country long past graduation,” Kagan wrote. “On the other hand, a foreign national can be in lawful status but not admitted — think of someone who entered the country unlawfully, but then received asylum. The latter is the situation Sanchez is in, except that he received a different kind of lawful status.” “Because a grant of TPS does not come with a ticket of admission,” she wrote, “it does not eliminate the disqualifying effect of an unlawful entry.”

Supreme Court rules against immigrants seeking green cards

Supreme Court of India has said that since the Centre has made CoWIN registration mandatory for vaccination, how is it going to address the issue of the digital divide facing the country. Supreme Court also added that policymakers must have an ear to the ground.

Supreme Court slams Indian govt over COVID-19 vaccination policy

Apex court judge and chairperson of the Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Committee S Ravindra Bhat Saturday said there was a need to step up measures to ensure better care, protection and well-being of children during the second wave of COVID-19.

He made the remarks during a review meeting held by the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Supreme Court to take stock of actions taken by various states on care, protection and wellbeing of children during this COVID-19 wave.

In the meeting, held in coordination with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), possible measures and actions that need to be taken to ensure that every child in need gets appropriate care and protection during this time, were also deliberated upon.

Bhat said some children have lost either one or both parents to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> and there are many without parental supervision and care when their parents are in hospital or under medical care.

"These children are more vulnerable now than ever before. Concerted efforts should be made by all the key stakeholders to ensure the care and protection of children during the second wave of COVID," he said.

He suggested developing a mechanism to address interim care and needs of orphan, separated, or unaccompanied children, including clear guidance on steps to be taken in the event such a child has been exposed or has symptoms of the virus and requires a period of isolation and treatment.

He further emphasised that caregivers and employees of care institutions - both government-managed and private - should be vaccinated, as frontline professionals and also that the services of these institutions should be declared as essential services.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/children-spread-coronavirus-more-efficiently-than-adults-study-383559">Children spread coronavirus 'more efficiently' than adults: Study</a>

Some key priorities outlined by Justice Bhat were - screening and medical care for the children in the institutional care, provision of emergency medicine, supplies, emergency access to hospitals, and a roster of doctors available for teleconsultation,&nbsp;and on priority&nbsp;vaccination of all staff working in the Child Care Institutions and other frontline Child Protection workers.

Nomination of state and district level nodal officers empowered to take decisions and constitute a task force for rapid emergency response for children during COVID-19 was also highlighted.

On the needs of orphaned children, he reiterated that a coordinated response, in each district, by a committee to ensure temporary foster homes as well as gather and secure all information relating to the deceased parent or parents, for future use should be set up.

Each district CWC should compile all the details of such children, and their needs, it was emphasised.

Justice Bhat also stated that "prevention of and response to the second wave of COVID surge requires close coordination and collaboration between child protection system and health system, a multi-sectoral response ensures that children and caregivers' needs are addressed holistically and it leads to a better outcome for children".

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-indias-covid-surge-why-children-could-be-at-risk-383575/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In the review meeting, judges of all high courts and officials of various states and union territories presented the measures which are being undertaken for the care, protection, and well-being of the children during the second wave of COVID.

Some of the measures by the state and union territories were setting up a state-level nodal officers and district task force for rapid response for care and protection children during the current pandemic, sponsorship for the children lost parents or the bread earners lost income or facing economic hardship.

High Court juvenile justice committees represented by judges, as well as state and union territories also highlighted the measures they are taking to stop the spread of COVID-19 in child care institutions and the medical treatment and care of the children who contracted the disease.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-in-india-3rd-wave-may-hit-kids-mumbai-prepares-pediatric-wards-382729">Covid in India: 3rd wave may hit kids, Mumbai prepares pediatric wards</a>

Aastha Khatwani, joint secretary in the Ministry of Women and Child Development, said, "Considering the emergency need, the ministry has issued the advisory to stop illegal adoption and care and protection of the children who have lost one either or both the parents to COVID."

She further added that the ministry has developed clear, coordinated, easy to understand, community messaging on children's unique risks, vulnerabilities and need of care and protection during COVID-19, and these messages are disseminated and broadcast through social media and other channels.

Vandhana Kandhari, child protection specialist of UNICEF India highlighted that "efforts to pre-emptively scale up the capacity of family-based care and social protection systems are critical to enhance family resilience and prevent unnecessary recourse to residential care".

Kandhari added that in order to provide interim care to the children, extended family members, trusted friends, good neighbours and or community members can be declared a 'fit person'.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/novavax-starts-covid-vaccine-trials-on-children-382694">Novavax starts Covid vaccine trials on children</a>

The review meeting was held with the chairpersons and members of juvenile justice committees of various high courts and was also attended by officials of Departments of Women and Child Development, Social Welfare and Health from various states and union territories.

Apex court judge and chairperson of the Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Committee S Ravindra Bhat Saturday said there was a need to step up measures to ensure better care, protection and well-being of children during the second wave of COVID-19.

Apex court judge and chairperson of the Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Committee S Ravindra Bhat Saturday said there was a need to step up measures to ensure better care, protection and well-being of children during the second wave of COVID-19. He made the remarks during a review meeting held by the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Supreme Court to take stock of actions taken by various states on care, protection and wellbeing of children during this COVID-19 wave. In the meeting, held in coordination with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), possible measures and actions that need to be taken to ensure that every child in need gets appropriate care and protection during this time, were also deliberated upon. Bhat said some children have lost either one or both parents to COVID-19 and there are many without parental supervision and care when their parents are in hospital or under medical care. "These children are more vulnerable now than ever before. Concerted efforts should be made by all the key stakeholders to ensure the care and protection of children during the second wave of COVID," he said. He suggested developing a mechanism to address interim care and needs of orphan, separated, or unaccompanied children, including clear guidance on steps to be taken in the event such a child has been exposed or has symptoms of the virus and requires a period of isolation and treatment. He further emphasised that caregivers and employees of care institutions - both government-managed and private - should be vaccinated, as frontline professionals and also that the services of these institutions should be declared as essential services. Also read | Children spread coronavirus 'more efficiently' than adults: Study Some key priorities outlined by Justice Bhat were - screening and medical care for the children in the institutional care, provision of emergency medicine, supplies, emergency access to hospitals, and a roster of doctors available for teleconsultation, and on priority vaccination of all staff working in the Child Care Institutions and other frontline Child Protection workers. Nomination of state and district level nodal officers empowered to take decisions and constitute a task force for rapid emergency response for children during COVID-19 was also highlighted. On the needs of orphaned children, he reiterated that a coordinated response, in each district, by a committee to ensure temporary foster homes as well as gather and secure all information relating to the deceased parent or parents, for future use should be set up. Each district CWC should compile all the details of such children, and their needs, it was emphasised. Justice Bhat also stated that "prevention of and response to the second wave of COVID surge requires close coordination and collaboration between child protection system and health system, a multi-sectoral response ensures that children and caregivers' needs are addressed holistically and it leads to a better outcome for children". In the review meeting, judges of all high courts and officials of various states and union territories presented the measures which are being undertaken for the care, protection, and well-being of the children during the second wave of COVID. Some of the measures by the state and union territories were setting up a state-level nodal officers and district task force for rapid response for care and protection children during the current pandemic, sponsorship for the children lost parents or the bread earners lost income or facing economic hardship. High Court juvenile justice committees represented by judges, as well as state and union territories also highlighted the measures they are taking to stop the spread of COVID-19 in child care institutions and the medical treatment and care of the children who contracted the disease. Also read | Covid in India: 3rd wave may hit kids, Mumbai prepares pediatric wards Aastha Khatwani, joint secretary in the Ministry of Women and Child Development, said, "Considering the emergency need, the ministry has issued the advisory to stop illegal adoption and care and protection of the children who have lost one either or both the parents to COVID." She further added that the ministry has developed clear, coordinated, easy to understand, community messaging on children's unique risks, vulnerabilities and need of care and protection during COVID-19, and these messages are disseminated and broadcast through social media and other channels. Vandhana Kandhari, child protection specialist of UNICEF India highlighted that "efforts to pre-emptively scale up the capacity of family-based care and social protection systems are critical to enhance family resilience and prevent unnecessary recourse to residential care". Kandhari added that in order to provide interim care to the children, extended family members, trusted friends, good neighbours and or community members can be declared a 'fit person'. Also read | Novavax starts Covid vaccine trials on children The review meeting was held with the chairpersons and members of juvenile justice committees of various high courts and was also attended by officials of Departments of Women and Child Development, Social Welfare and Health from various states and union territories.

