US President Donald Trump has renewed his effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, reigniting a major legal and political battle over presidential power and the independence of America's central bank.

The Trump administration is seeking Cook's removal over allegations involving mortgage documents from 2021, before she joined the Federal Reserve in 2022. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, while Cook denies wrongdoing and her lawyers have called the allegations baseless and politically motivated.

The Supreme Court previously ruled 5–4 that Cook could remain in her position while she challenges her removal, finding that she had not been given the required procedural protections. However, the ruling did not permanently prevent Trump from attempting to remove her again.

Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the president could pursue removal if Cook received proper notice and an opportunity to respond. Cook's deadline to respond is August 26.

Trump Renews Effort to Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook | Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) delivered another significant setback for LGBTQ rights by upholding state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled against two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who challenged laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict participation based on biological sex assigned at birth.&nbsp;Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, concluded that the laws do not violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.“The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh wrote.<h2>Why did the Supreme Court uphold the transgender sports bans?</h2>According to the majority opinion, the court determined that the state laws are consistent with constitutional protections and federal education law. The ruling found that neither the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment nor Title IX requires states to allow transgender athletes to compete in female sports categories.&nbsp;Kavanaugh also acknowledged the challenges faced by transgender athletes. “Their desire to compete warrants respect” and that they should not be “ostracized or vilified.” Although the ruling directly applies only to West Virginia and Idaho, legal experts expect it to influence 25 other states that have enacted similar restrictions. The decision adds to a series of recent Supreme Court rulings limiting transgender rights. Last year, the court upheld state laws restricting gender transition treatments for transgender minors.&nbsp;&nbsp;Earlier this year, it sided with parents challenging California policies designed to protect transgender students. In separate decisions last year, the court also allowed Trump administration policies restricting transgender military service and limiting gender identity changes on US passports. However, the court's 2020 decision interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect employees from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation remains in place, though it increasingly stands apart from more recent rulings.<h2>What impact will this ruling have across the United States?</h2>The ruling is expected to strengthen similar laws across the country. While the decision formally addresses only West Virginia and Idaho statutes, it is likely to serve as a legal precedent for more than two dozen states with comparable bans. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 16-year-old high school sophomore, has undergone puberty-blocking treatment and estrogen therapy and previously competed in girls' cross-country, shot put and discus events.&nbsp;Lindsay Hecox, a 25-year-old college student, has received testosterone suppression and estrogen treatments. She unsuccessfully tried out for her college's women's track and cross-country teams and has since participated in running and club soccer. The ruling comes amid a broader national shift in transgender policy. President Donald Trump, a vocal opponent of transgender participation in women's sports, signed an executive order after taking office titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” His administration supported West Virginia and Idaho before the Supreme Court and has also filed a lawsuit challenging California's policies on transgender athletes.&nbsp;International and national sports organisations have also adopted stricter eligibility rules. The IOC announced in March that transgender women would no longer be eligible to compete in Olympic female sports categories. The NCAA and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee have likewise introduced new restrictions governing transgender athlete participation.&nbsp;West Virginia's law, enacted in 2021, defines gender as being “based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” It further states that a female is a person “whose biological sex determined at birth as female.” Idaho's law, passed in 2020, similarly provides that sports “designated for females, women, or girls should not be open to students of the male sex.”

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld state bans on transgender athletes competing in girls' and women's sports, ruling the laws comply with the Constitution and Title IX

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) delivered another significant setback for LGBTQ rights by upholding state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled against two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who challenged laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict participation based on biological sex assigned at birth. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, concluded that the laws do not violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh wrote. Why did the Supreme Court uphold the transgender sports bans? According to the majority opinion, the court determined that the state laws are consistent with constitutional protections and federal education law. The ruling found that neither the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment nor Title IX requires states to allow transgender athletes to compete in female sports categories. Kavanaugh also acknowledged the challenges faced by transgender athletes. “Their desire to compete warrants respect” and that they should not be “ostracized or vilified.” Although the ruling directly applies only to West Virginia and Idaho, legal experts expect it to influence 25 other states that have enacted similar restrictions. The decision adds to a series of recent Supreme Court rulings limiting transgender rights. Last year, the court upheld state laws restricting gender transition treatments for transgender minors. Earlier this year, it sided with parents challenging California policies designed to protect transgender students. In separate decisions last year, the court also allowed Trump administration policies restricting transgender military service and limiting gender identity changes on US passports. However, the court's 2020 decision interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect employees from discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation remains in place, though it increasingly stands apart from more recent rulings. What impact will this ruling have across the United States? The ruling is expected to strengthen similar laws across the country. While the decision formally addresses only West Virginia and Idaho statutes, it is likely to serve as a legal precedent for more than two dozen states with comparable bans. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 16-year-old high school sophomore, has undergone puberty-blocking treatment and estrogen therapy and previously competed in girls' cross-country, shot put and discus events. Lindsay Hecox, a 25-year-old college student, has received testosterone suppression and estrogen treatments. She unsuccessfully tried out for her college's women's track and cross-country teams and has since participated in running and club soccer. The ruling comes amid a broader national shift in transgender policy. President Donald Trump, a vocal opponent of transgender participation in women's sports, signed an executive order after taking office titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” His administration supported West Virginia and Idaho before the Supreme Court and has also filed a lawsuit challenging California's policies on transgender athletes. International and national sports organisations have also adopted stricter eligibility rules. The IOC announced in March that transgender women would no longer be eligible to compete in Olympic female sports categories. The NCAA and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee have likewise introduced new restrictions governing transgender athlete participation. West Virginia's law, enacted in 2021, defines gender as being “based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” It further states that a female is a person “whose biological sex determined at birth as female.” Idaho's law, passed in 2020, similarly provides that sports “designated for females, women, or girls should not be open to students of the male sex.”

The US Supreme Court upholds state bans on transgender athletes in girls' sports, ruling the laws do not violate the Constitution or Title IX

US Supreme Court upholds state bans on transgender women in female sports

The US Supreme Court on Monday (Jun 29) handed President Donald Trump sweeping powers to fire members of certain independent agencies at will. The court ruled that job protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and swept aside a 90-year-old precedent that had allowed Congress to shield officials.The decision gives the president far greater control over boards and commissions that were designed to function independently from the White House. And that, in practical terms, could change how a long list of federal agencies function. The case began with Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner whom Trump first appointed during his first term and who was later reappointed by President Joe Biden.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-supreme-court-makes-it-easier-to-deport-green-card-holders-what-does-it-mean-for-indians-wion-horizons-1782271724642">US Supreme Court makes it easier to deport Green Card holders: What does it mean for Indians? | WION Horizons</a>In March 2025, she was told her continued service was inconsistent with the Trump administration's priorities and was removed without cause. That clashed with the law that created the FTC in 1914, which says commissioners can be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.Slaughter challenged the firing in court and won at the district court level. The appeals court in Washington later agreed she could remain in her post. But the Supreme Court stepped in last year and allowed Trump to remove her while the broader legal fight moved forward.<h2>What the court said</h2>The ruling was 6 to 3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, with the other conservative justices joining him. Roberts said officials who exercise executive power on the president's behalf must remain accountable to him, and that means they must be removable by him as well."Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him," Roberts wrote. "Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."The court found that the modern FTC "unquestionably" exercises executive power, and therefore cannot be insulated from presidential control in the way Congress had intended.Meanwhile, the three liberal justices dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a sign of how sharply divided the court was.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/welcome-but-be-good-trump-unveils-passport-featuring-his-image-ahead-of-america-s-250th-anniversary-click-here-to-see-1782526269530">'Welcome, but be good!': Trump unveils passport featuring his image ahead of America's 250th anniversary. Click here to see</a><h2>What this means beyond the FTC</h2>The decision is likely to ripple far beyond the trade commission. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies whose leaders can be removed only for cause, usually in cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. Now, agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board may face new pressure under the court's ruling.In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that the majority was effectively rewriting how government works."Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government," she wrote. "Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands."<h2>Trump lauds 'Greatest Increase in Presidential Power'</h2>Trump, unsurprisingly, celebrated the ruling. He called it the "Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!".

The US Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump sweeping new authority to fire members of certain independent federal agencies, overturning key parts of a 90-year-old precedent that limited presidential control.

The US Supreme Court on Monday (Jun 29) handed President Donald Trump sweeping powers to fire members of certain independent agencies at will. The court ruled that job protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and swept aside a 90-year-old precedent that had allowed Congress to shield officials. The decision gives the president far greater control over boards and commissions that were designed to function independently from the White House. And that, in practical terms, could change how a long list of federal agencies function. The case began with Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner whom Trump first appointed during his first term and who was later reappointed by President Joe Biden. Also read | US Supreme Court makes it easier to deport Green Card holders: What does it mean for Indians? | WION Horizons In March 2025, she was told her continued service was inconsistent with the Trump administration's priorities and was removed without cause. That clashed with the law that created the FTC in 1914, which says commissioners can be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Slaughter challenged the firing in court and won at the district court level. The appeals court in Washington later agreed she could remain in her post. But the Supreme Court stepped in last year and allowed Trump to remove her while the broader legal fight moved forward. What the court said The ruling was 6 to 3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, with the other conservative justices joining him. Roberts said officials who exercise executive power on the president's behalf must remain accountable to him, and that means they must be removable by him as well. "Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him," Roberts wrote. "Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people." The court found that the modern FTC "unquestionably" exercises executive power, and therefore cannot be insulated from presidential control in the way Congress had intended. Meanwhile, the three liberal justices dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a sign of how sharply divided the court was. Also read | 'Welcome, but be good!': Trump unveils passport featuring his image ahead of America's 250th anniversary. Click here to see What this means beyond the FTC The decision is likely to ripple far beyond the trade commission. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies whose leaders can be removed only for cause, usually in cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. Now, agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board may face new pressure under the court's ruling. In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that the majority was effectively rewriting how government works. "Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government," she wrote. "Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands." Trump lauds 'Greatest Increase in Presidential Power' Trump, unsurprisingly, celebrated the ruling. He called it the "Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!".

