Rana, 59, a childhood friend of David Coleman Headley, was rearrested on June 10 in Los Angeles on an extradition request by India for his involvement in the Mumbai terror attack in which 166 people, including six Americans, were killed.

Your Story: U.S. Court rejects bail plea of 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana

The changes applying to the H1B visa program announced in October include imposing salary requirements on companies employing skilled overseas workers and limits on specialty occupations.

U.S. court throws out H-1B visa program changes

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt by US President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania.

The state&nbsp;certified Biden as its winner this week. Under the law, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the state's 20 electoral votes.

Trump, a Republican, has refused to concede to his Democratic rival and continues to claim, without evidence, widespread voter fraud.

The Trump campaign and its supporters have tried and failed to convince judges of election irregularities in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, all critical to Biden's victory.

"Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections," said the appeals court opinion to this end.

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel.

"Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump.

Soon after Friday's ruling, Trump posted a video from Newsmax on Twitter about alleged voter fraud in Nevada.

The Trump campaign filed the Pennsylvania case earlier this month, saying that county election officials had treated mail-in ballots inconsistently and asking US District Judge Matthew Brann to halt certification of the results.

Brann dismissed the case on November 21, saying the case was based on "strained legal arguments" and "speculative accusations."

The Trump campaign said it appealed on the “narrow” question of whether Brann improperly refused to let it amend the lawsuit a second time.

The appeals court said many of the claims by Trump campaign are matters of Pennsylvania law but noted the campaign already lost on those issues in state court.

The other judges on the panel, Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares, were nominated by George W Bush, a Republican.

Meanwhile, Trump said on Thursday he would leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Biden when it meets on Dec. 14, the closest he has come to conceding the election.

On Monday, Trump's administration cleared the way Biden to transition to the White House, giving him access to briefings and funding even as Trump vowed to continue fighting the election results.

Biden won the election 306-232 in electoral votes, including Pennsylvania's 20. Even if Trump overturned the outcome in Pennsylvania, he would still need to reverse the result in at least two other states to remain as president.

States as states have until December 8 to resolve election disputes. 
&nbsp;

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt by US President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania.

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt by US President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. The state certified Biden as its winner this week. Under the law, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of the state's 20 electoral votes. Trump, a Republican, has refused to concede to his Democratic rival and continues to claim, without evidence, widespread voter fraud. The Trump campaign and its supporters have tried and failed to convince judges of election irregularities in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, all critical to Biden's victory. "Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections," said the appeals court opinion to this end. "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so," wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel. "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump. Soon after Friday's ruling, Trump posted a video from Newsmax on Twitter about alleged voter fraud in Nevada. The Trump campaign filed the Pennsylvania case earlier this month, saying that county election officials had treated mail-in ballots inconsistently and asking US District Judge Matthew Brann to halt certification of the results. Brann dismissed the case on November 21, saying the case was based on "strained legal arguments" and "speculative accusations." The Trump campaign said it appealed on the “narrow” question of whether Brann improperly refused to let it amend the lawsuit a second time. The appeals court said many of the claims by Trump campaign are matters of Pennsylvania law but noted the campaign already lost on those issues in state court. The other judges on the panel, Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares, were nominated by George W Bush, a Republican. Meanwhile, Trump said on Thursday he would leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Biden when it meets on Dec. 14, the closest he has come to conceding the election. On Monday, Trump's administration cleared the way Biden to transition to the White House, giving him access to briefings and funding even as Trump vowed to continue fighting the election results. Biden won the election 306-232 in electoral votes, including Pennsylvania's 20. Even if Trump overturned the outcome in Pennsylvania, he would still need to reverse the result in at least two other states to remain as president. States as states have until December 8 to resolve election disputes.

US court denies Trump's Pennsylvania election challenge

The US government will not enforce its ban on Chinese-owned social media sensation TikTok to comply with a federal court ruling issued in the national security case.

The move comes after a federal court in Pennsylvania blocked the Trump administration from carrying out the ban, which had been ordered by the White House based on claims the app posed a security threat due to the company's links to Beijing.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the US Commerce Department had decided to hold off on&nbsp;enforcing a Trump administration order to ban the video-sharing app owned by Chinese-based ByteDance.

According to the report, the Commerce Department said the shutdown order won’t go into effect "pending further legal developments." Other court cases are also pending on the matter.

ByteDance had been given until Thursday to restructure ownership of the app in the United States to meet national security concerns, but it filed a petition in a Washington court this week asking for a delay.

The company said in a statement Tuesday that it had asked the government for a 30-day extension because of "continual new requests and no clarity on whether our proposed solutions would be accepted," but it was not granted.

The Trump administration has been seeking to transfer ownership of TikTok to an American business to allay security concerns, but no deal has been finalised.

The US government will not enforce its ban on Chinese-owned social media sensation TikTok to comply with a federal court ruling issued in the national security case.

The US government will not enforce its ban on Chinese-owned social media sensation TikTok to comply with a federal court ruling issued in the national security case. The move comes after a federal court in Pennsylvania blocked the Trump administration from carrying out the ban, which had been ordered by the White House based on claims the app posed a security threat due to the company's links to Beijing. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the US Commerce Department had decided to hold off on enforcing a Trump administration order to ban the video-sharing app owned by Chinese-based ByteDance. According to the report, the Commerce Department said the shutdown order won’t go into effect "pending further legal developments." Other court cases are also pending on the matter. ByteDance had been given until Thursday to restructure ownership of the app in the United States to meet national security concerns, but it filed a petition in a Washington court this week asking for a delay. The company said in a statement Tuesday that it had asked the government for a 30-day extension because of "continual new requests and no clarity on whether our proposed solutions would be accepted," but it was not granted. The Trump administration has been seeking to transfer ownership of TikTok to an American business to allay security concerns, but no deal has been finalised.

US decides against enforcing TikTok ban following court ruling

Twitter is known to protect the privacy of its users, no matter what. However, in a rare case, the social media giant has been asked by a US court to reveal details about an anonymous account.

The order has been issued by the&nbsp;US District Court Judge Donna Ryu in relation to an ongoing murder conspiracy case.

An anonymous user with the Twitter handle "@whysprtech" has been alleged of fueling a discredited theory about the death of a Democratic party worker in 2016. It has been alleged that the Twitter account was used to spread forged FBI documents and resources about Seth Rich.

As per the local police, Rich was murdered in a robbery attempt. Twitter had been trying to stay away from reaching to the point of having to reveal details as the company prides in protecting the privacy and exercising free speech.

However, the US judge has given a deadline of October 20 to provide all information related to the handle&nbsp;@whysprtech. As per Judeg Ryu, all protection has limits.

The request to reveal the details and identity is bing sought by Rich's brother Aaron.&nbsp;The Twitter account may be the source of the bogus FBI report that fueled the conspiracy theory, and its user could be a valuable witness in the lawsuit, according to court documents.

Aaron is also filing a case of defamation against&nbsp;America First Media and The Washington Times.&nbsp;In the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election, WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the DNC, where Seth Rich was a staff member. The lawsuit says the defendants wrongly linked Aaron Rich and his brother to the stolen emails and their transmission to WikiLeaks.

As of now, the murder conspiracy of Rich remains unsolved.

(With inputs from AFP)

Twitter is known to protect the privacy of its users, no matter what. However, in a rare case, the social media giant has been asked by a US court to reveal details about an anonymous account.

Twitter is known to protect the privacy of its users, no matter what. However, in a rare case, the social media giant has been asked by a US court to reveal details about an anonymous account. The order has been issued by the US District Court Judge Donna Ryu in relation to an ongoing murder conspiracy case. An anonymous user with the Twitter handle "@whysprtech" has been alleged of fueling a discredited theory about the death of a Democratic party worker in 2016. It has been alleged that the Twitter account was used to spread forged FBI documents and resources about Seth Rich. As per the local police, Rich was murdered in a robbery attempt. Twitter had been trying to stay away from reaching to the point of having to reveal details as the company prides in protecting the privacy and exercising free speech. However, the US judge has given a deadline of October 20 to provide all information related to the handle @whysprtech. As per Judeg Ryu, all protection has limits. The request to reveal the details and identity is bing sought by Rich's brother Aaron. The Twitter account may be the source of the bogus FBI report that fueled the conspiracy theory, and its user could be a valuable witness in the lawsuit, according to court documents. Aaron is also filing a case of defamation against America First Media and The Washington Times. In the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election, WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the DNC, where Seth Rich was a staff member. The lawsuit says the defendants wrongly linked Aaron Rich and his brother to the stolen emails and their transmission to WikiLeaks. As of now, the murder conspiracy of Rich remains unsolved. (With inputs from AFP)

Twitter asked to reveal details of user related to Seth Rich's murder conspiracy

Hours before a US court is set to rule out on the US ban of the video-sharing app TikTok, a judge in Pennsylvania has rejected a request by three TikTok content creators who asked her to temporarily block a government ban on Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc Google. The creators had requested the judge to reconsider their request as they fear the ban would make them "lose access to tens of thousands of potential viewers and creators every month, an effect amplified by the looming threat to close TikTok altogether."