Need to step up measures for well-being, protection of children during COVID-19 second wave: SC judge

The Supreme Court of India has refused to expunge critical remarks of the Madras High Court holding the poll panel responsible for surge in COVID-19 cases in country. SC also trashed the plea that media be restrained from reporting observations of judicial proceedings, saying it will be a retrograde act.

India: Supreme Court refuses to expunge critical remarks of Madras High Court against EC

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital.

The stay, however, will not restrain the high court from monitoring the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">COVID-19</a> management-related issues, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.

The top court, in an urgent hearing, directed that a meeting be held between officials of the Centre and Delhi government by this evening to discuss various aspects of augmenting the oxygen supply to the national capital.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-crisis-over-180-cryogenic-oxygen-containers-transported-by-indian-air-force-382829">COVID-19 crisis: Over 180 cryogenic oxygen containers transported by Indian Air Force</a>

This is an all-India pandemic situation and we will have to find ways to ensure oxygen supply to the national capital as we are answerable to people of Delhi, it said.

"We are also in Delhi. We are helpless and have been on phone. We can imagine what citizens are going through," Justice Chandrachud said, adding that his office is hearing cries from people including lawyers seeking help.

The top court said it cannot review its order of April 30 and the Centre will have to inch towards the supply of 700 MT of oxygen daily for Delhi and asked the Union government to place before it a plan by Thursday morning as to how it will revamp the supply to 700MT.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-accounts-for-46-per-cent-of-worlds-new-covid-19-cases-quarter-of-deaths-who-382992">India accounts for 46 per cent of world's new COVID-19 cases, quarter of deaths: WHO</a>

It suggested that a committee of experts and doctors including those from the private sector may be constituted to ascertain the situation in Delhi and take into account the COVID-19 situation which had been prevailing in Mumbai.

The top court, in a nearly two-hour hearing, said that putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to Delhi and questioned the Centre about the supply it has made to the national capital since May 3.

The bench said, "Let us ensure lives are saved" and by enhancing supply of around 150MT per day the quantity will come up to 700MT and number of lives will be saved.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/11-patients-die-at-government-hospital-in-chennai-probe-ordered-382886">11 patients die at government hospital in Chennai, probe ordered</a>

It was hearing the Centre's appeal against Delhi High Court's Tuesday order of issuing contempt notice and seeking personal appearance of its officials for non-compliance with the directions on supply of oxygen to treat COVID-19 patients.

The bench aid that it had ordered supply of 700 MT oxygen to Delhi daily from May 3 as the "pandemic in Delhi is at a very critical stage".

"Putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to the city, let us ensure lives are saved," said the bench which also comprised justice MR Shah.

"This is not adversarial litigation. Centre, Delhi governments are elected and doing their best to serve COVID-19 patients,"&nbsp;Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.

"Tell us how much oxygen you have allocated to Delhi in the last three days," the bench said.

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital.

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against central government officials for non-compliance of the direction to supply 700 MT of medical grade oxygen for COVID-19 patients in the national capital. The stay, however, will not restrain the high court from monitoring the COVID-19 management-related issues, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said. The top court, in an urgent hearing, directed that a meeting be held between officials of the Centre and Delhi government by this evening to discuss various aspects of augmenting the oxygen supply to the national capital. Also read | COVID-19 crisis: Over 180 cryogenic oxygen containers transported by Indian Air Force This is an all-India pandemic situation and we will have to find ways to ensure oxygen supply to the national capital as we are answerable to people of Delhi, it said. "We are also in Delhi. We are helpless and have been on phone. We can imagine what citizens are going through," Justice Chandrachud said, adding that his office is hearing cries from people including lawyers seeking help. The top court said it cannot review its order of April 30 and the Centre will have to inch towards the supply of 700 MT of oxygen daily for Delhi and asked the Union government to place before it a plan by Thursday morning as to how it will revamp the supply to 700MT. Also read | India accounts for 46 per cent of world's new COVID-19 cases, quarter of deaths: WHO It suggested that a committee of experts and doctors including those from the private sector may be constituted to ascertain the situation in Delhi and take into account the COVID-19 situation which had been prevailing in Mumbai. The top court, in a nearly two-hour hearing, said that putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to Delhi and questioned the Centre about the supply it has made to the national capital since May 3. The bench said, "Let us ensure lives are saved" and by enhancing supply of around 150MT per day the quantity will come up to 700MT and number of lives will be saved. Also read | 11 patients die at government hospital in Chennai, probe ordered It was hearing the Centre's appeal against Delhi High Court's Tuesday order of issuing contempt notice and seeking personal appearance of its officials for non-compliance with the directions on supply of oxygen to treat COVID-19 patients. The bench aid that it had ordered supply of 700 MT oxygen to Delhi daily from May 3 as the "pandemic in Delhi is at a very critical stage". "Putting officers in jail is not going to bring oxygen to the city, let us ensure lives are saved," said the bench which also comprised justice MR Shah. "This is not adversarial litigation. Centre, Delhi governments are elected and doing their best to serve COVID-19 patients," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said. "Tell us how much oxygen you have allocated to Delhi in the last three days," the bench said.

SC stays Delhi HC order on contempt proceedings against Centre's officials over oxygen supply

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of the 50% of ceiling limit as unconstitutional.&nbsp;

The court unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan allowed no breach of 50 per cent ceiling to give more reservation, as it refused to consider reviewing the Indra Sawhney verdict of 1992. 
 
"Exceeding ceiling limit of 50 per cent laid down by Indra Sawhney is violative of Articles 14 and 15," said the top court. The top court said the people from the Maratha community cannot be declared as educationally and socially backwards. 
 
The unanimous judgment was delivered by a bench also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat. 
 
The top court made it clear that there were no extraordinary circumstances to grant reservation to the Maratha community over and above the 50 per cent ceiling. 
 
The top court struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 which extends reservation to the Maratha community in public education and employment. 
 
The top court emphasized that exceeding the 50 per cent limit in without exceptional circumstances violates Article 14, and it held that the 2018 act as amended in 2019 exceeds the limit without any exceptional circumstances. 
 
The top court held that SEBC Act, which extends reservation to the Maratha community in public education and employment is unconstitutional. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of the 50% of ceiling limit as unconstitutional. The court unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class.

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Maratha quota in excess of the 50% of ceiling limit as unconstitutional. The court unanimously held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of reservation to Marathas in excess of 50% ceiling limit as a Socially and Economically Backward Class. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan allowed no breach of 50 per cent ceiling to give more reservation, as it refused to consider reviewing the Indra Sawhney verdict of 1992. "Exceeding ceiling limit of 50 per cent laid down by Indra Sawhney is violative of Articles 14 and 15," said the top court. The top court said the people from the Maratha community cannot be declared as educationally and socially backwards. The unanimous judgment was delivered by a bench also comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat. The top court made it clear that there were no extraordinary circumstances to grant reservation to the Maratha community over and above the 50 per cent ceiling. The top court struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 which extends reservation to the Maratha community in public education and employment. The top court emphasized that exceeding the 50 per cent limit in without exceptional circumstances violates Article 14, and it held that the 2018 act as amended in 2019 exceeds the limit without any exceptional circumstances. The top court held that SEBC Act, which extends reservation to the Maratha community in public education and employment is unconstitutional. (With inputs from agencies)

India's Supreme Court strikes down Maratha quota, no review on 50% cap on reservation

At least 11 Indian high courts have pulled up various state governments and the centre over ongoing COVID-19 crisis. The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current situation.