The US Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump sweeping new authority to fire members of certain independent federal agencies, overturning key parts of a 90-year-old precedent that limited presidential control.

US Supreme Court hands Trump 'greatest increase in presidential power' in 90 years. What can the POTUS do now?

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count mail ballots that are cast by election day but arrive later, rejecting the Trump administration’s push to block the practice. The 5-4 decision upholds a Mississippi law that had permitted the counting of mail-in ballots that were postmarked before election day but arrived up to five days afterwards.&nbsp;The ruling marks a significant political defeat for President Donald Trump, who called the decision a “tremendous loss”. Trump has repeatedly said that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to fraud.&nbsp;The states that allow late-arriving postal ballots are mostly Democratic-leaning, although a few Republican-led ones also allow a grace period.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/yasin-malik-faces-trial-in-sarla-bhat-rape-murder-case-35-years-after-brutal-crime-instilled-fear-in-kashmiri-pandits-triggered-exodus-1782752930044">Yasin Malik faces trial in Sarla Bhat rape-murder case 35 years after brutal crime instilled fear in Kashmiri Pandits</a>&nbsp;The top court’s ruling could affect voting deadlines in more than a dozen states that will be pivotal in deciding which party controls Congress after the midterm elections in November.&nbsp;Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices. In the opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that the ruling does not conflict with existing federal law, which stipulates that the “Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November” is the “day for the election”.&nbsp;“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” she wrote.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-s-ev-policy-no-tax-registration-fees-on-electric-cars-under-rs-30-lakh-no-new-petrol-bikes-from-2028-1782743406485">Delhi’s EV policy: No tax, registration fees on electric cars under Rs 30 lakh, no new petrol bikes from 2028</a> Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said in his written dissent that the acceptance of late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement.&nbsp;“Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s election,” he wrote. “Diverse sources have recognised that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”&nbsp;Trump signed an executive order in March to stop mail-in voting ahead of midterm electionsThe US president has repeatedly criticised mail-in ballots and said that the practice prevented him from winning the 2020 election against Joe Biden.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-urgent-hearing-of-ram-temple-petitions-saying-heavens-are-not-going-to-fall-1782739148242">Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of Ram Temple petitions, saying, 'Heavens are not going to fall’</a> Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, Trump called on lawmakers to pass the Save America Act, which would mandate photo ID and proof of citizenship for voters and also ban mail-in ballots, with exceptions made only in cases of illness, disability, travel or military deployments.&nbsp;“There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump said of the Save America Act in a post on Truth Social. “There is only one reason to oppose - cheating.”&nbsp;Last week, Trump had cancelled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would make it a law only if the Save America Act were passed.&nbsp;Republicans argue that the law requires ballots to be not just postmarked but received by that date.&nbsp;“Election-day receipt promotes election integrity and voter confidence as much today as it did when Congress passed that law,” the Trump administration told the Supreme Court in a legal brief.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-five-killed-in-mass-shooting-in-northern-germany-s-stade-town-suspect-detained-say-police-1782735568424">At least six killed in mass shooting in northern Germany’s Stade town; suspect detained, say police</a> Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters said after the court’s decision on Monday, “Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots.”&nbsp;More than a dozen states allow mail-in ballots to be received after election day, including Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Virginia, and California.&nbsp;“This is a win for voters, plain and simple,” California governor Gavin Newsom said on X. “Today’s ruling helps ensure mailed-in-ballots get counted and people’s voices are heard through the democratic process.”&nbsp;All 50 states require ballots to be marked and submitted by the day of the election. But in 14 states and the District of Columbia, election officials will accept and count mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received after that day. Twenty-nine states and D.C. allow at least some military and overseas ballots to be received after Election Day.

The top court’s ruling could affect voting deadlines in more than a dozen states that will be pivotal in deciding which party controls Congress after the midterm elections in November. The states that allow late-arriving postal ballots are mostly Democratic-leaning.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count mail ballots that are cast by election day but arrive later, rejecting the Trump administration’s push to block the practice. The 5-4 decision upholds a Mississippi law that had permitted the counting of mail-in ballots that were postmarked before election day but arrived up to five days afterwards. The ruling marks a significant political defeat for President Donald Trump, who called the decision a “tremendous loss”. Trump has repeatedly said that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to fraud. The states that allow late-arriving postal ballots are mostly Democratic-leaning, although a few Republican-led ones also allow a grace period. Also Read: Yasin Malik faces trial in Sarla Bhat rape-murder case 35 years after brutal crime instilled fear in Kashmiri Pandits The top court’s ruling could affect voting deadlines in more than a dozen states that will be pivotal in deciding which party controls Congress after the midterm elections in November. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices. In the opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that the ruling does not conflict with existing federal law, which stipulates that the “Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November” is the “day for the election”. “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” she wrote. Also Read: Delhi’s EV policy: No tax, registration fees on electric cars under Rs 30 lakh, no new petrol bikes from 2028 Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said in his written dissent that the acceptance of late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement. “Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s election,” he wrote. “Diverse sources have recognised that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.” Trump signed an executive order in March to stop mail-in voting ahead of midterm elections The US president has repeatedly criticised mail-in ballots and said that the practice prevented him from winning the 2020 election against Joe Biden. Also Read: Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing of Ram Temple petitions, saying, 'Heavens are not going to fall’ Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, Trump called on lawmakers to pass the Save America Act, which would mandate photo ID and proof of citizenship for voters and also ban mail-in ballots, with exceptions made only in cases of illness, disability, travel or military deployments. “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump said of the Save America Act in a post on Truth Social. “There is only one reason to oppose - cheating.” Last week, Trump had cancelled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would make it a law only if the Save America Act were passed. Republicans argue that the law requires ballots to be not just postmarked but received by that date. “Election-day receipt promotes election integrity and voter confidence as much today as it did when Congress passed that law,” the Trump administration told the Supreme Court in a legal brief. Also Read: At least six killed in mass shooting in northern Germany’s Stade town; suspect detained, say police Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters said after the court’s decision on Monday, “Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots.” More than a dozen states allow mail-in ballots to be received after election day, including Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Virginia, and California. “This is a win for voters, plain and simple,” California governor Gavin Newsom said on X. “Today’s ruling helps ensure mailed-in-ballots get counted and people’s voices are heard through the democratic process.” All 50 states require ballots to be marked and submitted by the day of the election. But in 14 states and the District of Columbia, election officials will accept and count mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received after that day. Twenty-nine states and D.C. allow at least some military and overseas ballots to be received after Election Day.

The top court’s ruling could affect voting deadlines in more than a dozen states that will be pivotal in deciding which party controls Congress after the midterm elections in November. The states that allow late-arriving postal ballots are mostly Democratic-leaning.

US Supreme Court allows states to count mail-in ballots that arrive late; Trump calls it ‘tremendous loss’

The US Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for the Trump administration to end legal protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, allowing them to be deported. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the court sided in favour of the administration, seeking to continue with its effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. Following the development, conservative Justice Samuel Alito stated that judges exceeded their authority in questioning the administration's decision. The court also dismissed the argument that ending protections for Haitians amounted to discrimination. The ruling follows the Supreme Court's two separate decisions last year that allowed the Trump administration to withdraw similar protection from about 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US. In response, government lawyers argued in court papers that those decisions established a precedent that should likewise apply to Haitian and Syrian TPS recipients.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-to-resume-tourist-visas-for-bangladeshi-citizens-from-june-28-1782392591969">India to resume tourist visas for Bangladeshi citizens from June 28</a><h3>What is TPS programme?</h3>Representing the administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that decisions by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding TPS designations are not subject to judicial review. Created in 1990, the TPS programme grants temporary legal status and work authorisation to individuals from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other severe crises, with protections typically lasting up to 18 months and are eligible for renewal. Noem determined that conditions in Haiti and Syria had improved sufficiently and no longer justified TPS protections. However, both countries currently remain on the US State Department’s “Do Not Travel” advisory list. "Haiti has been under a State of Emergency since March 2024. Crimes involving firearms are common in Haiti. They include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom," the State Department stated regarding Haiti. However, the department stated that "no part of Syria is safe from violence." Without temporary protected status, affected individuals could face deportation via the normal legal process. However, they may still pursue alternative legal options in the US, such as applying for asylum. In the Haiti-related case, a group of TPS beneficiaries alleged that Noem’s decision was not what she claimed about Haiti, that they are now safe for people to return.&nbsp;

The ruling follows the Supreme Court's two separate decisions last year that allowed the Trump administration to withdraw similar protection from about 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for the Trump administration to end legal protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, allowing them to be deported. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the court sided in favour of the administration, seeking to continue with its effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. Following the development, conservative Justice Samuel Alito stated that judges exceeded their authority in questioning the administration's decision. The court also dismissed the argument that ending protections for Haitians amounted to discrimination. The ruling follows the Supreme Court's two separate decisions last year that allowed the Trump administration to withdraw similar protection from about 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US. In response, government lawyers argued in court papers that those decisions established a precedent that should likewise apply to Haitian and Syrian TPS recipients. Also read: India to resume tourist visas for Bangladeshi citizens from June 28 What is TPS programme? Representing the administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that decisions by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding TPS designations are not subject to judicial review. Created in 1990, the TPS programme grants temporary legal status and work authorisation to individuals from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other severe crises, with protections typically lasting up to 18 months and are eligible for renewal. Noem determined that conditions in Haiti and Syria had improved sufficiently and no longer justified TPS protections. However, both countries currently remain on the US State Department’s “Do Not Travel” advisory list. "Haiti has been under a State of Emergency since March 2024. Crimes involving firearms are common in Haiti. They include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom," the State Department stated regarding Haiti. However, the department stated that "no part of Syria is safe from violence." Without temporary protected status, affected individuals could face deportation via the normal legal process. However, they may still pursue alternative legal options in the US, such as applying for asylum. In the Haiti-related case, a group of TPS beneficiaries alleged that Noem’s decision was not what she claimed about Haiti, that they are now safe for people to return.