US govt to ban new downloads of TikTok: 'TikTok is a security threat'

Texas court has ruled against Apple telling them to pay more than $500 million in damages and interest for 4G patent infringements held by intellectual property company PanOptis.

Texas court has ruled against Apple telling them to pay more than $500 million in damages and interest for 4G patent infringements held by intellectual property company PanOptis. According to the local media, Apple will appeal the decision. PanOptis dragged Apple to court after claiming it refused to pay for the use of 4G LTE technologies in its smartphones, tablets and watches. PanOptis specializes in licensing patents. "The plaintiffs have repeatedly negotiated with Apple to reach an agreement for a FRAND license to the Plaintiff's patent portfolios which Apple is infringing," the court filing read. FRAND refers to terms that are "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" and is the IT industry standard for technology use. "The negotiations have been unsuccessful because Apple refuses to pay a FRAND royalty to the Plaintiff's license." According to the legal publication, Apple argued unsuccessfully that the patents were invalid. "Lawsuits like this by companies who accumulate patents simply to harass the industry only serve to stifle innovation and harm consumers," Apple said in a statement reported by media outlets. This the second time that the Texas court has ruled out a verdict against Apple Inc. The first time it demanded the tech giant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to VirnetX -- another company specializing in patent litigation. On its website, PanOptis offers to manage its clients' patents, allowing them to concentrate on "innovation and new development." (Inputs from AFP)

Apple to pay over $500 million to PlanOptis, over patent violations: US court

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-second-federal-execution-in-17-years-313563" hreflang="en">US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years</a>&nbsp;

The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment.

Early on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington issued two injunctions to allow various legal challenges by some of the 61 inmates on federal death row to continue.

One of the injunctions also prevents the federal government from carrying out all scheduled executions, including Purkey's.

But these injunctions were overturned by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

The Justice Department has set execution dates for two other men convicted of murdering children: Dustin Honken on Friday and Keith Nelson on August 28.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled it is "abhorrent" and unconstitutional to execute someone whose mental illness prevents them from comprehending their punishment.

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years. Also read: US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment.

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years. Also read: US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment. Early on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington issued two injunctions to allow various legal challenges by some of the 61 inmates on federal death row to continue. One of the injunctions also prevents the federal government from carrying out all scheduled executions, including Purkey's. But these injunctions were overturned by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has set execution dates for two other men convicted of murdering children: Dustin Honken on Friday and Keith Nelson on August 28. The Supreme Court has previously ruled it is "abhorrent" and unconstitutional to execute someone whose mental illness prevents them from comprehending their punishment.

US Supreme Court clears way for second federal execution in 17 years

German chemical giants <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer </a>and BASF will appeal against the fine of $265 million imposed upon them by a US&nbsp;court over a weedkiller produced by them.

A US jury had&nbsp;awarded $265 million to a Missouri farmer who blamed dicamba&nbsp;herbicide from chemical giants&nbsp;for destroying his peach orchards.

It was&nbsp;the first ruling in some 140 US cases against dicamba, a herbicide blamed for extensive crop damage.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/monsanto-owners-call-weed-killer-safe-after-jury-orders-big-payout-158587">Monsanto owners call weed killer 'safe' after jury orders big payout</a>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer </a>says its herbicides pose no unreasonable risk if used correctly.

BASF said it would "use all available legal resources" to fight Saturday's ruling by a federal district court in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer </a>insists that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/monsanto-owners-call-weed-killer-safe-after-jury-orders-big-payout-158587">Monsanto </a>herbicides are safe and "valuable tools for growers". The herbicides "do not pose any unreasonable risk of off-target movement when used according to label directions", the firm says.

The company&nbsp;had taken over the US agrochemical giant Monsanto for $63bn in 2018.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer takes over Monsanto with a $128 per share offer: Sources</a>

After this takeover, it introduced seeds that can resist the weed-killer due to which use of the chemicals increased.

But the product has been blamed for polluting around four percent of US soybean fields in 2017.

A common complaint is that the herbicide spreads to nearby areas.

The company sells dicamba-based herbicide and a similar, much-criticised product, Roundup.

US lawsuits against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/monsanto-owners-call-weed-killer-safe-after-jury-orders-big-payout-158587">Monsanto's </a>weed killers may cost <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer </a>billions of dollars in damages.

The fight over dicamba comes in the wake of a case in which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/bayer-takes-over-monsanto-with-a-128-per-share-offer-sources-6323">Bayer&nbsp;</a>was ordered by a California jury to pay $290 million for failing to warn a dying groundskeeper that Roundup might cause cancer.

German chemical giants Bayer and BASF will appeal against the fine of $265 million imposed upon them by a US court over a weedkiller produced by them. A US jury had awarded $265 million to a Missouri farmer who blamed dicamba herbicide from chemical giants for destroying his peach orchards.

German chemical giants Bayer and BASF will appeal against the fine of $265 million imposed upon them by a US court over a weedkiller produced by them. A US jury had awarded $265 million to a Missouri farmer who blamed dicamba herbicide from chemical giants for destroying his peach orchards. It was the first ruling in some 140 US cases against dicamba, a herbicide blamed for extensive crop damage. Also read: Monsanto owners call weed killer 'safe' after jury orders big payout Bayer says its herbicides pose no unreasonable risk if used correctly. BASF said it would "use all available legal resources" to fight Saturday's ruling by a federal district court in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Bayer insists that Monsanto herbicides are safe and "valuable tools for growers". The herbicides "do not pose any unreasonable risk of off-target movement when used according to label directions", the firm says. The company had taken over the US agrochemical giant Monsanto for $63bn in 2018. Also read: Bayer takes over Monsanto with a $128 per share offer: Sources After this takeover, it introduced seeds that can resist the weed-killer due to which use of the chemicals increased. But the product has been blamed for polluting around four percent of US soybean fields in 2017. A common complaint is that the herbicide spreads to nearby areas. The company sells dicamba-based herbicide and a similar, much-criticised product, Roundup. US lawsuits against Monsanto's weed killers may cost Bayer billions of dollars in damages. The fight over dicamba comes in the wake of a case in which Bayer was ordered by a California jury to pay $290 million for failing to warn a dying groundskeeper that Roundup might cause cancer.

German chemical firms to appeal against $265mn fine imposed by US court

Prosecutors asked a federal judge on Monday to sentence&nbsp;US&nbsp;President Donald&nbsp;Trump's&nbsp;longtime&nbsp;adviser&nbsp;Roger&nbsp;Stone&nbsp;to between seven and nine&nbsp;years&nbsp;in&nbsp;prison, saying such a&nbsp;term&nbsp;would "accurately reflect the seriousness of his crimes and promote respect for the law."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-adviser-roger-stone-found-guilty-of-lying-to-congress-obstruction-witness-tampering-262459">Trump adviser Roger Stone found guilty of lying to Congress, obstruction, witness tampering</a>

Stone&nbsp;is due to face sentencing by&nbsp;US&nbsp;District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson on February&nbsp;20, after a jury in November found the self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” guilty on seven counts of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/former-trump-adviser-roger-stone-arrested-on-indictment-by-robert-mueller-report-192764">Former Trump adviser Roger Stone arrested after indictment by Robert Mueller</a>

The government said that under&nbsp;US&nbsp;sentencing guidelines, he faces a range of seven&nbsp;years&nbsp;and three months to up to nine&nbsp;years, and told Jackson he "should be punished in accord" with those.

Stone&nbsp;is one of several people close to Trump who faced charges stemming from then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/roger-stone-us-presidents-associate-found-guilty-in-wikileaks-hacking-case-262730/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

During the trial, prosecutors pressed their case that&nbsp;Stone&nbsp;lied to lawmakers about his outreach to WikiLeaks - the website that disclosed many hacked Democratic emails ahead of the 2016&nbsp;US&nbsp;election that proved embarrassing to Trump’s Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton - to protect Trump from looking bad.

Stone, who has labelled himself an “agent provocateur” and famously has the face of former President Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, was charged with obstructing justice, witness tampering and lying to the&nbsp;US&nbsp;House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee during its investigation into Russian election interference.