11 Indian high courts pull up state govts over COVID-19 crisis

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/covid-crisis-like-in-india-could-happen-anywhere-warns-who-381419">Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO</a> 
 
The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
India reports 3,86,452 new <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry 
 
Total cases: 1,87,62,976 
Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 
Death toll: 2,08,330 
Active cases: 31,70,228 
 
Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 <a href="https://t.co/mRsifO2IMP">pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1387979313551527939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 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>

To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-11-indian-courts-pull-up-governments-381518/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added.

(With inputs from agencies)

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data.

India posted a record daily rise in coronavirus cases of 386,452 on Friday, while deaths from COVID-19 jumped by 3,498 over the last 24 hours, according to health ministry data. India has added about 7.7 million cases to its total caseload since the end of February, when its second wave picked up steam, according to a Reuters tally. In contrast, it took India nearly six months to add the previous 7.7 million cases. Also read | Covid crisis like in India could 'happen anywhere', warns WHO The current rapid surge of COVID-19 cases has put immense pressure on the Indian health systems, already overburdened since the start of the pandemic. India reports 3,86,452 new #COVID19 cases, 3498 deaths and 2,97,540 discharges in the last 24 hours, as per Union Health Ministry Total cases: 1,87,62,976 Total recoveries: 1,53,84,418 Death toll: 2,08,330 Active cases: 31,70,228 Total vaccination: 15,22,45,179 pic.twitter.com/mRsifO2IMP — ANI (@ANI) April 30, 2021 × To make available additional hospital beds and critical equipment for India, WHO is procuring mobile field hospitals with a capacity of 20-30 beds, which could be set up in the most affected areas. The bed capacity at these field hospitals can be increased to a maximum of 50, if needed, without impacting infection prevention and control protocols, and water and sanitation, the WHO release had added. (With inputs from agencies)

India records biggest-ever surge of 386,452 COVID-19 cases, 3498 deaths in a day

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications.

Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing.

High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India.

A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts.

"Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat.

Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said.

Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said.

The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media.

"All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said.

The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint.

"It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said.

"Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas.

Supreme Court of India said on Friday that high courts in India should avoid "off-the-cuff" remarks during hearings as they may have serious ramifications. Supreme Court's advice came during hearings on COVID-19 related pleas. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre and the Bihar government respectively said during the hearing that such remarks (from the high courts) gave impression as if authorities were doing nothing. High courts of Madras and Delhi have been critical of Central government and various authorities for the way they have been handling Covid pandemic in India. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing the suo motu case on COVID-19 management in the country, took note of the submissions of the Centre and Bihar government and cautioned restraint to High Courts. "Even when we are criticising a judgement of a High Court, we do not say exactly what is in our heart and we exercise a degree of restraint. We would only expect that as freedom has been given to the High Courts to deal with these issues, certain of-the-cuff remarks, which are not necessary may be avoided," said the bench which also comprised Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat. Government officials, including those who are COVID-19 infected, are working tirelessly to deal with the pandemic situation, the lawyers said. Castigating officers on duty is "very demoralising", Kumar said. The bench said judges also know that this is a new time where, every word said by them become part of social media. "All we can say that we expect a degree of respect and restraint", the bench said. The top court said particularly, in sensitive matters, it tended to exercise some caution and restraint. "It is not because we are fearful of our remarks. Of course, we are independent. It is only because of the serious ramifications which off-the-cuff remarks about private citizens may have," Justice Chandrachud said. "Sometimes judges make some observations to elicit proper response from lawyers, which should not be considered as those remarks against anyone," it said. (With inputs from agencies)

High courts should avoid 'off-the-cuff' remarks, says Supreme Court during Covid hearing

As the common man struggles, Indian courts are holding the political class to account. 11 High courts have pulled up respective state governments. The Supreme Court has said it won't be a 'silent spectator' in this 'calamity'.

Gravitas: 11 Indian Courts pull up governments

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account.

Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre.

The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis.

Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account.

The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states.

Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring.

On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital.

"Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court.

The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary'

On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases.

"Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said.

The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested.

In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission.

"The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court.

On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis.

"Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court.

The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities.

In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region.

"If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said.

'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak.

High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis.

As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre &amp; states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared.

Coronavirus crisis in India calls for introspection. There have been lapses And failures. Though it's true that nobody could have predicted such a big surge, India could have been better prepared. It's also true that mass religious and political events could have been called off. A blame game in the middle of a crisis may not help. But that doesn't mean we don't hold governments to account. Indian courts have now stepped in. They're making sure that those leading us do not become complacent. At least 11 high courts have pulled up various state governments and the Centre. The Supreme Court of India has made it absolutely clear that the judiciary won't be a silent spectator in the current crisis. Indian courts are making sure that the political class is held to account. The high courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Patna, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are hearing petitions about the covid-19 situation in the respective states. Their interventions and criticism of the govts responsible is both sharp and reassuring. On April 27th, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Aam Aadmi Party government. saying its confidence was shaken over the handling of the crisis in the national capital. "Set your house in order. Enough is enough. If you cannot manage it, tell us, then we will ask the central government to send their officers in and do it. We will ask them to take over. We cannot let people die like this,' said the court. The high court has directed the Delhi government to address the alleged mismanagement in the distribution of medical Oxygen and ensure oxygen supply 'by all means necessary' On April 19, The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for its approach in dealing with the rising cases. "Those in power must shun the attitude of my way or no way. They should welcome suggestions from all quarters. We would be laughed at that we have enough money to spend on elections and very little to spend on public health,' the court said. The court also ordered a lockdown in five major cities in the state but the order was stayed by a Supreme Court directive after the UP govt protested. In West Bengal, which held a month-long election in the middle of the second wave, and will count votes on may 2nd, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court has pulled up the Election Commission. "The ECI is empowered to act, but what is it doing? Just passing circulars and leaving it to the people? Issuance of circulars and holding of meetings by themselves do not discharge the onerous responsibility of the ECI," said the court. On April 16, the Gujarat High Court also took the state government for downplaying the severity of the crisis. "Hiding the real picture, suppressing accurate data would generate more serious problems including fear, loss of trust and panic among the public,' said the court. The court has directed the state govt to ensure its affidavits reflect the ground realities. In Maharashtra, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has pulled up both the state and the centre for failing to comply with its order to supply 10,000 units of Remdesivir in the Vidarbha region. "If you don't feel ashamed of yourself, we are feeling ashamed of being part of such a nasty society. You are neglecting and ignoring patients. We give you a solution, you do not follow it. You do not give us a solution. What absolute nonsense is going on here,' the court said. 'Absolute nonsense', were the exact words of Justices SB Shukre and SM Modak. High courts in other states have also been unsparing in their remarks. High courts in Patna, Karnataka, Telangana and Chennai have all pulled up respective governments for their handling of the current crisis. As for the Supreme Court of India, it first directed the Centre to submit a national Covid plan. Now it has pulled up the govt over disparity in vaccine prices, demanding that the rationale behind different prices for Centre & states be explained. The apex court has also said it won't stop high courts from hearing petitions in their respective states adding that the judiciary wants to play a complementary role. And it can't be a silent spectator to what it called a 'national calamity'.

Indian courts pull up governments over Covid crisis

In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad. In a fit of anger, she lashed out on the social networking app Snapchat. She uploaded a picture of her showing the middle finger.

Never did she think that a moment of expression of frustration on the app would land her in the US Supreme Court. Soon after the pic was uploaded on Snapchat, it reached the coaches, who then banned her from the field for over a year.

Now, the US Supreme Court will review this decision of the school. Many critics are seeing the case as imperative to understanding freedom of speech for youngsters in the country, clubbed with the need to curb online harassment.

Nine US Supreme Court justices will now decide whether schools can punish students for making comments outside of the establishment. The message was posted in 2017 in Mahonay City, Pennsylvania.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/sports/watch-fan-shows-middle-finger-to-rafael-nadal-gets-thrown-out-by-security-362950" hreflang="en">WATCH: Fan shows middle finger to Rafael Nadal; gets thrown out by security</a>

"I tried out for the varsity team for cheerleading and I didn't make it, so I was pretty upset," AFP cited Levy as saying to the ACLU, a civil rights association representing her in court.