The ruling follows the Supreme Court's two separate decisions last year that allowed the Trump administration to withdraw similar protection from about 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US.

US Supreme Court allows trump administration to end protections for 350,000 Haitians, 6,000 Syrians

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jun 23) handed the federal government broader powers to deny entry and deport green card holders accused of certain crimes. The court ruled that immigration officials do not have to meet a higher standard of proof when deciding whether a returning lawful permanent resident should be treated as someone seeking admission to the country. The ruling could have major implications for lawful permanent residents, including thousands of Indians living in the United States. It could affect about 6.7 million Indians who were in the US as of January 2026.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/green-card-applicants-should-go-home-new-us-citizenship-rule-may-hit-indians-hardest-check-how-you-could-be-affected-1779514161561">Green card applicants should go home? New US citizenship rule may hit Indians hardest; check how you could be affected</a><h2>What did the Supreme Court rule?</h2>In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the court ruled that immigration authorities do not need to conclusively prove, using "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning Green Card holder committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as someone seeking admission into the country. Instead, border officials only need a "reason to believe" that the person may have committed a crime involving what US immigration law calls "moral turpitude"."The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling.The ruling effectively lowers the burden on immigration authorities when deciding whether a returning permanent resident should be allowed back into the country.So what exactly has changed? WION Decodes below.<h2>What is a "crime involving moral turpitude"?</h2>The phrase has long existed in US immigration law but remains broadly defined.According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), US immigration law uses the term "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) to describe offences considered inherently dishonest, immoral, or harmful. However, notably, there is no single, universally accepted definition.Traditionally, US immigration authorities and courts have treated crimes involving fraud, theft, forgery, serious assault, and offences involving an intent to cause significant bodily harm as CIMTs. Some crimes involving recklessness, malicious conduct, or sexual offences committed with lewd intent can also fall under the category.According to immigration guidance, authorities generally look for factors such as:<ul><li>Intent to defraud another person</li><li>Intent to permanently deprive someone of property</li><li>Intent to cause serious bodily harm</li><li>Certain reckless or malicious actions</li><li>Sexual offences involving lewd intent</li><li>Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/trump-just-made-it-nearly-impossible-for-indians-to-work-in-the-us-here-s-how-us-hikes-h-1b-fee-to-100-000-or-90-lakh-1758336080621">Trump just made it nearly impossible for Indians to work in the US — Here's how</a></li></ul><h2>Blanche v. Lau: What was the case about?</h2>The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and Green Card holder, who was stopped at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 while returning from China. At the time, Lau was facing trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. He was eventually allowed to be conditionally readmitted. Lau was later convicted, and immigration authorities sought to deport him.However, Lau continues to argue that the offence did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and challenged the government's actions. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with immigration authorities.<h2>Why does this matter for Indians?</h2>Indians make up one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States.According to India's Ministry of External Affairs, around 6.7 million people of Indian origin and Indian citizens were living in the US as of January 2026. That includes roughly 3.77 million people of Indian origin and 2.31 million Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).Data from the US Office of Homeland Security Statistics shows that 66,800 Indians received Green Cards in 2024, making India one of the largest sources of new lawful permanent residents.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rupee-slide-wars-and-more-indian-students-in-us-battle-currency-crisis-no-one-prepared-them-for-wion-horizons-1780044945428">Rupee slide, wars and more: Indian students in US battle currency crisis no one prepared them for | WION Horizons</a><h2>What are critics saying?</h2>The court's three liberal justices dissented. In a dissent note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the decision gives the government excessive power and weakens protections traditionally available to Green Card holders."I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," she wrote.She further noted that "With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law."Critics argue that lawful permanent residents, many of whom have lived and worked in the US for years, could now face greater uncertainty when travelling abroad if they have unresolved criminal allegations or past convictions.<h2>Does this mean Indians and other immigrants can be automatically deported from the US?</h2>No, the ruling does not mean Green Card holders can be deported automatically. However, it does make it easier for immigration authorities to deny entry and to strip lawful permanent resident (LPR) status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry if and when criminal concerns arise.

A new US Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for immigration authorities to deny entry to and deport Green Card holders accused of certain crimes. The move could affect millions of immigrants, including the large Indian diaspora in America. Here's all you need to know.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jun 23) handed the federal government broader powers to deny entry and deport green card holders accused of certain crimes. The court ruled that immigration officials do not have to meet a higher standard of proof when deciding whether a returning lawful permanent resident should be treated as someone seeking admission to the country. The ruling could have major implications for lawful permanent residents, including thousands of Indians living in the United States. It could affect about 6.7 million Indians who were in the US as of January 2026. Also read | Green card applicants should go home? New US citizenship rule may hit Indians hardest; check how you could be affected What did the Supreme Court rule? In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the court ruled that immigration authorities do not need to conclusively prove, using "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning Green Card holder committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as someone seeking admission into the country. Instead, border officials only need a "reason to believe" that the person may have committed a crime involving what US immigration law calls "moral turpitude". "The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling. The ruling effectively lowers the burden on immigration authorities when deciding whether a returning permanent resident should be allowed back into the country. So what exactly has changed? WION Decodes below. What is a "crime involving moral turpitude"? The phrase has long existed in US immigration law but remains broadly defined. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), US immigration law uses the term "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) to describe offences considered inherently dishonest, immoral, or harmful. However, notably, there is no single, universally accepted definition. Traditionally, US immigration authorities and courts have treated crimes involving fraud, theft, forgery, serious assault, and offences involving an intent to cause significant bodily harm as CIMTs. Some crimes involving recklessness, malicious conduct, or sexual offences committed with lewd intent can also fall under the category. According to immigration guidance, authorities generally look for factors such as: Intent to defraud another person Intent to permanently deprive someone of property Intent to cause serious bodily harm Certain reckless or malicious actions Sexual offences involving lewd intent Also read | Trump just made it nearly impossible for Indians to work in the US — Here's how Blanche v. Lau: What was the case about? The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and Green Card holder, who was stopped at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 while returning from China. At the time, Lau was facing trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. He was eventually allowed to be conditionally readmitted. Lau was later convicted, and immigration authorities sought to deport him. However, Lau continues to argue that the offence did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and challenged the government's actions. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with immigration authorities. Why does this matter for Indians? Indians make up one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States. According to India's Ministry of External Affairs, around 6.7 million people of Indian origin and Indian citizens were living in the US as of January 2026. That includes roughly 3.77 million people of Indian origin and 2.31 million Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). Data from the US Office of Homeland Security Statistics shows that 66,800 Indians received Green Cards in 2024, making India one of the largest sources of new lawful permanent residents. Also read | Rupee slide, wars and more: Indian students in US battle currency crisis no one prepared them for | WION Horizons What are critics saying? The court's three liberal justices dissented. In a dissent note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the decision gives the government excessive power and weakens protections traditionally available to Green Card holders. "I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," she wrote. She further noted that "With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law." Critics argue that lawful permanent residents, many of whom have lived and worked in the US for years, could now face greater uncertainty when travelling abroad if they have unresolved criminal allegations or past convictions. Does this mean Indians and other immigrants can be automatically deported from the US? No, the ruling does not mean Green Card holders can be deported automatically. However, it does make it easier for immigration authorities to deny entry and to strip lawful permanent resident (LPR) status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry if and when criminal concerns arise.

A new US Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for immigration authorities to deny entry to and deport Green Card holders accused of certain crimes. The move could affect millions of immigrants, including the large Indian diaspora in America. Here's all you need to know.

US Supreme Court makes it easier to deport Green Card holders: What does it mean for Indians? | WION Horizons

US President Donald Trump on Thursday (May 21) intensified pressure on the Supreme Court, warning it would be a ‘disgrace’ if the justices rule against him on the issue of birthright citizenship. Trump has repeatedly broken political norms by openly criticizing Supreme Court justices and urging loyalty from judges he appointed during his presidency. Speaking at a White House event, Trump pushed the court to support his effort to limit automatic citizenship rights for children born in the United States. “It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen,” Trump said while discussing the case.&nbsp;“This decision by the Supreme Court is a very big one. They'll probably rule against me because they seem to like doing that,” Trump added. The Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will deliver its ruling on the matter, which is central to Trump’s broader immigration agenda aimed at tightening border controls and deporting undocumented migrants. Critics argue that the US Constitution clearly guarantees birthright citizenship and say Trump is overstepping presidential authority.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-democrats-lost-2024-elections-dnc-draft-reveals-kamala-harris-failed-to-define-herself-against-joe-biden-and-donald-trump-1779387037195">How Democrats lost 2024 elections: DNC draft reveals Kamala Harris failed to define herself against Joe Biden and Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;Although conservatives dominate the nine-member Supreme Court, the justices have not consistently sided with Trump on key legal challenges. “It's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right,” Trump said, referring to possible swing votes on the bench. On April 1, Trump attended a Supreme Court hearing related to the birthright citizenship case, becoming the first sitting US president to observe proceedings in person.&nbsp;The legal battle began after Trump signed an executive order following his return to the White House, declaring that children born to parents living in the US illegally or on temporary visas would no longer automatically receive citizenship. Lower courts blocked the order, calling it unconstitutional and citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-rubio-speaks-on-cuba-aid-hormuz-tensions-before-key-nato-meeting-1779382848933/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-rubio-speaks-on-cuba-aid-hormuz-tensions-before-key-nato-meeting-1779382848933/embed</a>&nbsp;Earlier this month, Trump also criticized the Supreme Court after it ruled that his global tariff policy was illegal. He argued that justices should remain ‘loyal to the person that appointed them’. During his first term, Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, creating a strong conservative majority on the bench.