Stone's colourful trial featured references to the film “The Godfather Part II,” an impression of Senator Bernie Sanders by prosecution witness Randy Credico, and testimony by political heavyweights including former Trump campaign chief executive Steve Bannon and former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates.

Those witnesses said they believed&nbsp;Stone&nbsp;had inside information about when WikiLeaks might release more damaging emails about Clinton. In truth, he had no such information.

Stone&nbsp;was also accused of tampering with Credico's testimony when Credico was summoned to testify before Congress and speak with the FBI. In emails and texts,&nbsp;Stone&nbsp;told Credico among other things: “Prepare to die,” “You’re a rat. A stoolie,” and “Stonewall it.”

Prosecutors asked a federal judge on Monday to sentence US President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Roger Stone to between seven and nine years in prison, saying such a term would "accurately reflect the seriousness of his crimes and promote respect for the law.

Prosecutors asked a federal judge on Monday to sentence US President Donald Trump's longtime adviser Roger Stone to between seven and nine years in prison, saying such a term would "accurately reflect the seriousness of his crimes and promote respect for the law." Also read: Trump adviser Roger Stone found guilty of lying to Congress, obstruction, witness tampering Stone is due to face sentencing by US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson on February 20, after a jury in November found the self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” guilty on seven counts of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. Also read: Former Trump adviser Roger Stone arrested after indictment by Robert Mueller The government said that under US sentencing guidelines, he faces a range of seven years and three months to up to nine years, and told Jackson he "should be punished in accord" with those. Stone is one of several people close to Trump who faced charges stemming from then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. × During the trial, prosecutors pressed their case that Stone lied to lawmakers about his outreach to WikiLeaks - the website that disclosed many hacked Democratic emails ahead of the 2016 US election that proved embarrassing to Trump’s Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton - to protect Trump from looking bad. Stone, who has labelled himself an “agent provocateur” and famously has the face of former President Richard Nixon tattooed on his back, was charged with obstructing justice, witness tampering and lying to the US House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee during its investigation into Russian election interference. Stone's colourful trial featured references to the film “The Godfather Part II,” an impression of Senator Bernie Sanders by prosecution witness Randy Credico, and testimony by political heavyweights including former Trump campaign chief executive Steve Bannon and former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates. Those witnesses said they believed Stone had inside information about when WikiLeaks might release more damaging emails about Clinton. In truth, he had no such information. Stone was also accused of tampering with Credico's testimony when Credico was summoned to testify before Congress and speak with the FBI. In emails and texts, Stone told Credico among other things: “Prepare to die,” “You’re a rat. A stoolie,” and “Stonewall it.”

US seeks prison term of 7-9 years for Trump's longtime adviser Roger Stone

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-anti-abortion-rally-trump-assails-democrats-draws-applause-276481">US Supreme Court</a> on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-detains-800-central-american-migrants-headed-to-united-states-276281">Mexico detains 800 Central American migrants headed to&nbsp;United States</a> 
&nbsp;

The top chamber's five conservative justices outvoted their four progressive colleagues to support a request by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../trump-had-ukraine-aid-withheld-reveals-boltons -new-book-276814">President Donald Trump</a> to lift a New York court injunction that had blocked the rule's application.

Trump has made clamping down on immigrants a cornerstone of his presidency, and Monday's ruling is the latest by the Supreme Court in favour of his migrant-related policies.

"Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois," the Supreme Court ruling said.

The White House lauded the ruling, calling it a "massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution" in a statement.

Announcing last August a new definition of the longstanding "public charge" law, Trump said that "to protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/trump-threatens-to-close-mexico-border-describes-immigrants-as-invasion-178993/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The new rules threatened to set back the citizenship hopes of millions of mostly Hispanic migrants who work for low wages and depend in part on public services to get by.

Under the changes, the 22 million non-citizen residents of the United States using food stamps, public healthcare and other welfare will not be able to obtain green cards or US citizenship, according to the White House.

Additionally, hopeful migrants will not be granted resident visas if they are deemed too poor and likely to need public assistance.

'Activist' judges

Immigration officials will have more leeway to deny the entry of immigrants or to grant a certain migrant status to those receiving public assistance.

A coalition of states in August quickly sued Trump's administration over the rule. They said it was unconstitutional and disproportionately targeted non-white immigrants.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, welcomed Monday's ruling.

He said the Supreme Court "is fed up" with injunctions by judges whom he said are trying to impose policy rather than enforce the law.

"I hope some of these activist district court judges finally get the message that they need to deal with the law, not their policy preferences. If they want to do that, get out and run for Congress," he said.

The Democratic National Committee, charged with the process of choosing the party's challenger to Trump in this year's elections, countered that "it's sickening to see the United States Supreme Court rubber-stamp Trump's extreme, anti-immigrant, xenophobic agenda."

In September, the Supreme Court said Trump could enact severe restrictions on asylum seekers.

That followed a July ruling backing the president's move to divert billions of dollars in Pentagon funds for extending or rebuilding stretches of the wall on the Mexican border.

The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits.

The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits. Also read: Mexico detains 800 Central American migrants headed to United States The top chamber's five conservative justices outvoted their four progressive colleagues to support a request by President Donald Trump to lift a New York court injunction that had blocked the rule's application. Trump has made clamping down on immigrants a cornerstone of his presidency, and Monday's ruling is the latest by the Supreme Court in favour of his migrant-related policies. "Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois," the Supreme Court ruling said. The White House lauded the ruling, calling it a "massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution" in a statement. Announcing last August a new definition of the longstanding "public charge" law, Trump said that "to protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient." × The new rules threatened to set back the citizenship hopes of millions of mostly Hispanic migrants who work for low wages and depend in part on public services to get by. Under the changes, the 22 million non-citizen residents of the United States using food stamps, public healthcare and other welfare will not be able to obtain green cards or US citizenship, according to the White House. Additionally, hopeful migrants will not be granted resident visas if they are deemed too poor and likely to need public assistance. 'Activist' judges Immigration officials will have more leeway to deny the entry of immigrants or to grant a certain migrant status to those receiving public assistance. A coalition of states in August quickly sued Trump's administration over the rule. They said it was unconstitutional and disproportionately targeted non-white immigrants. Ken Cuccinelli, acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, welcomed Monday's ruling. He said the Supreme Court "is fed up" with injunctions by judges whom he said are trying to impose policy rather than enforce the law. "I hope some of these activist district court judges finally get the message that they need to deal with the law, not their policy preferences. If they want to do that, get out and run for Congress," he said. The Democratic National Committee, charged with the process of choosing the party's challenger to Trump in this year's elections, countered that "it's sickening to see the United States Supreme Court rubber-stamp Trump's extreme, anti-immigrant, xenophobic agenda." In September, the Supreme Court said Trump could enact severe restrictions on asylum seekers. That followed a July ruling backing the president's move to divert billions of dollars in Pentagon funds for extending or rebuilding stretches of the wall on the Mexican border.

US top court sides with Trump on immigrant welfare benefits

The U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of a major gun rights case could end in a misfire, with the justices on Monday (December 2) debating whether to dismiss a challenge backed by the powerful National Rifle Association to a New York City handgun ordinance.

U.S. Supreme Court justices debate whether to dismiss major gun case

The future of Obamacare could be at stake on Tuesday when a coalition of Democratic-led states and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-panel-launches-probe-into-possible-obstruction-by-trump-200941">House of Representatives</a> urge a federal appeals court to overturn a Texas judge's ruling that the US healthcare reform law is unconstitutional.

Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), since its 2010 passage, and while the Justice Department would normally defend a federal law, the Trump administration has declined to defend its constitutionality against a challenge by 18 Republican-led states.

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/california-desert-braces-for-aftershocks-from-major-71-quake-233580">California</a> Attorney General Xavier Becerra stepped into the void to defend the law. The House intervened after Democrats won control in November's elections after many focused their campaigns on defunding Obamacare.

A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, including two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one by a Democrat, will take up a ruling by a federal judge in Texas last year that the entire ACA was unconstitutional.

An appellate ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional could prompt an appeal to the US Supreme Court, opening the door for the top court to take up the issue during the 2020 US presidential election.

Obamacare, the signature domestic achievement of Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, has been a political flashpoint since its passage.

Republican opponents call the law an unwarranted intervention by government in health insurance markets, while supporters say that striking it down would put at risk the healthcare of 20 million people who have gained insurance since its enactment.