Reportedly, the girl took a picture of herself and a friend with her middle finger in the air while adding a series of expletives against the school and “everything”.

Soon after the ban, her parents took her to court under the protection for the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. She won.

Later, the school asked the Supreme Court to intervene based on a 1969 ruling allowing students to wear black armbands to show their opposition to the Vietnam War.&nbsp; Even then, the ruling states that speech which disrupts school operations could be punished.

(With inputs from agencies)

In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad.

In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad. In a fit of anger, she lashed out on the social networking app Snapchat. She uploaded a picture of her showing the middle finger. Never did she think that a moment of expression of frustration on the app would land her in the US Supreme Court. Soon after the pic was uploaded on Snapchat, it reached the coaches, who then banned her from the field for over a year. Now, the US Supreme Court will review this decision of the school. Many critics are seeing the case as imperative to understanding freedom of speech for youngsters in the country, clubbed with the need to curb online harassment. Nine US Supreme Court justices will now decide whether schools can punish students for making comments outside of the establishment. The message was posted in 2017 in Mahonay City, Pennsylvania. Also read: WATCH: Fan shows middle finger to Rafael Nadal; gets thrown out by security "I tried out for the varsity team for cheerleading and I didn't make it, so I was pretty upset," AFP cited Levy as saying to the ACLU, a civil rights association representing her in court. Reportedly, the girl took a picture of herself and a friend with her middle finger in the air while adding a series of expletives against the school and “everything”. Soon after the ban, her parents took her to court under the protection for the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. She won. Later, the school asked the Supreme Court to intervene based on a 1969 ruling allowing students to wear black armbands to show their opposition to the Vietnam War. Even then, the ruling states that speech which disrupts school operations could be punished. (With inputs from agencies)

How a teenage cheerleader's middle finger landed her in landmark US Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a CBI probe into the role of Kerala police officers in framing ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO espionage case. 
 
A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar accepted the report of a panel headed by former top court judge D.K. Jain, and asked the CBI to carry out further investigation. The top court said the matter is very serious and it requires a CBI probe. 
 
The bench asked the acting CBI Director to take charge of the case and treat the report by the Justice Jain panel as a preliminary inquiry report to conduct further investigations into the matter. 
 
The bench also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari also asked the CBI to file a status report on its investigations in three months. The top court has ordered that the panel's report should be kept confidential in a sealed cover. 
 
The 79-year-old Narayanan waged a legal battle against the Kerala police officers who accused him of being a Pakistan`s spy in 1994. Besides appointing the panel, the top court had directed the Kerala government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to Narayanan for causing him immense humiliation. 
 
In 2018, a bench of the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided to appoint a committee under Jain and asked the Centre and the Kerala government to name one person each to the committee. While the Centre appointed a top official -- D.K. Prasad, the Pinarayi Vijayan government appointed former Additional Chief Secretary V.S. Senthil. 
 
The ISRO spy case surfaced in 1994 when Narayanan was arrested on charges of espionage along with another senior official of ISRO, two Maldivian women and a businessman. 
 
The CBI had held that the then top police officials in Kerala were responsible for Narayanan`s illegal arrest. The panel examined the circumstances leading to Narayanan`s arrest. It was alleged that confidential documents on India`s space program were allegedly transferred to foreign countries. 
 
Narayanan had maintained that Kerala police fabricated the case and the technology he was accused to have stolen and sold in the 1994 case did not even exist at that time.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a CBI probe into the role of Kerala police officers in framing ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO espionage case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a CBI probe into the role of Kerala police officers in framing ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in the 1994 ISRO espionage case. A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar accepted the report of a panel headed by former top court judge D.K. Jain, and asked the CBI to carry out further investigation. The top court said the matter is very serious and it requires a CBI probe. The bench asked the acting CBI Director to take charge of the case and treat the report by the Justice Jain panel as a preliminary inquiry report to conduct further investigations into the matter. The bench also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari also asked the CBI to file a status report on its investigations in three months. The top court has ordered that the panel's report should be kept confidential in a sealed cover. The 79-year-old Narayanan waged a legal battle against the Kerala police officers who accused him of being a Pakistan`s spy in 1994. Besides appointing the panel, the top court had directed the Kerala government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to Narayanan for causing him immense humiliation. In 2018, a bench of the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided to appoint a committee under Jain and asked the Centre and the Kerala government to name one person each to the committee. While the Centre appointed a top official -- D.K. Prasad, the Pinarayi Vijayan government appointed former Additional Chief Secretary V.S. Senthil. The ISRO spy case surfaced in 1994 when Narayanan was arrested on charges of espionage along with another senior official of ISRO, two Maldivian women and a businessman. The CBI had held that the then top police officials in Kerala were responsible for Narayanan`s illegal arrest. The panel examined the circumstances leading to Narayanan`s arrest. It was alleged that confidential documents on India`s space program were allegedly transferred to foreign countries. Narayanan had maintained that Kerala police fabricated the case and the technology he was accused to have stolen and sold in the 1994 case did not even exist at that time.

ISRO spy case: Supreme Court orders CBI probe into framing of Nambi Narayanan

The Centre on Monday requested the Supreme Court to open the sealed cover report of a panel headed by former top court judge D.K. Jain, formed in September 2018 by the court to probe the role of Kerala police officers in the wrongful arrest of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in a 1994 espionage case.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, requested the top court to take up the report for passing appropriate orders on Tuesday. Mehta submitted that the matter is of national importance.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde said there is no doubt that the matter is important, but there is no urgency in hearing it. The top court, however, agreed to hear the matter next week.

79-year-old Narayanan waged a legal battle against the Kerala police officers who accused him of being a Pakistan spy in 1994. Besides appointing the panel, the top court had directed the Kerala government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation for causing immense humiliation to Narayanan.

In 2018, a bench of the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided to appoint a committee under Jain and asked the Centre and the Kerala government to name one person each to the committee under Jain. While the Centre appointed a top official -- D.K. Prasad, the Pinarayi Vijayan government appointed former Additional Chief Secretary V. S. Senthil.

The ISRO spy case surfaced in 1994 when Narayanan was arrested on charges of espionage along with another senior official of ISRO, two Maldivian women and a businessman.

The CBI had held that the then top police officials in Kerala were responsible for Narayanan`s illegal arrest. The panel examined the circumstances leading to Narayanan`s arrest. It was alleged that confidential documents on India`s space programme were allegedly transferred to foreign countries.

Narayanan had maintained that Kerala police fabricated the case and the technology he was accused to have stolen and sold in the 1994 case did not even exist at that time.

The Centre on Monday requested the Supreme Court to open the sealed cover report of a panel headed by former top court judge D.K. Jain, formed in September 2018 by the court to probe the role of Kerala police officers in the wrongful arrest of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in a 1994 espionage case.

The Centre on Monday requested the Supreme Court to open the sealed cover report of a panel headed by former top court judge D.K. Jain, formed in September 2018 by the court to probe the role of Kerala police officers in the wrongful arrest of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in a 1994 espionage case. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, requested the top court to take up the report for passing appropriate orders on Tuesday. Mehta submitted that the matter is of national importance. A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde said there is no doubt that the matter is important, but there is no urgency in hearing it. The top court, however, agreed to hear the matter next week. 79-year-old Narayanan waged a legal battle against the Kerala police officers who accused him of being a Pakistan spy in 1994. Besides appointing the panel, the top court had directed the Kerala government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation for causing immense humiliation to Narayanan. In 2018, a bench of the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided to appoint a committee under Jain and asked the Centre and the Kerala government to name one person each to the committee under Jain. While the Centre appointed a top official -- D.K. Prasad, the Pinarayi Vijayan government appointed former Additional Chief Secretary V. S. Senthil. The ISRO spy case surfaced in 1994 when Narayanan was arrested on charges of espionage along with another senior official of ISRO, two Maldivian women and a businessman. The CBI had held that the then top police officials in Kerala were responsible for Narayanan`s illegal arrest. The panel examined the circumstances leading to Narayanan`s arrest. It was alleged that confidential documents on India`s space programme were allegedly transferred to foreign countries. Narayanan had maintained that Kerala police fabricated the case and the technology he was accused to have stolen and sold in the 1994 case did not even exist at that time.