Donald Trump pressures the Supreme Court over birthright citizenship, warning it would be a 'disgrace' if justices reject his immigration policy

US President Donald Trump on Thursday (May 21) intensified pressure on the Supreme Court, warning it would be a ‘disgrace’ if the justices rule against him on the issue of birthright citizenship. Trump has repeatedly broken political norms by openly criticizing Supreme Court justices and urging loyalty from judges he appointed during his presidency. Speaking at a White House event, Trump pushed the court to support his effort to limit automatic citizenship rights for children born in the United States. “It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen,” Trump said while discussing the case. “This decision by the Supreme Court is a very big one. They'll probably rule against me because they seem to like doing that,” Trump added. The Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will deliver its ruling on the matter, which is central to Trump’s broader immigration agenda aimed at tightening border controls and deporting undocumented migrants. Critics argue that the US Constitution clearly guarantees birthright citizenship and say Trump is overstepping presidential authority. Also Read: How Democrats lost 2024 elections: DNC draft reveals Kamala Harris failed to define herself against Joe Biden and Donald Trump Although conservatives dominate the nine-member Supreme Court, the justices have not consistently sided with Trump on key legal challenges. “It's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right,” Trump said, referring to possible swing votes on the bench. On April 1, Trump attended a Supreme Court hearing related to the birthright citizenship case, becoming the first sitting US president to observe proceedings in person. The legal battle began after Trump signed an executive order following his return to the White House, declaring that children born to parents living in the US illegally or on temporary visas would no longer automatically receive citizenship. Lower courts blocked the order, calling it unconstitutional and citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-rubio-speaks-on-cuba-aid-hormuz-tensions-before-key-nato-meeting-1779382848933/embed Earlier this month, Trump also criticized the Supreme Court after it ruled that his global tariff policy was illegal. He argued that justices should remain ‘loyal to the person that appointed them’. During his first term, Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, creating a strong conservative majority on the bench.

Donald Trump pressures the US Supreme Court on birthright citizenship, calling a ruling against him a ‘disgrace’ amid constitutional debate

'It would be a disgrace if SCOTUS allows that to happen': Trump pressures Supreme Court over birthright citizenship debate

A US trade court on Thursday (May 7) handed President Donald Trump another setback, ruling against the 10 per cent global tariffs he introduced after the Supreme Court struck down several earlier duties. In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of International Trade blocked the tariffs from being enforced against two companies and the state of Washington for now, although the ruling could pave the way for broader legal challenges in the future. The court found that the latest tariffs were not justified under the 1970s law cited by the Trump administration during implementation.&nbsp;Trump had imposed the temporary 10 per cent tariff in February, shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated many of his earlier global duties. The administration argued that the measure was necessary to address balance-of-payments deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs are set to remain in effect only until late July unless Congress approves an extension. Meanwhile, the administration has been exploring more permanent ways to revive Trump’s trade strategy.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-war-tehran-accuses-us-of-violating-ceasefire-with-attack-on-ships-in-strait-of-hormuz-1778190339228">US-Iran war: Tehran accuses US of violating ceasefire with attack on ships in Strait of Hormuz</a>&nbsp;As part of that effort, US officials have launched new investigations into dozens of trading partners over concerns related to forced labor and industrial overcapacity, moves that could eventually result in additional tariffs or other trade measures. The Court of International Trade directed the defendants to comply with the ruling within five days and ordered that the importers involved in the lawsuit receive refunds. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision.&nbsp;"Section 122 was passed in response to a specific historical crisis that resulted in the United States's currency and gold reserves being depleted," said Liberty Justice Center senior counsel Jeffrey Schwab after the ruling." The United States has a trade deficit, not a balance-of-payments deficit, and does not have an international payments problem," Schwab said in a statement.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-sindoor-iaf-says-over-100-pak-soldiers-around-100-terrorists-killed-1778178608202/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-sindoor-iaf-says-over-100-pak-soldiers-around-100-terrorists-killed-1778178608202/embed</a>&nbsp;Trump’s sector-specific tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum, and automobiles remain unaffected by the ruling and related legal challenges.Still, Thursday’s judgment marks another hurdle for Trump’s broader tariff agenda. After the Supreme Court previously dealt a major blow to Trump’s trade policy, businesses across the United States rushed to seek refunds.&nbsp;US Customs and Border Protection estimated in March that more than 330,000 importers could qualify for refunds following the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The tariffs that were previously struck down under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act had collected around $166 billion in duties and deposits.

A US trade court ruled against Donald Trump’s temporary 10% global tariffs, calling them unjustified under the Trade Act of 1974. The ruling orders refunds for importers and marks another legal setback for Trump’s tariff agenda

A US trade court on Thursday (May 7) handed President Donald Trump another setback, ruling against the 10 per cent global tariffs he introduced after the Supreme Court struck down several earlier duties. In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of International Trade blocked the tariffs from being enforced against two companies and the state of Washington for now, although the ruling could pave the way for broader legal challenges in the future. The court found that the latest tariffs were not justified under the 1970s law cited by the Trump administration during implementation. Trump had imposed the temporary 10 per cent tariff in February, shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated many of his earlier global duties. The administration argued that the measure was necessary to address balance-of-payments deficits under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs are set to remain in effect only until late July unless Congress approves an extension. Meanwhile, the administration has been exploring more permanent ways to revive Trump’s trade strategy. Also Read: US-Iran war: Tehran accuses US of violating ceasefire with attack on ships in Strait of Hormuz As part of that effort, US officials have launched new investigations into dozens of trading partners over concerns related to forced labor and industrial overcapacity, moves that could eventually result in additional tariffs or other trade measures. The Court of International Trade directed the defendants to comply with the ruling within five days and ordered that the importers involved in the lawsuit receive refunds. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision. "Section 122 was passed in response to a specific historical crisis that resulted in the United States's currency and gold reserves being depleted," said Liberty Justice Center senior counsel Jeffrey Schwab after the ruling." The United States has a trade deficit, not a balance-of-payments deficit, and does not have an international payments problem," Schwab said in a statement. https://www.wionews.com/videos/operation-sindoor-iaf-says-over-100-pak-soldiers-around-100-terrorists-killed-1778178608202/embed Trump’s sector-specific tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum, and automobiles remain unaffected by the ruling and related legal challenges. Still, Thursday’s judgment marks another hurdle for Trump’s broader tariff agenda. After the Supreme Court previously dealt a major blow to Trump’s trade policy, businesses across the United States rushed to seek refunds. US Customs and Border Protection estimated in March that more than 330,000 importers could qualify for refunds following the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The tariffs that were previously struck down under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act had collected around $166 billion in duties and deposits.

A US trade court has blocked Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, calling them unjustified under the 1974 law; refunds are being ordered for importers

US trade court rules against Donald Trump's 10% global tariffs under 1974 law

An Indian delegation will travel to Washington, DC, on Monday (April 20) for a three-day round of discussions with US officials on the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA), at a time when global tariff dynamics are undergoing major changes.&nbsp;Chief negotiator Darpan Jain, Additional Secretary in the Department of Commerce, will lead the delegation. Officials from the customs department and the Ministry of External Affairs will also be part of the talks, scheduled from April 20 to 22.&nbsp;The negotiations come against the backdrop of evolving US trade policy. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers. Subsequently, Washington introduced a uniform 10 per cent tariff on imports from all countries for a period of 150 days, effective February 24.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/first-state-visit-in-8-years-south-korean-president-lee-arrives-in-india-jaishankar-eyes-stronger-partnership-1776610792427">First state visit in 8 years: South Korean President Lee arrives in India, Jaishankar eyes stronger partnership</a>&nbsp;In light of these developments, both sides are expected to revisit the framework of the agreement that was finalised in February. A previously scheduled meeting has been deferred and is now being held this week.&nbsp;According to a report by PTI, the talks are also likely to address two investigations initiated by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 of its trade law. India has rejected the allegations in these cases and has urged the US to withdraw the probes, stating that they lack adequate justification.&nbsp;Under the earlier draft of the agreement, the US had proposed reducing tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent from 50 per cent, while also scrapping an additional 25 per cent duty linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil. There were also indications of further tariff reductions in subsequent phases.&nbsp;India, on its part, had offered to cut or eliminate duties on a range of US industrial and agricultural products, including animal feed, nuts, fruits, soybean oil, wine and spirits. It had also outlined plans to step up imports from the US, such as energy, aircraft, technology products and raw materials, over the next five years.&nbsp;However, with Washington now imposing a flat 10 per cent tariff across trading partners, India’s relative advantage under the proposed deal has narrowed, prompting the need to recalibrate and update the agreement.

Chief negotiator Darpan Jain, Additional Secretary in the Department of Commerce, will lead the delegation. Officials from the customs department and the Ministry of External Affairs will also be part of the talks, scheduled from April 20 to 22.

An Indian delegation will travel to Washington, DC, on Monday (April 20) for a three-day round of discussions with US officials on the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA), at a time when global tariff dynamics are undergoing major changes. Chief negotiator Darpan Jain, Additional Secretary in the Department of Commerce, will lead the delegation. Officials from the customs department and the Ministry of External Affairs will also be part of the talks, scheduled from April 20 to 22. The negotiations come against the backdrop of evolving US trade policy. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers. Subsequently, Washington introduced a uniform 10 per cent tariff on imports from all countries for a period of 150 days, effective February 24. Also Read: First state visit in 8 years: South Korean President Lee arrives in India, Jaishankar eyes stronger partnership In light of these developments, both sides are expected to revisit the framework of the agreement that was finalised in February. A previously scheduled meeting has been deferred and is now being held this week. According to a report by PTI, the talks are also likely to address two investigations initiated by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 of its trade law. India has rejected the allegations in these cases and has urged the US to withdraw the probes, stating that they lack adequate justification. Under the earlier draft of the agreement, the US had proposed reducing tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent from 50 per cent, while also scrapping an additional 25 per cent duty linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil. There were also indications of further tariff reductions in subsequent phases. India, on its part, had offered to cut or eliminate duties on a range of US industrial and agricultural products, including animal feed, nuts, fruits, soybean oil, wine and spirits. It had also outlined plans to step up imports from the US, such as energy, aircraft, technology products and raw materials, over the next five years. However, with Washington now imposing a flat 10 per cent tariff across trading partners, India’s relative advantage under the proposed deal has narrowed, prompting the need to recalibrate and update the agreement.