In 2012, a divided <a href="http://wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-to-take-up-dreamers-case-231345">US Supreme Court</a> upheld most of its provisions, including the individual mandate, which requires people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

The mandate compelled healthy people to buy insurance to offset sicker patients' costs after Obamacare barred insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority argued that Congress could not constitutionally order people to buy insurance. But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal members to hold the mandate was a valid exercise of Congress' tax power.

Republicans in Congress subsequently failed to overturn Obamacare, but in December 2017, <a href="http://wionews.com/world/donald-trump-has-discussed-iran-nuclear-standoff-with-macron-white-house-234187">Trump</a> signed into law a tax bill passed by a Republican-led Congress that reduced the tax penalty to zero dollars.

A coalition of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, alleging the tax penalty's elimination rendered Obamacare unconstitutional.

US District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, agreed in December 2018, saying the individual mandate was unconstitutional because it no longer triggered a tax.

O'Connor, nominated by former Republican President George W. Bush, said that because Obamacare called the mandate "essential," the entire law must be struck down.

The Justice Department initially argued the mandate was unconstitutional but most of Obamacare could be severed from it. But it argues on appeal the law's balance must be struck down.

The future of Obamacare could be at stake on Tuesday when a coalition of Democratic-led states and House of Representatives urge a federal appeals court to overturn a Texas judge's ruling that the US healthcare reform law is unconstitutional.

The future of Obamacare could be at stake on Tuesday when a coalition of Democratic-led states and House of Representatives urge a federal appeals court to overturn a Texas judge's ruling that the US healthcare reform law is unconstitutional. Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), since its 2010 passage, and while the Justice Department would normally defend a federal law, the Trump administration has declined to defend its constitutionality against a challenge by 18 Republican-led states. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra stepped into the void to defend the law. The House intervened after Democrats won control in November's elections after many focused their campaigns on defunding Obamacare. A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, including two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one by a Democrat, will take up a ruling by a federal judge in Texas last year that the entire ACA was unconstitutional. An appellate ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional could prompt an appeal to the US Supreme Court, opening the door for the top court to take up the issue during the 2020 US presidential election. Obamacare, the signature domestic achievement of Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, has been a political flashpoint since its passage. Republican opponents call the law an unwarranted intervention by government in health insurance markets, while supporters say that striking it down would put at risk the healthcare of 20 million people who have gained insurance since its enactment. In 2012, a divided US Supreme Court upheld most of its provisions, including the individual mandate, which requires people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The mandate compelled healthy people to buy insurance to offset sicker patients' costs after Obamacare barred insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. The Supreme Court's conservative majority argued that Congress could not constitutionally order people to buy insurance. But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal members to hold the mandate was a valid exercise of Congress' tax power. Republicans in Congress subsequently failed to overturn Obamacare, but in December 2017, Trump signed into law a tax bill passed by a Republican-led Congress that reduced the tax penalty to zero dollars. A coalition of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, alleging the tax penalty's elimination rendered Obamacare unconstitutional. US District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, agreed in December 2018, saying the individual mandate was unconstitutional because it no longer triggered a tax. O'Connor, nominated by former Republican President George W. Bush, said that because Obamacare called the mandate "essential," the entire law must be struck down. The Justice Department initially argued the mandate was unconstitutional but most of Obamacare could be severed from it. But it argues on appeal the law's balance must be struck down.

United States appeals court to take up constitutionality of Obamacare

Sri Lankan torture victims have filed 10 new claims for damages in a US court against wartime defence chief Gotabaya Rajapaksa, lawyers for the plaintiffs and a rights group said, possibly jeopardising his plan to run for president.

Rajapaksa, the younger brother of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, is seeking to renounce his US citizenship to enable him to run in Sri Lanka`s presidential election this year, and lawsuits over alleged human rights abuse during the war against separatist Tamil fighters could complicate his bid.

The plaintiffs have alleged that Rajapaksa was from 2005 to 2015 in command of security forces who systematically abducted, tortured, raped, and extorted money from suspects, the South Africa-based International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) and US law firm Hausfeld that filed the case in the US District Court in central California said on Wednesday.

Rajapaksa was a US citizen at the time. He has dual citizenship.

The victims were branded with hot metal rods, whipped with cables and asphyxiated with plastic bags soaked in petrol, the law firm and the rights group said in a statement.

The 10 plaintiffs include three women. Eight of the plaintiffs are ethnic Tamil and two from Sri Lanka`s majority Sinhalese community.

Six of them were repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted, the law firm and rights group said in the statement.

Lawsuits in the United States could delay his bid to renounce his US citizenship, and he would not be able to run for president with US citizenship.

A spokesman for Rajapaksa rejected the allegations and said the lawsuits were aimed at tarnishing his image ahead of the election, which is expected by December.

"This kind of mud-slinging propaganda ahead of elections is not new," the spokesman, Milinda Rajapaksa, who is not related to Gotabaya, told Reuters.&nbsp;

"But we don`t see any impact on the former defence secretary contesting in the upcoming presidential poll."

Military spokesman Sumith Atapattu said the allegations against the security forces were "totally fabricated".&nbsp;

Rajapaksa, along with his brother, is credited with having crushed the Tamil Tiger insurgent group in 2009 but he has long been dogged by accusations of human rights violations, especially in the closing stages of the 26-year war.

Two cases were filed in the California court in April against Rajapaksa, one of them by the daughter of a murdered investigative journalist saying it was an extrajudicial killing.

Several security officials who were accused of abuse during the war remain in government, the ITJP said.

"That alleged perpetrators remain in key investigative positions in the police force shows why Sri Lankans have been unable to achieve justice inside the country,” said the group`s executive director, Yasmin Sooka.&nbsp;

''Bringing a case abroad is their only option.''

Sri Lankan torture victims have filed 10 new claims for damages in a US court against wartime defence chief Gotabaya Rajapaksa, lawyers for the plaintiffs and a rights group said, possibly jeopardising his plan to run for president.

Sri Lankan torture victims have filed 10 new claims for damages in a US court against wartime defence chief Gotabaya Rajapaksa, lawyers for the plaintiffs and a rights group said, possibly jeopardising his plan to run for president. Rajapaksa, the younger brother of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, is seeking to renounce his US citizenship to enable him to run in Sri Lanka`s presidential election this year, and lawsuits over alleged human rights abuse during the war against separatist Tamil fighters could complicate his bid. The plaintiffs have alleged that Rajapaksa was from 2005 to 2015 in command of security forces who systematically abducted, tortured, raped, and extorted money from suspects, the South Africa-based International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) and US law firm Hausfeld that filed the case in the US District Court in central California said on Wednesday. Rajapaksa was a US citizen at the time. He has dual citizenship. The victims were branded with hot metal rods, whipped with cables and asphyxiated with plastic bags soaked in petrol, the law firm and the rights group said in a statement. The 10 plaintiffs include three women. Eight of the plaintiffs are ethnic Tamil and two from Sri Lanka`s majority Sinhalese community. Six of them were repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted, the law firm and rights group said in the statement. Lawsuits in the United States could delay his bid to renounce his US citizenship, and he would not be able to run for president with US citizenship. A spokesman for Rajapaksa rejected the allegations and said the lawsuits were aimed at tarnishing his image ahead of the election, which is expected by December. "This kind of mud-slinging propaganda ahead of elections is not new," the spokesman, Milinda Rajapaksa, who is not related to Gotabaya, told Reuters. "But we don`t see any impact on the former defence secretary contesting in the upcoming presidential poll." Military spokesman Sumith Atapattu said the allegations against the security forces were "totally fabricated". Rajapaksa, along with his brother, is credited with having crushed the Tamil Tiger insurgent group in 2009 but he has long been dogged by accusations of human rights violations, especially in the closing stages of the 26-year war. Two cases were filed in the California court in April against Rajapaksa, one of them by the daughter of a murdered investigative journalist saying it was an extrajudicial killing. Several security officials who were accused of abuse during the war remain in government, the ITJP said. "That alleged perpetrators remain in key investigative positions in the police force shows why Sri Lankans have been unable to achieve justice inside the country,” said the group`s executive director, Yasmin Sooka. ''Bringing a case abroad is their only option.''

Sri Lankan presidential hopeful Gotabaya Rajapaksa faces new lawsuits in US court

Prominent Indian-American lawyer Neomi Jehangir Rao (45) has been sworn in as US Circuit Judge for the powerful District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, replacing the controversial Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Joined by her husband Alan Lefkowitz, Rao was sworn in by US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Tuesday. She took the oath on a Bible.