ISRO espionage case: Centre seeks urgent hearing, Supreme Court to hear matter next week

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would review an appeals court’s decision that threw out the death sentence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, upheld Tsarnaev’s convictions on 27 counts. But the appeals court ruled that his death sentence should be overturned because the trial judge had not questioned jurors closely enough about their exposure to pretrial publicity and had excluded evidence concerning Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar’s older brother and accomplice.

“A core promise of our criminal justice system is that even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished,” Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote for the panel.

“Just to be crystal clear,” Thompson wrote, “Dzhokhar will remain confined to prison for the rest of his life, with the only question remaining being whether the government will end his life by executing him.”

The bombings, near the finish line of the marathon, killed three people and injured 260, many of them grievously. Seventeen people lost limbs. A law enforcement officer was killed as the brothers fled a few days later. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout with police.

Thompson wrote that the trial judge should not have excluded evidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been involved in a triple murder in 2011, which could have bolstered an argument from defense lawyers that he had dominated and intimidated his younger brother.

Lawyers for the federal government urged the Supreme Court to hear the case even though it did not satisfy some of the usual criteria for review.

“Although the court of appeals’ errors are largely case-specific, the context of this case makes them exceptionally significant,” the government’s brief said.

“To reinstate the sentences that the jury and the district court found appropriate for respondent’s heinous acts, the government will have to retry the penalty phase of the case; the court will have to conduct (and prospective jurors will have to undergo)” questioning “that will presumably be much longer and more onerous than the original 21-day proceeding; and the victims will have to once again take the stand to describe the horrors that respondent inflicted on them.”

Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School, said the Biden administration should consider whether it wants to pursue the appeal, noting that the Trump administration had sought Supreme Court review.

“Given that Mr. Tsarnaev will never leave prison,” she said in a statement, “the government should consider whether continuing to pursue a death sentence for him is unnecessarily traumatizing for the victims’ families and the city of Boston.”

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would review an appeals court’s decision that threw out the death sentence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it would review an appeals court’s decision that threw out the death sentence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Last year, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, upheld Tsarnaev’s convictions on 27 counts. But the appeals court ruled that his death sentence should be overturned because the trial judge had not questioned jurors closely enough about their exposure to pretrial publicity and had excluded evidence concerning Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar’s older brother and accomplice. “A core promise of our criminal justice system is that even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished,” Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote for the panel. “Just to be crystal clear,” Thompson wrote, “Dzhokhar will remain confined to prison for the rest of his life, with the only question remaining being whether the government will end his life by executing him.” The bombings, near the finish line of the marathon, killed three people and injured 260, many of them grievously. Seventeen people lost limbs. A law enforcement officer was killed as the brothers fled a few days later. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout with police. Thompson wrote that the trial judge should not have excluded evidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been involved in a triple murder in 2011, which could have bolstered an argument from defense lawyers that he had dominated and intimidated his younger brother. Lawyers for the federal government urged the Supreme Court to hear the case even though it did not satisfy some of the usual criteria for review. “Although the court of appeals’ errors are largely case-specific, the context of this case makes them exceptionally significant,” the government’s brief said. “To reinstate the sentences that the jury and the district court found appropriate for respondent’s heinous acts, the government will have to retry the penalty phase of the case; the court will have to conduct (and prospective jurors will have to undergo)” questioning “that will presumably be much longer and more onerous than the original 21-day proceeding; and the victims will have to once again take the stand to describe the horrors that respondent inflicted on them.” Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School, said the Biden administration should consider whether it wants to pursue the appeal, noting that the Trump administration had sought Supreme Court review. “Given that Mr. Tsarnaev will never leave prison,” she said in a statement, “the government should consider whether continuing to pursue a death sentence for him is unnecessarily traumatizing for the victims’ families and the city of Boston.”

Supreme Court to consider death sentence in Boston Marathon bombing case

In a surprise and unexpected decision, Nepal's Supreme Court on Sunday annulled the unification of the ruling Nepal Communist Party's factions and paved the way for them to be divided into two separate parties.

Nepal: New twist as Supreme Court annuls ruling party

In a surprise and unexpected decision, Nepal's Supreme Court on Sunday annulled the unification of the ruling Nepal Communist Party's factions and paved the way for them to be divided into two separate parties.&nbsp;

Passing a verdict on legitimacy of Nepal Communist Party challenged by veteran Communist leader Rishiram Kattel in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the original Nepal Communist Party or NCP is headed by Kattel and not Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli or the faction led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal or 'Prachanda'. The Supreme Court decided to award the Nepal Communist Party leadership to Kattel.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court's decision has pushed Nepal’s ruling party into a state of confusion and disarray.&nbsp;

Quashing the Election Commission’s decision to award the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) leadership to Oli and Dahal, the top court has said the then CPN-UML and then CPN (Maoist Centre) would return to the pre-merger stage and if they were to merge, they should apply to the Election Commission as per the Political Parties Act. Oli's CPN-UML and Dahal's CPN (Maoist Centre) had announced their merger in May 2018.&nbsp;

"The Supreme Court's ruling came beyond our expectations," Prachanda said, adding that "we cannot comment on it without going through the detailed text of the verdict." The Prachanda-led faction also held an emergency meeting after the verdict.&nbsp;

But the Oli faction is happy with the verdict. Oli's CPN-UML was the largest party in 2017 election. Later it merged with Prachanda-led CPN (Maoist Centre) and formed the Nepal Communist Party in 2018 and became the largest party in the Parliament with almost two-third seats.&nbsp;

"We respect the verdict, we believe in the independence of the judiciary," party secretary general and Finance Minister, Bishnu Poudel said.&nbsp;

Both Oli and Prachanda factions are functioning as two parties though they have not technically split after Prime Minister Oli dissolved the House on December 20 and declared snap polls. Oli's decision has created a furor and opposition inside the ruling party.&nbsp;

The Prachanda-led faction has already claimed legitimacy with the Elections Commission saying it has a majority of the central committee members. But the Election Commission could not take a decision on the party split because Oli is also claiming the same.&nbsp;

Kattel had challenged the Election Commission's decision to register Nepal Communist Party (NCP) under Oli and Dahal in May 2018.&nbsp;

The bench has said that the new party cannot be registered with the Election Commission when it already has a party registered with a similar name.&nbsp;

The decision came just hours before the scheduled meeting of the House of Representatives where the two factions of the Nepal Communist Party are battling to show their majority.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

In a surprise and unexpected decision, Nepal's Supreme Court on Sunday annulled the unification of the ruling Nepal Communist Party's factions and paved the way for them to be divided into two separate parties. Passing a verdict on legitimacy of Nepal Communist Party challenged by veteran Communist leader Rishiram Kattel in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the original Nepal Communist Party or NCP is headed by Kattel and not Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli or the faction led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal or 'Prachanda'. The Supreme Court decided to award the Nepal Communist Party leadership to Kattel. The Supreme Court's decision has pushed Nepal’s ruling party into a state of confusion and disarray. Quashing the Election Commission’s decision to award the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) leadership to Oli and Dahal, the top court has said the then CPN-UML and then CPN (Maoist Centre) would return to the pre-merger stage and if they were to merge, they should apply to the Election Commission as per the Political Parties Act. Oli's CPN-UML and Dahal's CPN (Maoist Centre) had announced their merger in May 2018. "The Supreme Court's ruling came beyond our expectations," Prachanda said, adding that "we cannot comment on it without going through the detailed text of the verdict." The Prachanda-led faction also held an emergency meeting after the verdict. But the Oli faction is happy with the verdict. Oli's CPN-UML was the largest party in 2017 election. Later it merged with Prachanda-led CPN (Maoist Centre) and formed the Nepal Communist Party in 2018 and became the largest party in the Parliament with almost two-third seats. "We respect the verdict, we believe in the independence of the judiciary," party secretary general and Finance Minister, Bishnu Poudel said. Both Oli and Prachanda factions are functioning as two parties though they have not technically split after Prime Minister Oli dissolved the House on December 20 and declared snap polls. Oli's decision has created a furor and opposition inside the ruling party. The Prachanda-led faction has already claimed legitimacy with the Elections Commission saying it has a majority of the central committee members. But the Election Commission could not take a decision on the party split because Oli is also claiming the same. Kattel had challenged the Election Commission's decision to register Nepal Communist Party (NCP) under Oli and Dahal in May 2018. The bench has said that the new party cannot be registered with the Election Commission when it already has a party registered with a similar name. The decision came just hours before the scheduled meeting of the House of Representatives where the two factions of the Nepal Communist Party are battling to show their majority. (With inputs from agencies)

Nepal’s Supreme Court annuls unification of NCP factions

Yesterday Nepal's Supreme Court has decided to reject Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's decision to dissolve the Parliament. PM KP Sharma Oli called the Supreme Court's verdict 'controversial'.