Chief negotiator Darpan Jain, Additional Secretary in the Department of Commerce, will lead the delegation. Officials from the customs department and the Ministry of External Affairs will also be part of the talks, scheduled from April 20 to 22.

India-US BTA talks: Indian delegation to visit Washington on Monday amid tariff landscape shift

The US Supreme Court appeared inclined on Wednesday (April 1) to reject Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to end birthright citizenship, following a high-profile hearing attended by the president himself. The case represents a central element of Trump’s broader immigration agenda, and his presence at oral arguments marked a rare moment for a sitting president. Trump left after Solicitor General John Sauer presented the administration’s arguments, and did not stay for American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang, who defended birthright citizenship.&nbsp;"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" Trump said in a social media post after returning to the White House. Trump had signed an executive order at the start of his second term declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders would not automatically receive citizenship. Lower courts blocked the order, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on US soil.&nbsp;Sauer argued before the court that "unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations" and “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.” "It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules," he said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-lifts-sanctions-on-venezuela-s-interim-leader-delcy-rodriguez-1775089715878">US lifts sanctions on Venezuela’s interim leader Delcy Rodriguez</a>&nbsp;He also raised concerns about "birth tourism," where individuals travel to the US specifically to give birth. However, both liberal and several conservative justices expressed doubts about the administration’s reasoning. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the relevance of such arguments. "We're in a new world now," the solicitor general said, “where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a US citizen.” "Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution," Roberts replied.&nbsp;The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Roberts noted that the administration appeared to be attempting to broaden exceptions to include undocumented immigrants, calling the approach “quirky.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the relevance of comparing U.S. law to policies in other countries. "We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history," Kavanaugh said. "Why should we be thinking about...other countries? I'm not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter."&nbsp;Justice Neil Gorsuch also raised historical concerns, noting that the concept of illegal immigration did not exist when the amendment was adopted in 1868. "If somebody showed up here in 1868 and established domicile, that was perfectly fine," Gorsuch said. “And so why wouldn't we...come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?” Wang argued that overturning birthright citizenship would jeopardize millions of Americans’ legal status. "Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike," Wang said. "That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy."&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-bombards-u-s-targets-as-israeli-airstrikes-rattle-tehran-1775065488091/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-bombards-u-s-targets-as-israeli-airstrikes-rattle-tehran-1775065488091/embed</a>&nbsp;The administration contends that the amendment, originally passed after the Civil War to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, does not apply to children of undocumented migrants or temporary residents. Trump’s executive order hinges on the interpretation that such individuals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the Supreme Court rejected a similar narrow interpretation in an 1898 case involving a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. A ruling against Trump would mark another legal setback, following the court’s decision earlier this year to strike down much of his global tariff policy. A final verdict is expected by late June or early July.

US Supreme Court questions Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship; final verdict likely in July

The US Supreme Court appeared inclined on Wednesday (April 1) to reject Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to end birthright citizenship, following a high-profile hearing attended by the president himself. The case represents a central element of Trump’s broader immigration agenda, and his presence at oral arguments marked a rare moment for a sitting president. Trump left after Solicitor General John Sauer presented the administration’s arguments, and did not stay for American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang, who defended birthright citizenship. "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" Trump said in a social media post after returning to the White House. Trump had signed an executive order at the start of his second term declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders would not automatically receive citizenship. Lower courts blocked the order, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on US soil. Sauer argued before the court that "unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations" and “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.” "It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules," he said. Also Read: US lifts sanctions on Venezuela’s interim leader Delcy Rodriguez He also raised concerns about "birth tourism," where individuals travel to the US specifically to give birth. However, both liberal and several conservative justices expressed doubts about the administration’s reasoning. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the relevance of such arguments. "We're in a new world now," the solicitor general said, “where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a US citizen.” "Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution," Roberts replied. The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Roberts noted that the administration appeared to be attempting to broaden exceptions to include undocumented immigrants, calling the approach “quirky.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the relevance of comparing U.S. law to policies in other countries. "We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history," Kavanaugh said. "Why should we be thinking about...other countries? I'm not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter." Justice Neil Gorsuch also raised historical concerns, noting that the concept of illegal immigration did not exist when the amendment was adopted in 1868. "If somebody showed up here in 1868 and established domicile, that was perfectly fine," Gorsuch said. “And so why wouldn't we...come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?” Wang argued that overturning birthright citizenship would jeopardize millions of Americans’ legal status. "Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike," Wang said. "That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy." https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-bombards-u-s-targets-as-israeli-airstrikes-rattle-tehran-1775065488091/embed The administration contends that the amendment, originally passed after the Civil War to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, does not apply to children of undocumented migrants or temporary residents. Trump’s executive order hinges on the interpretation that such individuals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. However, the Supreme Court rejected a similar narrow interpretation in an 1898 case involving a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. A ruling against Trump would mark another legal setback, following the court’s decision earlier this year to strike down much of his global tariff policy. A final verdict is expected by late June or early July.

US Supreme Court signals likely rejection of Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, with justices questioning constitutional and legal arguments

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court gave a landmark decision as it ruled that major internet service providers are not liable for copyright infringement. Ending the billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit, the apex court ruled in favor of Cox Communications, saying the company cannot be held liable for piracy done by its users over the songs that are owned by major music labels such as Sony Music, Warner Music ‌Group and Universal Music Group among others.&nbsp;This has been seen as a significant setback for the music industry in the case where major record labels has hold internet providers accountable for not &nbsp;cutting off users that have been repeatedly downloading music illegally.&nbsp;These are the music industries that hold rights of America's known music singer and songwriters, including Beyonce, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé among others.&nbsp;Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in his ruling said that Cox was not liable for the widespread copyright violations.&nbsp;"Cox provided internet service to its subscribers, but it did not ​intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement," Thomas wrote.&nbsp;&nbsp;"Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate ​internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents,'' he said.&nbsp;&nbsp;The lawsuit was filed in 2018 against Cox communication by more than 50 labels. In the filing, the music labesl accused Cox saying that the company failed to cut off the internet connections of the users who were repeatedly involved in illegally downloading the copyrighted music. In the case, they alleged that Cox’s subscribers used its internet service to download and shared copyrighted songs.&nbsp; &nbsp;A major win for Cox Communications. The Supreme Court's decision comes after a 2019 jury verdict found Cox liable for copyright infringemen of 10,017 songs and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages. Following the Supreme Court's order, Cox called it a "decisive victory" for the industry in a statement on Wednesday, according to New York Times. Cox Communications provides internet services to over six million homes and businesses across several US states.

US Supreme Court has given its decision in favour of internet provide in the case against the copyright infringement by the major music labels such as Sony Music, Warner Bros Music and others. 

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court gave a landmark decision as it ruled that major internet service providers are not liable for copyright infringement. Ending the billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit, the apex court ruled in favor of Cox Communications, saying the company cannot be held liable for piracy done by its users over the songs that are owned by major music labels such as Sony Music, Warner Music ‌Group and Universal Music Group among others. This has been seen as a significant setback for the music industry in the case where major record labels has hold internet providers accountable for not cutting off users that have been repeatedly downloading music illegally. These are the music industries that hold rights of America's known music singer and songwriters, including Beyonce, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé among others. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in his ruling said that Cox was not liable for the widespread copyright violations. "Cox provided internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement," Thomas wrote. "Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents,'' he said. The lawsuit was filed in 2018 against Cox communication by more than 50 labels. In the filing, the music labesl accused Cox saying that the company failed to cut off the internet connections of the users who were repeatedly involved in illegally downloading the copyrighted music. In the case, they alleged that Cox’s subscribers used its internet service to download and shared copyrighted songs. A major win for Cox Communications. The Supreme Court's decision comes after a 2019 jury verdict found Cox liable for copyright infringemen of 10,017 songs and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages. Following the Supreme Court's order, Cox called it a "decisive victory" for the industry in a statement on Wednesday, according to New York Times. Cox Communications provides internet services to over six million homes and businesses across several US states.

US Supreme Court has given its decision in favour of internet provide in the case against the copyright infringement by the major music labels such as Sony Music, Warner Bros Music and others.&nbsp;

US Supreme Court sides with internet provider in billion-dollar piracy case, setback for music industry

Governments across the world reacted cautiously after the US Supreme court struck down president Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs in a 6-3 ruling. Trump’s latest 15 percent global tariff in response to the ruling has added to the uncertainty around US trade policy and its effectiveness.


Asian Economies Brace for Policy Uncertainty

In a major setback to president Donald Trump’s trade agenda, the US Supreme court struck down several of his sweeping import tariffs in a 6-3 ruling. The court held that the international emergency economic powers act, or IEEPA, does not authorise the president to impose broad global tariffs.