According to a White House schedule, President Donald Trump had participated in the swearing-in ceremony.&nbsp;

Born in Detroit to Parsi physicians from India Zerin Rao and Jehangir Narioshang Rao, Neomi Rao is the second Indian-American after Sri Srinivasan to be part of the powerful court said to be next only to the US Supreme Court.

Nominated by President Donald Trump last November, Rao was confirmed by the Senate last week by 53-46 votes. In her previous role as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget, she played a key role in regulatory reform.

Rao's confirmation and her swearing-in for the prestigious court has been a low key affair for the Indian-American community. This is in stark contrast to the nationwide celebration by Indian-Americans when Srinivasan was confirmed and sworn in as US Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Prior to her service as OIRA Administrator, Rao was a professor of structural constitutional law, administrative law, and legislation and statutory interpretation at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

She founded the Law School's Center for the Study of the Administrative State and focused her scholarship on the political and constitutional accountability of administrative agencies and the role of Congress.?&nbsp;

She has served in all three branches of government, including Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. She also served as counsel to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where she was responsible for judicial nominations and constitutional law issues.

In between government service, Rao practised in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP, specialising in international law and commercial arbitration.&nbsp;

Prominent Indian-American lawyer Neomi Jehangir Rao (45) has been sworn in as US Circuit Judge for the powerful District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, replacing the controversial Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Prominent Indian-American lawyer Neomi Jehangir Rao (45) has been sworn in as US Circuit Judge for the powerful District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, replacing the controversial Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Joined by her husband Alan Lefkowitz, Rao was sworn in by US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Tuesday. She took the oath on a Bible. According to a White House schedule, President Donald Trump had participated in the swearing-in ceremony. Born in Detroit to Parsi physicians from India Zerin Rao and Jehangir Narioshang Rao, Neomi Rao is the second Indian-American after Sri Srinivasan to be part of the powerful court said to be next only to the US Supreme Court. Nominated by President Donald Trump last November, Rao was confirmed by the Senate last week by 53-46 votes. In her previous role as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget, she played a key role in regulatory reform. Rao's confirmation and her swearing-in for the prestigious court has been a low key affair for the Indian-American community. This is in stark contrast to the nationwide celebration by Indian-Americans when Srinivasan was confirmed and sworn in as US Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Prior to her service as OIRA Administrator, Rao was a professor of structural constitutional law, administrative law, and legislation and statutory interpretation at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. She founded the Law School's Center for the Study of the Administrative State and focused her scholarship on the political and constitutional accountability of administrative agencies and the role of Congress.? She has served in all three branches of government, including Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. She also served as counsel to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where she was responsible for judicial nominations and constitutional law issues. In between government service, Rao practised in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP, specialising in international law and commercial arbitration.

Indian-American Neomi Jehangir Rao replaces Brett Kavanaugh, takes charge of powerful US court

People in the hometown of infamous cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman were sceptical much would change after he was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career.

People expressed resignation that nothing would change in Culiacan, the capital of Mexico's Pacific Coast state of Sinaloa.

Local resident, Gildardo Velazquez said, "nobody is stopping narcotrafficking even though they captured him, even if they've given him life in prison, which they think he deserves. I don't think it will change anything here in Mexico, on the contrary, it will continue."

Meanwhile, El Chapo's lawyer held a news conference in Mexico City to say that his legal team will continue to fight his imprisonment in the United States by taking his case to various international courts.

"We will put this forward in the international courts, in the international criminal court in The Hague, in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Amnesty International, and before the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN," said the lawyer, Juan Pablo Badillo.

Jurors in federal court in Brooklyn on Tuesday convicted Guzman, 61, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, on all 10 counts brought by US prosecutors.

Richard Donoghue, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said he expected Guzman to receive life without parole when sentenced on June 25.

Guzman, one of the major figures in Mexican drug wars that have roiled the country since 2006, become almost legendary for escaping from Mexican high-security jails twice and avoiding massive manhunts. He cultivated a Robin Hood image among the poor in his home state of Sinaloa.

Guzman, whose nickname means "Shorty," was extradited to the United States for trial in 2017 after he was arrested in Mexico the year before.

People in the hometown of infamous cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman were sceptical much would change after he was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career.

People in the hometown of infamous cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman were sceptical much would change after he was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career. People expressed resignation that nothing would change in Culiacan, the capital of Mexico's Pacific Coast state of Sinaloa. Local resident, Gildardo Velazquez said, "nobody is stopping narcotrafficking even though they captured him, even if they've given him life in prison, which they think he deserves. I don't think it will change anything here in Mexico, on the contrary, it will continue." Meanwhile, El Chapo's lawyer held a news conference in Mexico City to say that his legal team will continue to fight his imprisonment in the United States by taking his case to various international courts. "We will put this forward in the international courts, in the international criminal court in The Hague, in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Amnesty International, and before the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN," said the lawyer, Juan Pablo Badillo. Jurors in federal court in Brooklyn on Tuesday convicted Guzman, 61, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, on all 10 counts brought by US prosecutors. Richard Donoghue, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said he expected Guzman to receive life without parole when sentenced on June 25. Guzman, one of the major figures in Mexican drug wars that have roiled the country since 2006, become almost legendary for escaping from Mexican high-security jails twice and avoiding massive manhunts. He cultivated a Robin Hood image among the poor in his home state of Sinaloa. Guzman, whose nickname means "Shorty," was extradited to the United States for trial in 2017 after he was arrested in Mexico the year before.

El Chapo's hometown sceptical much will change after verdict

Already tilted to the right by President Donald Trump's nominations, the US Supreme Court is facing a test case on abortion rights, one of the most polarizing issues in an already divided nation. &nbsp;

A clinic and two doctors offering abortions in Louisiana have appealed to the Supreme Court to block a law restricting access to abortion that is due to come into force next week in the conservative southern state.

The law, approved in 2014, would require doctors offering abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they operate.

Louisiana argues that the risks of complications arising during an abortion procedure mean that patients may need to be transferred to a nearby hospital where doctors could step in.

That argument was endorsed by a state appeals court and the law will come into effect on Monday unless challenged by the Supreme Court.

A similar law limiting abortion access in Texas was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016.

But since Trump came to office two years ago, he has appointed two new conservative justices, tilting the balance of the court sharply to the right.

A decision not to take up the case would encourage the American right-wing and evangelical movement to step up challenges to longstanding abortion laws.&nbsp;

The plaintiffs in the Louisiana case argue the new law "will have disastrous consequences for women in the state," where 10,000 women seek abortions every year.

"Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement would leave only one physician providing abortions in the entire state and that all-but-one clinic that provides abortion care would be forced to close," they said.

They said the Texas law, adopted in 2013, led to the closure of half of the services offering abortions in the state, before being overturned by the Supreme Court three years later.&nbsp;

All eyes on new judges

Despite being a twice-divorced former casino mogul, Trump won over the powerful evangelical right by promising to appoint judges opposed to abortion rights.

Once in office, he made good on his pledge by nominating Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, tipping the balance of the court to five conservative justices and just four liberals.

Both men stressed the importance of legal precedent in their confirmation hearings, but anti-abortion activists saw their appointments as a chance to assail the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling allowing abortion, known as Roe v Wade.

The Louisiana case will prove a key stress test for that ruling.

If either one of the new appointees' sides with the progressives, the top court can freeze the Louisiana law.

Otherwise, the court will not intercede and the law will go into effect.

Defenders of women's right to abortion fear that silence from the court will encourage other states to follow Louisiana's lead.

'1,000 cuts '

A 57-per cent majority of Americans back women's right to seek abortions, but the hot-button issue cuts deeply along political and religious lines, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.&nbsp;

Some 59 per cent of Republicans and 61 per cent of evangelicals say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.&nbsp;

Since Roe v&nbsp;Wade came into effect, states have sought ways to restrict access, trying to impose delays and threatening non-reimbursement of costs to patients. &nbsp;

That has led to huge regional disparities in the availability of abortions, with more than 500 centres offering them in California and only four in Kansas, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The Guttmacher Institute said the "changing composition of the Supreme Court has heightened the risks" of restrictions on access to abortions.

"Anti-abortion politicians are hoping that the Supreme Court will stand by and let them legislate abortion out of reach — without the court ever having to reverse Roe v. Wade," said Nancy Northup, head of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

"That would be death to Roe by a thousand cuts," she said in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

Already tilted to the right by President Donald Trump's nominations, the US Supreme Court is facing a test case on abortion rights, one of the most polarizing issues in an already divided nation.