WION Dispatch: Nepal's SC decides to reject PM Oli's decision; Oli calls the verdict controversial

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina made a beeline to Harris’ office in the West Wing to privately raise a topic that did not come up during their group discussion: the Supreme Court.

Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, wanted to offer Harris the name of a potential future justice, according to a Democrat briefed on their conversation. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs would fulfill Biden’s pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — and, Clyburn noted, she also happened to hail from South Carolina, a state with political meaning for the president.

There may not be a vacancy on the high court at the moment, but Clyburn and other lawmakers are already maneuvering to champion candidates and a new approach for a nomination that might come as soon as this summer, when some Democrats hope Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 82, will retire. With Democrats holding the narrowest of Senate majorities, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death still painfully fresh in their minds, these party leaders want to shape Biden’s appointment, including moving the party away from the usual Ivy League résumés.

The early jockeying illustrates how eager Democratic officials are to leave their mark on Biden’s effort to elevate historically underrepresented contenders for a landmark Supreme Court nomination. But it also casts a spotlight on discomfiting issues of class and credentialism in the Democratic Party that have been just below the surface since the days of the Obama administration.

Some Democrats such as Clyburn, who have nervously watched Republicans try to repackage themselves as a working-class party, believe that Biden could send a message about his determination to keep Democrats true to their blue-collar roots by choosing a candidate like Childs, who attended public universities.

“One of the things we have to be very, very careful of as Democrats is being painted with that elitist brush,” said Clyburn, adding: “When people talk to diversity they are always looking at race and ethnicity — I look beyond that to diversity of experience.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, like Clyburn a veteran member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made a similar point in an email to the White House counsel, Dana Remus, last month listing the caucus’s preferred criteria for federal court appointments. Near the top of the list, Butterfield said, was: “The judge should have a diversity of experience in multiple settings and in multiple areas including experiences outside of the law.”

Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the court was an unusual kind of campaign promise: Clyburn nudged him to do it at a debate in Charleston before South Carolina’s pivotal primary last year. It was a vow that even some of the president’s aides resisted, worried that it might look like pandering.

Biden has said little in public since being elected about his preferences for the court, but as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has something of a split personality when it comes to the politics of personnel. While happy to highlight his Scranton, Pennsylvania, roots, state school diploma and “Middle-Class Joe” moniker, he has long surrounded himself with aides and advisers who brandish the sort of pedigree he lacks.

And some White House officials are already bracing for what they believe will be unfair attacks from the right on whichever Black woman they pick, convinced that the eventual nominee must have an impeccable résumé.

“It’s going to have to be someone who has unquestioned credentials so it doesn’t look like it’s an unqualified person,” said one senior Biden official, who spoke about possible court nominees on condition of anonymity to share thinking from inside the West Wing.

Among the potential candidates being pitched for a Supreme Court seat, Childs has a background that differs from most recent nominees. Unlike eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices, Childs, 54, did not attend an Ivy League university. Her mother worked for Southern Bell in Columbia, South Carolina, and Childs won a scholarship to the University of South Florida. She later graduated from the University of South Carolina’s law school and became the first Black woman to make partner at one of the state’s major law firms.

In the fashion of an earlier generation of jurists, she rose in state politics before being appointed to the bench. Childs served as a top official at South Carolina’s labor department before being appointed to the state’s workers’ compensation board.

“She is the kind of person who has the sort of experiences that would make her a good addition to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn, whose coveted endorsement helped revive Biden’s listing campaign before the South Carolina primary last year, has been particularly active on her behalf as part of what his advisers say is his most significant request of the administration. The 80-year-old House whip has made the case for Childs with Harris; Remus; and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Judiciary Committee chair.

Bakari Sellers, a Democratic political commentator who is close to Harris, has also pitched members of the vice president’s inner circle on Childs, who was appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2010.

“Not just for our party but for the judiciary it’s important to have somebody who has lived experiences,” Sellers said.

What’s prompting some of these officials to go public with a more aggressive form of advocacy are two developments.

First, they saw the makings of a shortlist in a Ruth Marcus column in The Washington Post earlier this month naming a pair of potential Breyer successors, who like Childs are young enough to serve on the court for a few decades. The two cited — U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington, D.C., and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — both have Ivy League law degrees and important connections. Jackson, 50, was a clerk for Breyer himself and Kruger, 44, served as Obama’s deputy solicitor general

There are a handful of other Black women in their 40s with elite credentials who have caught the eye of lawmakers, including some on the Judiciary Committee. There is Danielle Holley-Walker, dean of Howard University’s law school, and Leslie Abrams Gardner, a U.S. District Court judge in Georgia who is a younger sister of Stacey Abrams.

More significant is the matter of timing.

There are relatively few Black women on the federal appeals courts, where presidents often draw their nominees to the Supreme Court. Very soon, however, there will be another vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which can be a springboard to the high court — when Judge Merrick B. Garland resigns to become attorney general. Childs may be better positioned to ascend to the Supreme Court if she were to serve on that appeals court, some of her admirers say.

“There is an immediate vacancy there so I would advocate for her consideration to the D.C. circuit,” Butterfield, himself a former state Supreme Court judge, said of Childs. “And when and if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy she ought to be considered for that, as well.”

Another possible contender seen for a court seat is Cheri Beasley, who lost reelection as chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court by 412 votes in November. She also went to a public university and climbed through the judiciary via service on lower state courts. Yet Beasley has told people that she is considering a bid for North Carolina’s open Senate seat next year, according to one Democrat who has spoken to her.

When a court vacancy does occur, several Democrats say, they are bracing for Obama-era tensions, which were papered over by former President Donald Trump, to emerge.

Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a number of white Democrats, say they believe the party is too closely linked to elites, and that perception only hands political fodder to Republicans during campaign season.

“This isn’t being critical of the Harvards or the Yales, but I think there’s some great attorneys out there that are really, really smart that come from other places on this Earth,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, where Democrats lost all three marquee races last year. “And I think we ought to consider them.”

Vi Lyles, mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, said, “having the broadest perspective of what’s gone on in the country makes you a better decision-maker and leader.”

Even more delicate are lingering frustrations among Black leaders, many of whom went to state schools or historically Black institutions, about Obama’s arms-length treatment of the Congressional Black Caucus and his administration’s seeming preference for appointees with elite credentials.

“He was predisposed to Ivy League nominees, I think we can all agree on that,” said Butterfield.

Sellers was even blunter. “I love Barack Obama, but there was an Ivy League culture that emanated from the White House, and we got to move away from that,” he said.

The frustration with Obama culminated with his selection of Garland for the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016. Some congressional Democrats believed the former president could have put pressure on Republicans, and energized Democrats, had he chosen a Black woman and were infuriated when he said he did not seek out “a Black lesbian from Skokie.”

What Clyburn will only say obliquely is that Biden does not just owe Black voters for his nomination, he’s indebted to African Americans who resurrected his candidacy in South Carolina and those across the South who all but cemented his nomination three days later as he swept the region on Super Tuesday.

Some African American Democrats believe that Black Americans will rally behind whichever Black woman Biden nominates and suspect Clyburn is looking for a rationale to elevate his home state and burnish his legacy.