President’s IEEPA Authority Rejected by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark verdict on Friday (Jan 30, 2026), recognising access to menstrual hygiene as a constitutional right. The decision marks a significant move for the menstrual hygiene of women, providing dignity and stigma-free education. The apex court stated that access to menstrual hygiene is a right to life, dignity, health, and education for the girl child.&nbsp;While observing a quote from American educator Melissa Berton, “a period should end a sentence - not a girl's education,” a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that under Article 21 of the Constitution, to protect the right to health, the government bears a positive obligation, particularly for the menstrual health of girl children.&nbsp;The Supreme Court also laid down a detailed set of binding instructions for all states and Union Territories, requiring them to provide free sanitary napkins, ensure operational gender-separate toilets, and promote menstrual health awareness in schools nationwide.&nbsp;The court issued a continuing mandamus, allowing it to retain oversight of the case, to monitor implementation, directing both the Centre and state governments to guarantee the availability of free sanitary napkins and properly functioning toilets in all schools.<h3>CSR initiatives</h3>In response to the ruling, Vikas Bagaria of Pee Safe said the ruling was long overdue and marked a defining moment for dignity and access in period care. He noted that Pee Safe has consistently worked to break stigma and improve awareness through initiatives like its CSR programme HaqSePeriod, which partners with NGOs for education and distribution drives.&nbsp;"This landmark Supreme Court ruling is a defining moment for menstrual equity in India. Declaring menstrual hygiene a fundamental right and mandating free sanitary pads in schools, better sanitation facilities, and strict enforcement was long overdue and will ensure no girl is denied education because of her period. At Pee Safe, we have advocated for this change for years, working to break stigma, spread awareness, and make period care accessible across India. Through our CSR initiative HaqSePeriod, we’ve partnered with NGOs to conduct free educational sessions and distribution drives, and our Menstrual Hygiene Day campaign Zero Period continues to push this mission forward. We will remain committed to driving awareness, access, and dignity until period care is truly universal," he said.&nbsp;In response to the verdicts, the court has issued time-bound directions to the central government, states and union territories, to be complied with within three months. The Court has also ordered the National Council of Educational Research and Training and the State Council of Educational Research and Training to include gender-responsive curricula on puberty and menstruation.&nbsp;In addition, district Education Officers (DEO) have also been directed to conduct periodic inspections of schools, preferably annually. And, mandated that DEOs must get anonymous feedback in the form of a tailored survey from the students themselves.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/health-and-wellness/using-same-period-product-for-years-doctors-warn-this-could-be-mistake-1769524845909">Using same period product for years? Doctors warn this could be mistake</a> &nbsp;

The Supreme Court laid down a detailed set of binding instructions for all states and Union Territories, requiring them to provide free sanitary napkins, ensure operational gender-separate toilets, and promote menstrual health awareness in schools nationwide.

The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark verdict on Friday (Jan 30, 2026), recognising access to menstrual hygiene as a constitutional right. The decision marks a significant move for the menstrual hygiene of women, providing dignity and stigma-free education. The apex court stated that access to menstrual hygiene is a right to life, dignity, health, and education for the girl child. While observing a quote from American educator Melissa Berton, “a period should end a sentence - not a girl's education,” a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that under Article 21 of the Constitution, to protect the right to health, the government bears a positive obligation, particularly for the menstrual health of girl children. The Supreme Court also laid down a detailed set of binding instructions for all states and Union Territories, requiring them to provide free sanitary napkins, ensure operational gender-separate toilets, and promote menstrual health awareness in schools nationwide. The court issued a continuing mandamus, allowing it to retain oversight of the case, to monitor implementation, directing both the Centre and state governments to guarantee the availability of free sanitary napkins and properly functioning toilets in all schools. CSR initiatives In response to the ruling, Vikas Bagaria of Pee Safe said the ruling was long overdue and marked a defining moment for dignity and access in period care. He noted that Pee Safe has consistently worked to break stigma and improve awareness through initiatives like its CSR programme HaqSePeriod, which partners with NGOs for education and distribution drives. "This landmark Supreme Court ruling is a defining moment for menstrual equity in India. Declaring menstrual hygiene a fundamental right and mandating free sanitary pads in schools, better sanitation facilities, and strict enforcement was long overdue and will ensure no girl is denied education because of her period. At Pee Safe, we have advocated for this change for years, working to break stigma, spread awareness, and make period care accessible across India. Through our CSR initiative HaqSePeriod, we’ve partnered with NGOs to conduct free educational sessions and distribution drives, and our Menstrual Hygiene Day campaign Zero Period continues to push this mission forward. We will remain committed to driving awareness, access, and dignity until period care is truly universal," he said. In response to the verdicts, the court has issued time-bound directions to the central government, states and union territories, to be complied with within three months. The Court has also ordered the National Council of Educational Research and Training and the State Council of Educational Research and Training to include gender-responsive curricula on puberty and menstruation. In addition, district Education Officers (DEO) have also been directed to conduct periodic inspections of schools, preferably annually. And, mandated that DEOs must get anonymous feedback in the form of a tailored survey from the students themselves. Also read: Using same period product for years? Doctors warn this could be mistake

The Supreme Court laid down a detailed set of binding instructions for all states and Union Territories, requiring them to provide free sanitary napkins, ensure operational gender-separate toilets, and promote menstrual health awareness in schools nationwide.

Is menstrual hygiene now constitutional right in India? Here's what Supreme Court says

The US Supreme Court appeared likely on Tuesday in a closely watched pair of cases to uphold state bans on the participation of transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports.&nbsp;The conservative-dominated court heard more than three hours of arguments in separate challenges to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender students from female competition.&nbsp;Twenty-seven US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned as male at birth from taking part in girls' or women's sports.&nbsp;The Idaho case stems from the Republican-led state's 2020 Fairness in Women's Sports Act.&nbsp;The act was challenged by a transgender athlete at an Idaho university, and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.&nbsp;"Idaho's law classifies on the basis of sex, because sex is what matters in sports," not gender identity, Alan Hurst, the Idaho solicitor general, told the court.&nbsp;"It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages like size, muscle mass, bone mass and heart and lung capacity," Hurst said. "If women don't have their own competitions, they won't be able to compete."&nbsp;Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney for the Idaho woman who brought the case, pushed back, saying the number of transgender girls who have "participated and excelled" in competitive sports are "few and far between."&nbsp;Hartnett also argued that transgender girls who have undergone testosterone suppressant treatments do not have a competitive edge and have "mitigated their biological advantage of being born male."&nbsp;Justice Samuel Alito, one of the six conservatives on the nine-member court, took issue with that, saying "there is a healthy scientific dispute about the efficacy of some of these treatments."&nbsp;"There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes in competitions with them," Alito added. "Are they deluded in thinking that they are subjected to unfair competition?"&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-steve-smith-to-joe-root-5-active-batters-with-most-runs-in-ashes-ben-stokes-jonny-bairstow-usman-khawaja-1762275784636">From Steve Smith to Joe Root, 5 active batters with most runs in Ashes</a><h2>Harm</h2>West Virginia's 2021 Save Women's Sports Act was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team.&nbsp;An appeals court ruled that the ban amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex and violated Title IX, the federal civil rights law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs.&nbsp;West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams urged the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling because it means schools "can no longer designate teams by looking to biological sex."&nbsp;"Instead, schools must place students on sports teams based on their self-identified gender," Williams said.&nbsp;"But that idea turns Title IX, a law Congress passed to protect educational opportunities for girls, into a law that actually denies those opportunities for girls," he said.&nbsp;Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, appeared sympathetic to that argument.&nbsp;"I hate, hate that a kid who wants to play sports might not be able to play sports," Kavanaugh said. "But it's kind of a zero-sum game for a lot of teams.&nbsp;"Someone who tries out and makes it who is a transgender girl will bump from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team... someone else," he said. "There's a harm there."&nbsp;Kavanaugh also noted that the US Olympic Committee and National Collegiate Athletic Association do not allow transgender women to compete in women's sports.&nbsp;Those moves came after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February that enables federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls' or women's teams.&nbsp;University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas became a lightning rod in the debate over transgender athletes in women's sports after competing in female collegiate meets in 2022.&nbsp;Some fellow swimmers said Thomas, who had earlier swum on UPenn's men's team, should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-leonard-hutton-to-don-bradman-5-batters-with-highest-individual-score-in-ashes-bob-simpson-bob-cowper-ashes-2025-26-1762276944046">From Leonard Hutton to Don Bradman, 5 batters with highest individual score in Ashes</a>&nbsp;UPenn eventually agreed to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint stemming from the furor around Thomas.&nbsp;Supporters and opponents of both sides rallied outside the Supreme Court ahead of the hearing.&nbsp;Rebekah Bruesehoff, 19, a transgender college student from New Hampshire, said she enjoyed playing field hockey in school and it's "important that everyone has the right to participate fully in their school community."&nbsp;"This is so much more than just sports," Bruesehoff said. "It's about being ourselves in the world today."&nbsp;The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June or early July.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Twenty-seven US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned as male at birth from taking part in girls' or women's sports.

The US Supreme Court appeared likely on Tuesday in a closely watched pair of cases to uphold state bans on the participation of transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports. The conservative-dominated court heard more than three hours of arguments in separate challenges to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender students from female competition. Twenty-seven US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned as male at birth from taking part in girls' or women's sports. The Idaho case stems from the Republican-led state's 2020 Fairness in Women's Sports Act. The act was challenged by a transgender athlete at an Idaho university, and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. "Idaho's law classifies on the basis of sex, because sex is what matters in sports," not gender identity, Alan Hurst, the Idaho solicitor general, told the court. "It correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages like size, muscle mass, bone mass and heart and lung capacity," Hurst said. "If women don't have their own competitions, they won't be able to compete." Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney for the Idaho woman who brought the case, pushed back, saying the number of transgender girls who have "participated and excelled" in competitive sports are "few and far between." Hartnett also argued that transgender girls who have undergone testosterone suppressant treatments do not have a competitive edge and have "mitigated their biological advantage of being born male." Justice Samuel Alito, one of the six conservatives on the nine-member court, took issue with that, saying "there is a healthy scientific dispute about the efficacy of some of these treatments." "There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes in competitions with them," Alito added. "Are they deluded in thinking that they are subjected to unfair competition?" ALSO READ | From Steve Smith to Joe Root, 5 active batters with most runs in Ashes Harm West Virginia's 2021 Save Women's Sports Act was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex and violated Title IX, the federal civil rights law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs. West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams urged the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling because it means schools "can no longer designate teams by looking to biological sex." "Instead, schools must place students on sports teams based on their self-identified gender," Williams said. "But that idea turns Title IX, a law Congress passed to protect educational opportunities for girls, into a law that actually denies those opportunities for girls," he said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, appeared sympathetic to that argument. "I hate, hate that a kid who wants to play sports might not be able to play sports," Kavanaugh said. "But it's kind of a zero-sum game for a lot of teams. "Someone who tries out and makes it who is a transgender girl will bump from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team... someone else," he said. "There's a harm there." Kavanaugh also noted that the US Olympic Committee and National Collegiate Athletic Association do not allow transgender women to compete in women's sports. Those moves came after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February that enables federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls' or women's teams. University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas became a lightning rod in the debate over transgender athletes in women's sports after competing in female collegiate meets in 2022. Some fellow swimmers said Thomas, who had earlier swum on UPenn's men's team, should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage. ALSO READ | From Leonard Hutton to Don Bradman, 5 batters with highest individual score in Ashes UPenn eventually agreed to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint stemming from the furor around Thomas. Supporters and opponents of both sides rallied outside the Supreme Court ahead of the hearing. Rebekah Bruesehoff, 19, a transgender college student from New Hampshire, said she enjoyed playing field hockey in school and it's "important that everyone has the right to participate fully in their school community." "This is so much more than just sports," Bruesehoff said. "It's about being ourselves in the world today." The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June or early July. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Twenty-seven US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned as male at birth from taking part in girls' or women's sports.