Already tilted to the right by President Donald Trump's nominations, the US Supreme Court is facing a test case on abortion rights, one of the most polarizing issues in an already divided nation. A clinic and two doctors offering abortions in Louisiana have appealed to the Supreme Court to block a law restricting access to abortion that is due to come into force next week in the conservative southern state. The law, approved in 2014, would require doctors offering abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they operate. Louisiana argues that the risks of complications arising during an abortion procedure mean that patients may need to be transferred to a nearby hospital where doctors could step in. That argument was endorsed by a state appeals court and the law will come into effect on Monday unless challenged by the Supreme Court. A similar law limiting abortion access in Texas was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. But since Trump came to office two years ago, he has appointed two new conservative justices, tilting the balance of the court sharply to the right. A decision not to take up the case would encourage the American right-wing and evangelical movement to step up challenges to longstanding abortion laws. The plaintiffs in the Louisiana case argue the new law "will have disastrous consequences for women in the state," where 10,000 women seek abortions every year. "Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement would leave only one physician providing abortions in the entire state and that all-but-one clinic that provides abortion care would be forced to close," they said. They said the Texas law, adopted in 2013, led to the closure of half of the services offering abortions in the state, before being overturned by the Supreme Court three years later. All eyes on new judges Despite being a twice-divorced former casino mogul, Trump won over the powerful evangelical right by promising to appoint judges opposed to abortion rights. Once in office, he made good on his pledge by nominating Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, tipping the balance of the court to five conservative justices and just four liberals. Both men stressed the importance of legal precedent in their confirmation hearings, but anti-abortion activists saw their appointments as a chance to assail the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling allowing abortion, known as Roe v Wade. The Louisiana case will prove a key stress test for that ruling. If either one of the new appointees' sides with the progressives, the top court can freeze the Louisiana law. Otherwise, the court will not intercede and the law will go into effect. Defenders of women's right to abortion fear that silence from the court will encourage other states to follow Louisiana's lead. '1,000 cuts ' A 57-per cent majority of Americans back women's right to seek abortions, but the hot-button issue cuts deeply along political and religious lines, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. Some 59 per cent of Republicans and 61 per cent of evangelicals say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Since Roe v Wade came into effect, states have sought ways to restrict access, trying to impose delays and threatening non-reimbursement of costs to patients. That has led to huge regional disparities in the availability of abortions, with more than 500 centres offering them in California and only four in Kansas, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute said the "changing composition of the Supreme Court has heightened the risks" of restrictions on access to abortions. "Anti-abortion politicians are hoping that the Supreme Court will stand by and let them legislate abortion out of reach — without the court ever having to reverse Roe v. Wade," said Nancy Northup, head of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "That would be death to Roe by a thousand cuts," she said in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

US top court facing litmus test on abortion

Tesla Inc on Friday asked a court to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit by shareholders who said the electric vehicle maker gave false public statements about the progress of producing its new Model 3 sedan.

In a filing in federal court in San Francisco, Tesla said that its statements about the challenges the company faced with Model 3 were "frank and in plain language," including repeated disclosures by Chief Executive Elon Musk of "production hell."

Tesla did not seek to hide the truth, its motion to dismiss said.

The company says its Model 3 has experienced numerous "bottlenecks" from problems with Tesla's battery module process at its Nevada Gigafactory to the general assembly at its Fremont plant.

Tesla is under pressure to deliver the Model 3 to reap revenue and stem massive spending that has put Tesla's finances in the red. The ramp of the Model 3, Tesla said in the court filing, was "the first of its kind," with difficulties likely to crop up after it got underway.

The lawsuit filed last October seeks class-action status for shareholders who bought Tesla stock between May 4, 2016, through October 6, 2017, inclusive. It said shareholders bought "artificially inflated" shares because Musk and other executives misled them with their statements.

Tesla made such statements during the lead-up to, and early production of, its Model 3 sedan and failed to disclose that the company was "woefully unprepared" for the vehicle's production, the lawsuit said.

A hearing is scheduled for August.

The Tesla response chronicled disclosures of production bottlenecks the company faced in its third quarter of 2017 when it fell short of its targets.

Tesla's statements that its Model 3 production was "on track" in May and August of 2017 - which plaintiffs argue were false - were made before production problems began to surface, Tesla argued.

Tesla said its "good faith belief" in the Model 3 programme is reflected in everything it has done: a $4 billion investment, the build-out of its Gigafactory battery factory in Nevada and the high-volume equipment it commissioned.

Tesla did not seek to hide the truth, its motion to dismiss said

Tesla Inc on Friday asked a court to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit by shareholders who said the electric vehicle maker gave false public statements about the progress of producing its new Model 3 sedan. In a filing in federal court in San Francisco, Tesla said that its statements about the challenges the company faced with Model 3 were "frank and in plain language," including repeated disclosures by Chief Executive Elon Musk of "production hell." Tesla did not seek to hide the truth, its motion to dismiss said. The company says its Model 3 has experienced numerous "bottlenecks" from problems with Tesla's battery module process at its Nevada Gigafactory to the general assembly at its Fremont plant. Tesla is under pressure to deliver the Model 3 to reap revenue and stem massive spending that has put Tesla's finances in the red. The ramp of the Model 3, Tesla said in the court filing, was "the first of its kind," with difficulties likely to crop up after it got underway. The lawsuit filed last October seeks class-action status for shareholders who bought Tesla stock between May 4, 2016, through October 6, 2017, inclusive. It said shareholders bought "artificially inflated" shares because Musk and other executives misled them with their statements. Tesla made such statements during the lead-up to, and early production of, its Model 3 sedan and failed to disclose that the company was "woefully unprepared" for the vehicle's production, the lawsuit said. A hearing is scheduled for August. The Tesla response chronicled disclosures of production bottlenecks the company faced in its third quarter of 2017 when it fell short of its targets. Tesla's statements that its Model 3 production was "on track" in May and August of 2017 - which plaintiffs argue were false - were made before production problems began to surface, Tesla argued. Tesla said its "good faith belief" in the Model 3 programme is reflected in everything it has done: a $4 billion investment, the build-out of its Gigafactory battery factory in Nevada and the high-volume equipment it commissioned.

Tesla seeks to dismiss securities fraud lawsuit: US court document

The move to rescind work authorisation to certain categories of H-4 visa holders is in final stages, the Trump administration has told a US court.

H-4 visas are issued to the spouses of H-1B visa holders, a significantly large number of whom are high-skilled professionals from India.

The Trump administration is planning to end the Obama-era rule allowing spouses of H1-B visa holders to work legally in the US, a move that could have a devastating impact on more than 70,000 H-4 visa holders who have work permits.

The proposed rule is currently in final clearance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told a federal court in a status update.

The Trump administration yesterday told the court that once the proposal is cleared through the DHS, it will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order for regulatory and planning review.

As previously represented to the Court, the DHS intends to proceed with publication of this new rule concerning the H-4 visa rule, the DHS said in its court filing.

The previous Obama administration under an executive order in 2015 had started giving work authorisation permits to certain categories of H-4 visa holders, who were mostly spouses of H-1B visa holders.

According to a recent Congressional report, a staggering 93 per cent of the total H-4 visa holders in the US having work authorisation are from India.

The final notification to rescind the work authorisation is expected to be issued in June.

Last week, a bipartisan group of 130 US lawmakers led by influential Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal urged the Trump administration to continue granting work authorisation to certain dependent spouses of non-immigrant workers holding H-1B visas.

Providing work authorisation for accompanying spouses helps US employers recruit and retain highly-qualified employees, putting US policy on par with other countries, such as Canada and Australia, competing to attract talented foreign nationals, the lawmakers had said.&nbsp

H-4 visas are issued to the spouses of H-1B visa holders, a significantly large number of whom are high-skilled professionals from India.

The move to rescind work authorisation to certain categories of H-4 visa holders is in final stages, the Trump administration has told a US court. H-4 visas are issued to the spouses of H-1B visa holders, a significantly large number of whom are high-skilled professionals from India. The Trump administration is planning to end the Obama-era rule allowing spouses of H1-B visa holders to work legally in the US, a move that could have a devastating impact on more than 70,000 H-4 visa holders who have work permits. The proposed rule is currently in final clearance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told a federal court in a status update. The Trump administration yesterday told the court that once the proposal is cleared through the DHS, it will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order for regulatory and planning review. As previously represented to the Court, the DHS intends to proceed with publication of this new rule concerning the H-4 visa rule, the DHS said in its court filing. The previous Obama administration under an executive order in 2015 had started giving work authorisation permits to certain categories of H-4 visa holders, who were mostly spouses of H-1B visa holders. According to a recent Congressional report, a staggering 93 per cent of the total H-4 visa holders in the US having work authorisation are from India. The final notification to rescind the work authorisation is expected to be issued in June. Last week, a bipartisan group of 130 US lawmakers led by influential Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal urged the Trump administration to continue granting work authorisation to certain dependent spouses of non-immigrant workers holding H-1B visas. Providing work authorisation for accompanying spouses helps US employers recruit and retain highly-qualified employees, putting US policy on par with other countries, such as Canada and Australia, competing to attract talented foreign nationals, the lawmakers had said.