Yet few politicians preach more than Biden about the importance of “dancing with the one that brung you,” as the president often puts it. And so far, Clyburn has been able to install two of his closest allies in the administration, with former Rep. Marcia Fudge being named housing secretary and Jaime Harrison tapped to lead the Democratic National Committee.

Asked if he could support Childs to the high court, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican and the first Southern Black senator elected since Reconstruction, said he was not ready to commit. But he praised her for having “a very good reputation” and said her appointment “would reflect the positive and powerful progress we’ve made in the great state of South Carolina.”

Scott was more direct, though, when asked if Biden owed it to South Carolina’s Black voters given the role they played in his path to the presidency.

“Jim Clyburn would say so,” he said with a smile.

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep.

WASHINGTON — After meeting in the Oval Office earlier this month with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and his fellow senior House Democrats, Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina made a beeline to Harris’ office in the West Wing to privately raise a topic that did not come up during their group discussion: the Supreme Court. Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, wanted to offer Harris the name of a potential future justice, according to a Democrat briefed on their conversation. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs would fulfill Biden’s pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court — and, Clyburn noted, she also happened to hail from South Carolina, a state with political meaning for the president. There may not be a vacancy on the high court at the moment, but Clyburn and other lawmakers are already maneuvering to champion candidates and a new approach for a nomination that might come as soon as this summer, when some Democrats hope Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 82, will retire. With Democrats holding the narrowest of Senate majorities, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death still painfully fresh in their minds, these party leaders want to shape Biden’s appointment, including moving the party away from the usual Ivy League résumés. The early jockeying illustrates how eager Democratic officials are to leave their mark on Biden’s effort to elevate historically underrepresented contenders for a landmark Supreme Court nomination. But it also casts a spotlight on discomfiting issues of class and credentialism in the Democratic Party that have been just below the surface since the days of the Obama administration. Some Democrats such as Clyburn, who have nervously watched Republicans try to repackage themselves as a working-class party, believe that Biden could send a message about his determination to keep Democrats true to their blue-collar roots by choosing a candidate like Childs, who attended public universities. “One of the things we have to be very, very careful of as Democrats is being painted with that elitist brush,” said Clyburn, adding: “When people talk to diversity they are always looking at race and ethnicity — I look beyond that to diversity of experience.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, like Clyburn a veteran member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made a similar point in an email to the White House counsel, Dana Remus, last month listing the caucus’s preferred criteria for federal court appointments. Near the top of the list, Butterfield said, was: “The judge should have a diversity of experience in multiple settings and in multiple areas including experiences outside of the law.” Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the court was an unusual kind of campaign promise: Clyburn nudged him to do it at a debate in Charleston before South Carolina’s pivotal primary last year. It was a vow that even some of the president’s aides resisted, worried that it might look like pandering. Biden has said little in public since being elected about his preferences for the court, but as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has something of a split personality when it comes to the politics of personnel. While happy to highlight his Scranton, Pennsylvania, roots, state school diploma and “Middle-Class Joe” moniker, he has long surrounded himself with aides and advisers who brandish the sort of pedigree he lacks. And some White House officials are already bracing for what they believe will be unfair attacks from the right on whichever Black woman they pick, convinced that the eventual nominee must have an impeccable résumé. “It’s going to have to be someone who has unquestioned credentials so it doesn’t look like it’s an unqualified person,” said one senior Biden official, who spoke about possible court nominees on condition of anonymity to share thinking from inside the West Wing. Among the potential candidates being pitched for a Supreme Court seat, Childs has a background that differs from most recent nominees. Unlike eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices, Childs, 54, did not attend an Ivy League university. Her mother worked for Southern Bell in Columbia, South Carolina, and Childs won a scholarship to the University of South Florida. She later graduated from the University of South Carolina’s law school and became the first Black woman to make partner at one of the state’s major law firms. In the fashion of an earlier generation of jurists, she rose in state politics before being appointed to the bench. Childs served as a top official at South Carolina’s labor department before being appointed to the state’s workers’ compensation board. “She is the kind of person who has the sort of experiences that would make her a good addition to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn said. Clyburn, whose coveted endorsement helped revive Biden’s listing campaign before the South Carolina primary last year, has been particularly active on her behalf as part of what his advisers say is his most significant request of the administration. The 80-year-old House whip has made the case for Childs with Harris; Remus; and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Judiciary Committee chair. Bakari Sellers, a Democratic political commentator who is close to Harris, has also pitched members of the vice president’s inner circle on Childs, who was appointed to the federal bench by Obama in 2010. “Not just for our party but for the judiciary it’s important to have somebody who has lived experiences,” Sellers said. What’s prompting some of these officials to go public with a more aggressive form of advocacy are two developments. First, they saw the makings of a shortlist in a Ruth Marcus column in The Washington Post earlier this month naming a pair of potential Breyer successors, who like Childs are young enough to serve on the court for a few decades. The two cited — U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington, D.C., and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger — both have Ivy League law degrees and important connections. Jackson, 50, was a clerk for Breyer himself and Kruger, 44, served as Obama’s deputy solicitor general There are a handful of other Black women in their 40s with elite credentials who have caught the eye of lawmakers, including some on the Judiciary Committee. There is Danielle Holley-Walker, dean of Howard University’s law school, and Leslie Abrams Gardner, a U.S. District Court judge in Georgia who is a younger sister of Stacey Abrams. More significant is the matter of timing. There are relatively few Black women on the federal appeals courts, where presidents often draw their nominees to the Supreme Court. Very soon, however, there will be another vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — which can be a springboard to the high court — when Judge Merrick B. Garland resigns to become attorney general. Childs may be better positioned to ascend to the Supreme Court if she were to serve on that appeals court, some of her admirers say. “There is an immediate vacancy there so I would advocate for her consideration to the D.C. circuit,” Butterfield, himself a former state Supreme Court judge, said of Childs. “And when and if there’s a Supreme Court vacancy she ought to be considered for that, as well.” Another possible contender seen for a court seat is Cheri Beasley, who lost reelection as chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court by 412 votes in November. She also went to a public university and climbed through the judiciary via service on lower state courts. Yet Beasley has told people that she is considering a bid for North Carolina’s open Senate seat next year, according to one Democrat who has spoken to her. When a court vacancy does occur, several Democrats say, they are bracing for Obama-era tensions, which were papered over by former President Donald Trump, to emerge. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as a number of white Democrats, say they believe the party is too closely linked to elites, and that perception only hands political fodder to Republicans during campaign season. “This isn’t being critical of the Harvards or the Yales, but I think there’s some great attorneys out there that are really, really smart that come from other places on this Earth,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, where Democrats lost all three marquee races last year. “And I think we ought to consider them.” Vi Lyles, mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, said, “having the broadest perspective of what’s gone on in the country makes you a better decision-maker and leader.” Even more delicate are lingering frustrations among Black leaders, many of whom went to state schools or historically Black institutions, about Obama’s arms-length treatment of the Congressional Black Caucus and his administration’s seeming preference for appointees with elite credentials. “He was predisposed to Ivy League nominees, I think we can all agree on that,” said Butterfield. Sellers was even blunter. “I love Barack Obama, but there was an Ivy League culture that emanated from the White House, and we got to move away from that,” he said. The frustration with Obama culminated with his selection of Garland for the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016. Some congressional Democrats believed the former president could have put pressure on Republicans, and energized Democrats, had he chosen a Black woman and were infuriated when he said he did not seek out “a Black lesbian from Skokie.” What Clyburn will only say obliquely is that Biden does not just owe Black voters for his nomination, he’s indebted to African Americans who resurrected his candidacy in South Carolina and those across the South who all but cemented his nomination three days later as he swept the region on Super Tuesday. Some African American Democrats believe that Black Americans will rally behind whichever Black woman Biden nominates and suspect Clyburn is looking for a rationale to elevate his home state and burnish his legacy. Yet few politicians preach more than Biden about the importance of “dancing with the one that brung you,” as the president often puts it. And so far, Clyburn has been able to install two of his closest allies in the administration, with former Rep. Marcia Fudge being named housing secretary and Jaime Harrison tapped to lead the Democratic National Committee. Asked if he could support Childs to the high court, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Republican and the first Southern Black senator elected since Reconstruction, said he was not ready to commit. But he praised her for having “a very good reputation” and said her appointment “would reflect the positive and powerful progress we’ve made in the great state of South Carolina.” Scott was more direct, though, when asked if Biden owed it to South Carolina’s Black voters given the role they played in his path to the presidency. “Jim Clyburn would say so,” he said with a smile.