US Supreme Court seems poised to uphold transgender athlete bans

The US Supreme Court did not rule on challenges to President Trump's tariffs on Friday (09 Jan), leaving investors and global markets in suspense over the US administration's key economic policy. Earlier, it was anticipated that the Supreme Court could rule on at least one issue pertaining to President Donald Trump's tariff war, as several major cases are pending in courts, including the litigation challenging the legal validity of the sweeping global tariffs. The apex court has scheduled January 9 as an "opinion day" for the multiple cases related to the ongoing tariff onslaught.&nbsp;The court also did not provide any deadline for when it will issue its next opinion, but it is expected to schedule more releases in the next two weeks.&nbsp;Following the news of the Supreme Court deferring the decision, online betting website Polymarket now shows just a one-in-four chance that the court will rule in Trump’s favour. &nbsp;The case is viewed as a landmark judgment as it is anticipated as a test of presidential power as well as of the court's standing on Donald Trump's far-reaching assertions regarding the authority of the president since he returned to power in January 2025. The outcome is expected to have a significant impact on the global economy. The major issues in front of the court are first to decide whether the administration has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and secondly, if the tariffs are found encroaching on the limits of presidential power, whether the United States have to reimburse the importers who have already paid these tariffs.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-temporarily-leave-kyiv-mayor-urges-residents-after-russia-hits-ukraine-with-oreshnik-missile-1767958024378">'Temporarily leave Kyiv': Mayor urges residents after Russia hits Ukraine with Oreshnik missile</a>&nbsp;This upcoming ruling will be the first instance in which the US Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Trump's sweeping tariffs. On April 2, 2025, the US president imposed sweeping reciprocal duties on foreign imports as part of a broader trade war, with tariffs on many partners ranging from 10 to 41 per cent, terming it as “Liberation Day”. India faced some of the highest levies imposed by Trump. Initially hit with a 25 per cent tariff, the United States doubled the duty to 50 per cent in August 2025, adding a punitive surcharge linked to New Delhi’s continued Russian oil imports. The 50 per cent rate applies to key exports including textiles, gems and jewellery, footwear, furniture and chemicals, while sectors such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, tea, coffee and spices have received exemptions.

India faced some of the highest levies imposed by Trump. Initially hit with a 25 per cent tariff, the United States doubled the duty to 50 per cent in August 2025, adding a punitive surcharge linked to New Delhi’s continued Russian oil imports.

The US Supreme Court did not rule on challenges to President Trump's tariffs on Friday (09 Jan), leaving investors and global markets in suspense over the US administration's key economic policy. Earlier, it was anticipated that the Supreme Court could rule on at least one issue pertaining to President Donald Trump's tariff war, as several major cases are pending in courts, including the litigation challenging the legal validity of the sweeping global tariffs. The apex court has scheduled January 9 as an "opinion day" for the multiple cases related to the ongoing tariff onslaught. The court also did not provide any deadline for when it will issue its next opinion, but it is expected to schedule more releases in the next two weeks. Following the news of the Supreme Court deferring the decision, online betting website Polymarket now shows just a one-in-four chance that the court will rule in Trump’s favour. The case is viewed as a landmark judgment as it is anticipated as a test of presidential power as well as of the court's standing on Donald Trump's far-reaching assertions regarding the authority of the president since he returned to power in January 2025. The outcome is expected to have a significant impact on the global economy. The major issues in front of the court are first to decide whether the administration has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and secondly, if the tariffs are found encroaching on the limits of presidential power, whether the United States have to reimburse the importers who have already paid these tariffs. Also Read: 'Temporarily leave Kyiv': Mayor urges residents after Russia hits Ukraine with Oreshnik missile This upcoming ruling will be the first instance in which the US Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Trump's sweeping tariffs. On April 2, 2025, the US president imposed sweeping reciprocal duties on foreign imports as part of a broader trade war, with tariffs on many partners ranging from 10 to 41 per cent, terming it as “Liberation Day”. India faced some of the highest levies imposed by Trump. Initially hit with a 25 per cent tariff, the United States doubled the duty to 50 per cent in August 2025, adding a punitive surcharge linked to New Delhi’s continued Russian oil imports. The 50 per cent rate applies to key exports including textiles, gems and jewellery, footwear, furniture and chemicals, while sectors such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, tea, coffee and spices have received exemptions.

India faced some of the highest levies imposed by Trump. Initially hit with a 25 per cent tariff, the United States doubled the duty to 50 per cent in August 2025, adding a punitive surcharge linked to New Delhi’s continued Russian oil imports.

US Supreme Court not to issue ruling on future of Trump tariffs on Friday

The US Supreme Court appeared likely on Monday to back a bid by Donald Trump to expand presidential powers and curtail the independence of federal agencies.The case before the top court stems from the Republican president's firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the regulatory Federal Trade Commission (FTC).Slaughter was dismissed without cause and lower courts upheld her claim that the move violated rules Congress put in place to protect the members of independent government agencies.The Trump Justice Department appealed to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court and a majority of the justices appeared to side with the administration during oral arguments on Monday.Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, urged the justices to overturn a landmark 1935 ruling known as "Humphrey's Executor" that prevented then president Franklin Roosevelt from dismissing a member of the FTC.Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, referred to "Humphrey's Executor" as a "dried husk" during two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments and said the FTC today is significantly more powerful than it was in the 1930s.Sauer said the current situation amounts to a "power vacuum" and the president as chief executive should have the authority to remove members of the FTC and the two dozen other similarly structured independent agencies at will."The real world consequences here are human beings exercising enormous governmental authority with a great deal of control over individuals and businesses... who ultimately do not answer to the president," Sauer said."We think the text of the Constitution confers the executive power, all of it, on the president."<h2>- 'Uncontrolled power' -</h2>The three liberal justices on the nine-member court expressed concerns that a ruling in the president's favor would vastly increase the powers of the executive and strip independent agencies of protections from political influence."The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power," Justice Elena Kagan told the solicitor general."If there's one thing we know about the founders, it's that they wanted powers separated," Kagan said.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, questioned the solicitor general along the same lines."You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent," Sotomayor said.The FTC's primary function is to protect the American public against deceptive or unfair business practices and it has taken on Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook parent Meta over how they wield market power.The FTC consists of five commissioners, typically representing both major political parties, with a chair nominated by the president.<h2>- 'Not in the best interests' -</h2>Trump fired Slaughter and the other Democrat on the FTC in March, opening the door for the Republican to appoint loyalists at the agency.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, said it would be a mistake for the court to allow this."Independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas, should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts," Jackson said."Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interests of the United States."The Supreme Court has overwhelmingly sided with Trump since he returned to office, allowing mass firing of federal workers, the withholding of funds appropriated by Congress and racial profiling in his sweeping immigration crackdown.The court is to hear arguments next month over Trump's bid to fire another senior official -- Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook.The justices blocked Trump in October from firing Cook until they could hear her case contesting her dismissal.The Supreme Court is expected to give its decision in the FTC case by the end of June.

The Trump Justice Department appealed to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court and a majority of the justices appeared to side with the administration during oral arguments on Monday.

The US Supreme Court appeared likely on Monday to back a bid by Donald Trump to expand presidential powers and curtail the independence of federal agencies. The case before the top court stems from the Republican president's firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the regulatory Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Slaughter was dismissed without cause and lower courts upheld her claim that the move violated rules Congress put in place to protect the members of independent government agencies. The Trump Justice Department appealed to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court and a majority of the justices appeared to side with the administration during oral arguments on Monday. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, urged the justices to overturn a landmark 1935 ruling known as "Humphrey's Executor" that prevented then president Franklin Roosevelt from dismissing a member of the FTC. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, referred to "Humphrey's Executor" as a "dried husk" during two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments and said the FTC today is significantly more powerful than it was in the 1930s. Sauer said the current situation amounts to a "power vacuum" and the president as chief executive should have the authority to remove members of the FTC and the two dozen other similarly structured independent agencies at will. "The real world consequences here are human beings exercising enormous governmental authority with a great deal of control over individuals and businesses... who ultimately do not answer to the president," Sauer said. "We think the text of the Constitution confers the executive power, all of it, on the president." - 'Uncontrolled power' - The three liberal justices on the nine-member court expressed concerns that a ruling in the president's favor would vastly increase the powers of the executive and strip independent agencies of protections from political influence. "The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power," Justice Elena Kagan told the solicitor general. "If there's one thing we know about the founders, it's that they wanted powers separated," Kagan said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, questioned the solicitor general along the same lines. "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent," Sotomayor said. The FTC's primary function is to protect the American public against deceptive or unfair business practices and it has taken on Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook parent Meta over how they wield market power. The FTC consists of five commissioners, typically representing both major political parties, with a chair nominated by the president. - 'Not in the best interests' - Trump fired Slaughter and the other Democrat on the FTC in March, opening the door for the Republican to appoint loyalists at the agency. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, said it would be a mistake for the court to allow this. "Independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas, should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts," Jackson said. "Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interests of the United States." The Supreme Court has overwhelmingly sided with Trump since he returned to office, allowing mass firing of federal workers, the withholding of funds appropriated by Congress and racial profiling in his sweeping immigration crackdown. The court is to hear arguments next month over Trump's bid to fire another senior official -- Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. The justices blocked Trump in October from firing Cook until they could hear her case contesting her dismissal. The Supreme Court is expected to give its decision in the FTC case by the end of June.