Rescinding of H-4 visa work permit in final stages: Trump administration

President Donald Trump&#39;s travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries violates the US&nbsp;Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in another legal setback for the policy.

The Richmond-based 4th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 9-4 vote, became the second federal appeals court to rule against the ban, which was put in place by Trump with a presidential proclamation in September. The US&nbsp;Supreme Court has allowed the ban to go into effect while litigation challenging it continues.

The 4th Circuit ruling went further than the earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the ban violated federal immigration law but did not address the question of whether it violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court already has said it will consider both issues in deciding the legality of the ban in the coming months.

The justices are due in April to hear arguments over the ban and issue a ruling by the end of June.

&quot;Examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude that the proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam,&quot; 4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the ruling.

Trump&#39;s policy, the third version of the ban that he has issued since taking office in January 2017, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The Republican president has said the policy is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants.

The justices are due in April to hear arguments over the ban and issue a ruling by the end of June

President Donald Trump's travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries violates the US Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in another legal setback for the policy. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 9-4 vote, became the second federal appeals court to rule against the ban, which was put in place by Trump with a presidential proclamation in September. The US Supreme Court has allowed the ban to go into effect while litigation challenging it continues. The 4th Circuit ruling went further than the earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the ban violated federal immigration law but did not address the question of whether it violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court already has said it will consider both issues in deciding the legality of the ban in the coming months. The justices are due in April to hear arguments over the ban and issue a ruling by the end of June. "Examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude that the proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam," 4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the ruling. Trump's policy, the third version of the ban that he has issued since taking office in January 2017, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. The Republican president has said the policy is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants.

US court says Trump travel ban unlawfully discriminates against Muslims

Wipro, India&#39;s third largest software services firm, today said it will contest the lawsuit filed by National Grid US seeking damages of over USD 140 million for a project that began in 2009.

In a filing to the stock exchanges, Wipro said the company has become a subject of litigation with a long-time customer, National Grid US.

&quot;The lawsuit relates to an ERP implementation project which began in 2009 and was undertaken by National Grid US... The lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeks damages amounting to USD 140 million plus additional costs related to the project,&quot; Wipro said.

It added that the financial implications for Wipro, if any, will depend on the final judgement in the matter.

Wipro said it had joined the project in 2010, and the post-Go-live process was completed in 2014.

&quot;Wipro strongly believes that the allegations misstate facts and the claims are baseless. Wipro will vigorously contest the allegations in court,&quot; it said.

The Bengaluru-based company said it had provided &quot;valuable services with skill and care&quot; and during the course of the ERP implementation project, National Grid had given Wipro many positive evaluations.

Wipro also received an award from National Grid US with respect to this project in 2014, it noted.

In a filing to the stock exchanges, Wipro said the company has become a subject of litigation with a long-time customer, National Grid US

Wipro, India's third largest software services firm, today said it will contest the lawsuit filed by National Grid US seeking damages of over USD 140 million for a project that began in 2009. In a filing to the stock exchanges, Wipro said the company has become a subject of litigation with a long-time customer, National Grid US. "The lawsuit relates to an ERP implementation project which began in 2009 and was undertaken by National Grid US... The lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeks damages amounting to USD 140 million plus additional costs related to the project," Wipro said. It added that the financial implications for Wipro, if any, will depend on the final judgement in the matter. Wipro said it had joined the project in 2010, and the post-Go-live process was completed in 2014. "Wipro strongly believes that the allegations misstate facts and the claims are baseless. Wipro will vigorously contest the allegations in court," it said. The Bengaluru-based company said it had provided "valuable services with skill and care" and during the course of the ERP implementation project, National Grid had given Wipro many positive evaluations. Wipro also received an award from National Grid US with respect to this project in 2014, it noted.

Wipro refutes National Grid's claims, to contest in US court

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to step back into the years-long feud over patents between the world&#39;s top smartphone makers, declining to hear Samsung&#39;s appeal of a lower court ruling that reinstated a jury award of about $120 million in favor of Apple.

The justices left in place a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that upheld a verdict that found South Korea&#39;s Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had infringed Apple Inc&#39;s patents on several popular features of the California-based company&#39;s iPhone. Those included slide-to-unlock, autocorrect and quick links, which automatically turn information like addresses and phone numbers into links.

The Supreme Court in December 2016 sided with Samsung in a separate case over its fight with Apple. In that one, the justices threw out a $399 million damages award against Samsung to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs.

A judge in California in October ordered a new trial over damages in that case.

The current appeal stems from a May 2014 verdict by a jury in federal court in San Jose, California ordering Samsung to pay $119.6 million for using the Apple features without permission. Infringement of the quick links feature accounted for nearly $99 million of the damages.

A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit, a Washington-based court that specializes in patent matters, had originally overturned the verdict, but it was reinstated in an October 2016 ruling by a full slate of 11 judges on that court.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Samsung said that the patent court&#39;s judges did not follow proper procedure in reviving the verdict because they made the decision without considering additional legal papers or hearing oral arguments. The judges also wrongly changed the law related to invalidating patents and awarding injunctions, Samsung added.

In a dig at the patent court, Samsung told the justices in legal papers that they have &quot;long served as the bulwark when the Federal Circuit tips the balance too far in favor of patent-holders&#39; rights at the expense of innovation and competition.&quot;

Apple urged the justices to leave the jury award in place, saying there was nothing &quot;novel or important&quot; to review in its rival&#39;s appeal. The Trump administration backed Apple&#39;s view.

The justices left in place a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that upheld a verdict that found South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had infringed Apple Inc's patents on several popular features of the California-based company's iPhone.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to step back into the years-long feud over patents between the world's top smartphone makers, declining to hear Samsung's appeal of a lower court ruling that reinstated a jury award of about $120 million in favor of Apple. The justices left in place a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that upheld a verdict that found South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had infringed Apple Inc's patents on several popular features of the California-based company's iPhone. Those included slide-to-unlock, autocorrect and quick links, which automatically turn information like addresses and phone numbers into links. The Supreme Court in December 2016 sided with Samsung in a separate case over its fight with Apple. In that one, the justices threw out a $399 million damages award against Samsung to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs. A judge in California in October ordered a new trial over damages in that case. The current appeal stems from a May 2014 verdict by a jury in federal court in San Jose, California ordering Samsung to pay $119.6 million for using the Apple features without permission. Infringement of the quick links feature accounted for nearly $99 million of the damages. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit, a Washington-based court that specializes in patent matters, had originally overturned the verdict, but it was reinstated in an October 2016 ruling by a full slate of 11 judges on that court. Appealing to the Supreme Court, Samsung said that the patent court's judges did not follow proper procedure in reviving the verdict because they made the decision without considering additional legal papers or hearing oral arguments. The judges also wrongly changed the law related to invalidating patents and awarding injunctions, Samsung added. In a dig at the patent court, Samsung told the justices in legal papers that they have "long served as the bulwark when the Federal Circuit tips the balance too far in favor of patent-holders' rights at the expense of innovation and competition." Apple urged the justices to leave the jury award in place, saying there was nothing "novel or important" to review in its rival's appeal. The Trump administration backed Apple's view.

Top US court rejects Samsung's appeal on patent loss to Apple

President Donald Trump&#39;s order temporarily banning US&nbsp;entry to people from seven Muslim-majority countries came under intense scrutiny on Tuesday from a federal appeals court that questioned whether the ban unfairly targeted people over their religion.

During a more than hour-long oral argument, a three-judge panel of the 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals pressed a government lawyer whether the Trump administration&#39;s national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger.

Judge Richard Clifton, a George W&nbsp;Bush appointee, posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban. Clifton asked if a Seattle judge&#39;s suspension of Trump&#39;s policy was &quot;overbroad&quot;.

The 9th Circuit said at the end of the session it would issue a ruling as soon as possible. Earlier on Tuesday, the court said it would likely rule this week but would not issue a same-day ruling. The matter will ultimately likely go to the US&nbsp;Supreme Court.

Trump&#39;s January&nbsp;27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely.