How Democrats are already maneuvering to shape Biden’s first Supreme Court pick

The US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Joe Biden's</a> attorney general nominee has pledged to remove the impact <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Trump's</a> administration has left on the department.

In a testimony prepared for his confirmation hearing, due on Monday and Tuesday, Merrick Garland assured he will be working towards depoliticising the department and aims to remove the stain of the previous administration's interference.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-reassures-americans-covid-vaccines-are-safe-365067" hreflang="en">Biden reassures Americans Covid vaccines are safe</a>

Upon confirmation of his post, he would reaffirm "policies that protect the independence of the department from partisan influence in law enforcement investigations (and) that strictly regulate communications with the White House."

He has also assured that he will draft clear guidelines for FBI investigations. This has been taken into considerations by Garland after the agency faced several allegations in the last few years accusing the organisation of diverging into politics during the investigation of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-to-appear-for-first-post-white-house-speech-in-cpac-365129" hreflang="en">Donald Trump to appear for first post-White House speech in CPAC</a>

Following the uprise of the Black Lives Matter movement, Garland is also aiming to bring racial equality and justice for people of colour and minority groups. He stressed that this issue will be dealt with as an "urgent" task as it has been pending even after 150 years of establishment of the Justice Department.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Department's Civil Rights Division, with the mission 'to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society," Garland said. "That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice."

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-his-first-major-global-appearance-biden-draws-sharp-contrast-with-trumps-policies-364920" hreflang="en">At his first major global appearance, Biden draws sharp contrast with Trump's policies</a>

Talking about the recent letdown of the country in form of US Capitol riots that took place on January 06 by Trump supporters, Garland vowed to prosecute the Capitol attackers — as of now nearly 230 people have been charged for the riots.

"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 — a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government," he said.

The 68-year-old leader is known for his work in the Justice Department, where he worked 24 years ago, and then started serving as a judge.

Garland was earlier nominated by former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a> to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. However, the conservatives worked out a plan to fill the vacancy with a Trump nominee to shift the majority of the Supreme Court towards the right-wing.

The US President Joe Biden's attorney general nominee has pledged to remove the impact Trump's administration has left on the department. In a testimony prepared for his confirmation hearing, due on Monday and Tuesday, Merrick Garland assured he will be working towards depoliticising the department and aims to remove the stain of the previous administration's interference.

The US President Joe Biden's attorney general nominee has pledged to remove the impact Trump's administration has left on the department. In a testimony prepared for his confirmation hearing, due on Monday and Tuesday, Merrick Garland assured he will be working towards depoliticising the department and aims to remove the stain of the previous administration's interference. Also read| Biden reassures Americans Covid vaccines are safe Upon confirmation of his post, he would reaffirm "policies that protect the independence of the department from partisan influence in law enforcement investigations (and) that strictly regulate communications with the White House." He has also assured that he will draft clear guidelines for FBI investigations. This has been taken into considerations by Garland after the agency faced several allegations in the last few years accusing the organisation of diverging into politics during the investigation of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Also read| Donald Trump to appear for first post-White House speech in CPAC Following the uprise of the Black Lives Matter movement, Garland is also aiming to bring racial equality and justice for people of colour and minority groups. He stressed that this issue will be dealt with as an "urgent" task as it has been pending even after 150 years of establishment of the Justice Department. "The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Department's Civil Rights Division, with the mission 'to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society," Garland said. "That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice." Also read| At his first major global appearance, Biden draws sharp contrast with Trump's policies Talking about the recent letdown of the country in form of US Capitol riots that took place on January 06 by Trump supporters, Garland vowed to prosecute the Capitol attackers — as of now nearly 230 people have been charged for the riots. "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 — a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government," he said. The 68-year-old leader is known for his work in the Justice Department, where he worked 24 years ago, and then started serving as a judge. Garland was earlier nominated by former US President Barack Obama to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. However, the conservatives worked out a plan to fill the vacancy with a Trump nominee to shift the majority of the Supreme Court towards the right-wing.

Biden's attorney general pick plans to remove Trump's tainted hangover from department

Reiterating its commitment to the privacy of users, WhatsApp announced an update in its terms of services and privacy policy related to businesses and customers on the instant messaging platform.&nbsp;

"Our commitment to your privacy isn't changing. Your personal conversations are still protected by end-to-end encryption, which means no one outside of your chats, not even WhatsApp or Facebook, can read or listen to them," said WhatsApp in a statement.&nbsp;

The new features of the platform include customers, who can message businesses to ask questions, make purchases, and get information and simplification of the layout of the Privacy Policy, making it easier for users to navigate.&nbsp;

WhatsApp further added that neither it nor Facebook can see the content shared by a user with family and friends, including personal messages and calls, shared attachments or locations.&nbsp;

WATCH|

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-facebook-brings-back-controversial-whatsapp-privacy-policy-364924/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Instead, your messages are stored on your device and not typically stored on our servers. Once your messages are delivered, they are deleted from our servers," said the messaging platform in its new privacy policy."&nbsp;

Safety, security and integrity are an integral part of our Services. We use information we have to verify accounts and activity; combat harmful conduct; protect users against bad experiences and spam; and promote safety, security and integrity on and off our Services, such as by investigating suspicious activity or violations of our Terms and policies, and to ensure our Services are being used legally," it added.&nbsp;

Additional privacy features, such as setting messages to disappear and controlling who can add a user to groups, give you an added layer of privacy, mentioned WhatsApp.&nbsp;

This roll-out is announced days after the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Facebook and WhatsApp and sought their response on a plea challenging WhatsApp's latest privacy policy, which was introduced in January this year in India.&nbsp;

Reiterating its commitment to the privacy of users, WhatsApp announced an update in its terms of services and privacy policy related to businesses and customers on the instant messaging platform.

Reiterating its commitment to the privacy of users, WhatsApp announced an update in its terms of services and privacy policy related to businesses and customers on the instant messaging platform. "Our commitment to your privacy isn't changing. Your personal conversations are still protected by end-to-end encryption, which means no one outside of your chats, not even WhatsApp or Facebook, can read or listen to them," said WhatsApp in a statement. The new features of the platform include customers, who can message businesses to ask questions, make purchases, and get information and simplification of the layout of the Privacy Policy, making it easier for users to navigate. WhatsApp further added that neither it nor Facebook can see the content shared by a user with family and friends, including personal messages and calls, shared attachments or locations. WATCH| "We do not retain your messages in the ordinary course of providing our Services to you. Instead, your messages are stored on your device and not typically stored on our servers. Once your messages are delivered, they are deleted from our servers," said the messaging platform in its new privacy policy." Safety, security and integrity are an integral part of our Services. We use information we have to verify accounts and activity; combat harmful conduct; protect users against bad experiences and spam; and promote safety, security and integrity on and off our Services, such as by investigating suspicious activity or violations of our Terms and policies, and to ensure our Services are being used legally," it added. Additional privacy features, such as setting messages to disappear and controlling who can add a user to groups, give you an added layer of privacy, mentioned WhatsApp. This roll-out is announced days after the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Facebook and WhatsApp and sought their response on a plea challenging WhatsApp's latest privacy policy, which was introduced in January this year in India.

WhatsApp announces updated policy, reiterates 'committed to privacy'

India's Supreme Court told representatives of Facebook today: "You may be a $2-3 trillion-dollar company. But people value their privacy". Whatsapp's new policies are now being examined by India's Top Court. WION's Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas | WhatsApp Privacy Row: India's Supreme Court sends a message to Facebook

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

supreme court