Trump, who took office on January&nbsp;20, has defended the measure, the most divisive act of his young presidency, as necessary for national security.

The order sparked protests and chaos at US&nbsp;and overseas airports. Opponents also assailed it as discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the US&nbsp;Constitution and applicable laws.

A federal judge in Seattle suspended the order last Friday and many travelers who had been waylaid by the ban quickly moved to travel to the United States while it was in limbo.

August Flentje, representing the Trump administration as special counsel for the US&nbsp;Justice Department, told the appellate panel that &quot;Congress has expressly authorised the president to suspend entry of categories of aliens&quot; for national security reasons.

&quot;That&rsquo;s what the president did here,&quot; Flentje said at the start of the oral argument conducted by telephone and live-streamed on the internet.

&nbsp;

TOUGH QUESTIONING

When the 9th Circuit asked Flentje what evidence the executive order had used to connect the seven countries affected by the order with terrorism in the United States, Flentje said the &quot;proceedings have been moving very fast,&quot; without giving specific examples.

He said both Congress and the previous administration of Democrat Barack Obama had determined that those seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism and had in the past put stricter visa requirements on them.

&quot;I&#39;m not sure I&#39;m convincing the court,&quot; Flentje said at one point.

Noah Purcell, solicitor general for the state of Washington, began his argument urging the court to serve &quot;as a check on executive abuses&quot;.

&quot;The president is asking this court to abdicate that role here,&quot; Purcell said. &quot;The court should decline that invitation.&quot;

The judges pummeled both sides with questions. Clifton pushed both attorneys about whether there was evidence the ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims. &quot;I don&#39;t think allegations cut it at this stage,&quot; Clifton told Purcell.

Clifton later questioned Flentje after the attorney argued the Seattle judge had second-guessed Trump&#39;s order &quot;based on some newspaper articles.&quot;

The judge referred to recent televised statements by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who advised Trump during his campaign and transition, that the president had asked him for advice about implementing a legal Muslim ban.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This statement by Giuliani could become very problematic for the Trump administration in litigation over intent/pretext of executive order. <a href="https://t.co/MrRuDFJGwD">pic.twitter.com/MrRuDFJGwD</a>
&mdash; JP SchnapperCasteras (@jpscasteras) <a href="https://twitter.com/jpscasteras/status/825717327635349504">January 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Shortly after the executive order was announced, Former New York mayor and top Trump ally&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/rudy-giuliani-told-trump-how-to-make-muslim-ban-legal-11841">Rudy Giuliani</a> went on Fox News and explained the history of what&nbsp;Donald Trump himself, according to Giuliani, called&nbsp;a &quot;Muslim ban&quot;. Trump asked how to make a Muslim ban legal, and Giuliani sent it to legal experts who determined they needed to reframe the ban. If the ban focused on &quot;security&quot;, then it could be legal, according to Giuliani.

&quot;Do you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate Trump and to his political advisers and most recently Mr. Giuliani,&quot; Clifton asked. &quot;Do you deny that those statements were made?&quot;

&nbsp;

CAMPAIGN PROMISE

Trump frequently promised during his 2016 election campaign to curb illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, and to crack down on Islamist violence. National security veterans, major US&nbsp;technology companies and law enforcement officials from more than a dozen states have backed a legal effort against the ban.

&quot;I actually can&#39;t believe that we&#39;re having to fight to protect the security, in a court system, to protect the security of our nation,&quot; Trump said at an event with sheriffs at the White House on Tuesday.

The legal fight over Trump&#39;s ban ultimately centers on how much power a president has to decide who cannot enter the United States and whether the order violates a provision of the US&nbsp;Constitution that prohibits laws favoring one religion over another, along with relevant discrimination laws.

The appeals court is only looking, however, at whether the Seattle court had the grounds to halt Trump&#39;s order while the case challenging the underlying order proceeds. &quot;To be clear, all that&#39;s at issue tonight in the hearing is an interim decision on whether the president&#39;s order is enforced or not, until the case is heard on the actual merits of the order,&quot; White House spokesman Sean Spicer said.

As many as&nbsp;137,000 people followed a live audio feed of the court proceedings&nbsp;online, and #9th circuit was trending on social media website Twitter. &nbsp;

Newly appointed Homeland Security chief John Kelly told a congressional panel on Tuesday he should have delayed implementing the measure in order to brief lawmakers.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Trump is pushing for what he originally called a 'Muslim ban', which overnight separated some American citizens from their families

President Donald Trump's order temporarily banning US entry to people from seven Muslim-majority countries came under intense scrutiny on Tuesday from a federal appeals court that questioned whether the ban unfairly targeted people over their religion. During a more than hour-long oral argument, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals pressed a government lawyer whether the Trump administration's national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger. Judge Richard Clifton, a George W Bush appointee, posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban. Clifton asked if a Seattle judge's suspension of Trump's policy was "overbroad". The 9th Circuit said at the end of the session it would issue a ruling as soon as possible. Earlier on Tuesday, the court said it would likely rule this week but would not issue a same-day ruling. The matter will ultimately likely go to the US Supreme Court. Trump's January 27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely. Trump, who took office on January 20, has defended the measure, the most divisive act of his young presidency, as necessary for national security. The order sparked protests and chaos at US and overseas airports. Opponents also assailed it as discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the US Constitution and applicable laws. A federal judge in Seattle suspended the order last Friday and many travelers who had been waylaid by the ban quickly moved to travel to the United States while it was in limbo. August Flentje, representing the Trump administration as special counsel for the US Justice Department, told the appellate panel that "Congress has expressly authorised the president to suspend entry of categories of aliens" for national security reasons. "That’s what the president did here," Flentje said at the start of the oral argument conducted by telephone and live-streamed on the internet. TOUGH QUESTIONING When the 9th Circuit asked Flentje what evidence the executive order had used to connect the seven countries affected by the order with terrorism in the United States, Flentje said the "proceedings have been moving very fast," without giving specific examples. He said both Congress and the previous administration of Democrat Barack Obama had determined that those seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism and had in the past put stricter visa requirements on them. "I'm not sure I'm convincing the court," Flentje said at one point. Noah Purcell, solicitor general for the state of Washington, began his argument urging the court to serve "as a check on executive abuses". "The president is asking this court to abdicate that role here," Purcell said. "The court should decline that invitation." The judges pummeled both sides with questions. Clifton pushed both attorneys about whether there was evidence the ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims. "I don't think allegations cut it at this stage," Clifton told Purcell. Clifton later questioned Flentje after the attorney argued the Seattle judge had second-guessed Trump's order "based on some newspaper articles." The judge referred to recent televised statements by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who advised Trump during his campaign and transition, that the president had asked him for advice about implementing a legal Muslim ban. This statement by Giuliani could become very problematic for the Trump administration in litigation over intent/pretext of executive order. pic.twitter.com/MrRuDFJGwD — JP SchnapperCasteras (@jpscasteras) January 29, 2017 × Shortly after the executive order was announced, Former New York mayor and top Trump ally Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News and explained the history of what Donald Trump himself, according to Giuliani, called a "Muslim ban". Trump asked how to make a Muslim ban legal, and Giuliani sent it to legal experts who determined they needed to reframe the ban. If the ban focused on "security", then it could be legal, according to Giuliani. "Do you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate Trump and to his political advisers and most recently Mr. Giuliani," Clifton asked. "Do you deny that those statements were made?" CAMPAIGN PROMISE Trump frequently promised during his 2016 election campaign to curb illegal immigration, especially from Mexico, and to crack down on Islamist violence. National security veterans, major US technology companies and law enforcement officials from more than a dozen states have backed a legal effort against the ban. "I actually can't believe that we're having to fight to protect the security, in a court system, to protect the security of our nation," Trump said at an event with sheriffs at the White House on Tuesday. The legal fight over Trump's ban ultimately centers on how much power a president has to decide who cannot enter the United States and whether the order violates a provision of the US Constitution that prohibits laws favoring one religion over another, along with relevant discrimination laws. The appeals court is only looking, however, at whether the Seattle court had the grounds to halt Trump's order while the case challenging the underlying order proceeds. "To be clear, all that's at issue tonight in the hearing is an interim decision on whether the president's order is enforced or not, until the case is heard on the actual merits of the order," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said. As many as 137,000 people followed a live audio feed of the court proceedings online, and #9th circuit was trending on social media website Twitter. Newly appointed Homeland Security chief John Kelly told a congressional panel on Tuesday he should have delayed implementing the measure in order to brief lawmakers. (With inputs from Reuters)

Court hearing looms on Trump travel ban

us-court

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