The Trump Justice Department appealed to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court and a majority of the justices appeared to side with the administration during oral arguments on Monday.

US apex court to approve expansion of presidential powers

The US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration on Thursday to require passport applicants to be identified on the document by their biological sex at birth rather than their gender identity.The move is the latest blow to the rights of transgender and nonbinary Americans from the conservative-majority court, which includes three justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump.Trump, after taking office in January, issued an executive order declaring that only two genders would now be recognized -- male and female -- ending recognition of a third gender, denoted by an "X" on US passports.In line with the order, passports issued by the State Department are now required to state the biological sex -- "M" or "F" -- of their holder at birth.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the move and a district court judge ordered the State Department to resume issuing "X" passports to transgender and nonbinary people affected by the policy change.An appeals court denied a Trump administration bid to overturn the district judge's order, and the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay.In a brief unsigned order, the top court said the Trump administration's passport policy could remain in place for now while the case proceeds in the lower courts."Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the court said.The three liberal justices on the nine-member court dissented.The State Department first issued "X" passports in October 2021 under president Joe Biden, with the "X" gender marker reserved for nonbinary, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals.Senior ACLU counsel Jon Davidson condemned the Supreme Court order and said the legal fight would continue."This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights," Davidson said in a statement."We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity," Davidson added.Trump also issued an executive order in January banning transgender Americans from military service, and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the ban could take effect while litigation challenging it plays out.Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a brief unsigned order, the top court said the Trump administration's passport policy could remain in place for now while the case proceeds in the lower courts.

The US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration on Thursday to require passport applicants to be identified on the document by their biological sex at birth rather than their gender identity. The move is the latest blow to the rights of transgender and nonbinary Americans from the conservative-majority court, which includes three justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump. Trump, after taking office in January, issued an executive order declaring that only two genders would now be recognized -- male and female -- ending recognition of a third gender, denoted by an "X" on US passports. In line with the order, passports issued by the State Department are now required to state the biological sex -- "M" or "F" -- of their holder at birth. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the move and a district court judge ordered the State Department to resume issuing "X" passports to transgender and nonbinary people affected by the policy change. An appeals court denied a Trump administration bid to overturn the district judge's order, and the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay. In a brief unsigned order, the top court said the Trump administration's passport policy could remain in place for now while the case proceeds in the lower courts. "Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the court said. The three liberal justices on the nine-member court dissented. The State Department first issued "X" passports in October 2021 under president Joe Biden, with the "X" gender marker reserved for nonbinary, intersex, and gender non-conforming individuals. Senior ACLU counsel Jon Davidson condemned the Supreme Court order and said the legal fight would continue. "This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights," Davidson said in a statement. "We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity," Davidson added. Trump also issued an executive order in January banning transgender Americans from military service, and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the ban could take effect while litigation challenging it plays out. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

In a brief unsigned order, the top court said the Trump administration's passport policy could remain in place for now while the case proceeds in the lower courts.

US Supreme Court allows Trump admin's passport policy that declares only two genders

The United States Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed scepticism about President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs on imports under a law designed for use during a national emergency. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has consistently backed Trump in contentious legal issues since he took office in January, but during the almost three-hour oral argument, both conservative and liberal justices asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer some tough questions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer showed up for the hearing and sat together in the middle rows of the courtroom. The three have been largely responsible for negotiating trade deals with other nations.&nbsp;The consequences of the case are immense for Trump and the US economy at large, as Americans are getting anxious amid fears that the tariffs are contributing to higher costs and not alleviating them.A fresh NBC News poll found that 63% of registered voters believe Trump is failing to live up to expectations on the economy. Other polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the tariffs.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-american-lawyer-neal-katyal-to-argue-against-trump-s-tariffs-in-us-supreme-court-1762283120852">Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal to argue against Trump’s tariffs in US Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;The central question is whether the 1977 law, called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which allows the president to regulate imports when there is an emergency, extends to the power to impose global tariffs of unspecified duration and breadth. The Constitution states that the power to decide and impose tariffs is assigned to Congress.&nbsp;IEEPA does not specifically mention tariffs but says the president can regulate imports and exports when he deems there to be an emergency.&nbsp;No president had ever used the law to tariff imports until Trump did it in his second term. Lower courts ruled against the Trump administration.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-origin-cincinnati-mayor-aftab-pureval-wins-second-term-vanquishes-jd-vance-s-half-brother-1762347016439">Indian-origin Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval wins second term, vanquishes JD Vance’s half-brother</a>&nbsp;During the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the court’s conservatives, noted that “the imposition of taxes on Americans” has always “been the core power of Congress,” a fact that was echoed by other justices also.“The statute doesn’t use the word tariff,” Roberts said.&nbsp;Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/maharashtra-becomes-first-state-in-india-to-sign-deal-with-elon-musk-s-starlink-1762361644659">Maharashtra becomes first state in India to sign deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink</a>&nbsp;The high-stakes case puts the spotlight on a court that was sceptical of President Joe Biden’s unilateral use of executive power, including his attempt to forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt. The court blocked that proposal, citing what has been called the “major questions doctrine” according to which a president cannot impose a broad policy with huge impacts on society and the economy unless Congress passes a law that specifically allows for it.&nbsp;WATCH: Russia's Secret Army: Iraq’s Tiktok Mercenaries Fight and Die for Moscow<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-s-secret-army-iraq-s-tiktok-mercenaries-fight-and-die-for-moscow-1762365218220/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-s-secret-army-iraq-s-tiktok-mercenaries-fight-and-die-for-moscow-1762365218220/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Several justices asked questions suggesting the case could be decided along similar lines. “It seems it might be directly applicable,” Roberts said.Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, asked whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to give the president sweeping powers over tariffs, as the government suggested.&nbsp;If the court were to rule for Trump, would there be any limit to Congress “just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war?” he asked Sauer.

The consequences of the case are immense for Trump and the US economy at large, as Americans are getting anxious amid fears that the tariffs are contributing to higher costs and not alleviating them. No president had ever used the law to tariff imports until Trump did it in his second term.

The United States Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed scepticism about President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs on imports under a law designed for use during a national emergency. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has consistently backed Trump in contentious legal issues since he took office in January, but during the almost three-hour oral argument, both conservative and liberal justices asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer some tough questions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer showed up for the hearing and sat together in the middle rows of the courtroom. The three have been largely responsible for negotiating trade deals with other nations. The consequences of the case are immense for Trump and the US economy at large, as Americans are getting anxious amid fears that the tariffs are contributing to higher costs and not alleviating them. A fresh NBC News poll found that 63% of registered voters believe Trump is failing to live up to expectations on the economy. Other polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the tariffs. Also Read: Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal to argue against Trump’s tariffs in US Supreme Court The central question is whether the 1977 law, called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which allows the president to regulate imports when there is an emergency, extends to the power to impose global tariffs of unspecified duration and breadth. The Constitution states that the power to decide and impose tariffs is assigned to Congress. IEEPA does not specifically mention tariffs but says the president can regulate imports and exports when he deems there to be an emergency. No president had ever used the law to tariff imports until Trump did it in his second term. Lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. Also Read: Indian-origin Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval wins second term, vanquishes JD Vance’s half-brother During the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the court’s conservatives, noted that “the imposition of taxes on Americans” has always “been the core power of Congress,” a fact that was echoed by other justices also. “The statute doesn’t use the word tariff,” Roberts said. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.” Also Read: Maharashtra becomes first state in India to sign deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink The high-stakes case puts the spotlight on a court that was sceptical of President Joe Biden’s unilateral use of executive power, including his attempt to forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt. The court blocked that proposal, citing what has been called the “major questions doctrine” according to which a president cannot impose a broad policy with huge impacts on society and the economy unless Congress passes a law that specifically allows for it. WATCH: Russia's Secret Army: Iraq’s Tiktok Mercenaries Fight and Die for Moscow https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-s-secret-army-iraq-s-tiktok-mercenaries-fight-and-die-for-moscow-1762365218220/embed Several justices asked questions suggesting the case could be decided along similar lines. “It seems it might be directly applicable,” Roberts said. Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, asked whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to give the president sweeping powers over tariffs, as the government suggested. If the court were to rule for Trump, would there be any limit to Congress “just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, or for that matter, declare war?” he asked Sauer.

The consequences of the case are immense for Trump and the US economy at large, as Americans are getting anxious amid fears that the tariffs are contributing to higher costs and not alleviating them. No president had ever used the law to tariff imports until Trump did it in his second term.

US Supreme Court justices appear sceptical of Trump’s tariffs argument

Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal will be in the spotlight as he leads a challenge and will initiate arguments against Donald Trump’s tariffs in the US Supreme Court on Wednesday in a trial that could redraw the lines on presidential authority. The 54-year-old Katyal has argued more than 50 cases before the top court and is no stranger to high-stakes constitutional battles. Katyal will lead the arguments on the extent of presidential powers to impose tariffs and Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. The question before the court is whether that law truly grants the president such power, or whether all tariff and taxation decisions rest with the Congress. The eyes of the entire world will be glued to the proceedings as Trump’s tariffs triggered a massive turmoil in the global economy.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/towering-republican-and-46th-us-vice-president-dick-cheney-dies-at-84-1762257177051">Towering Republican and 46th US vice president Dick Cheney dies at 84</a>&nbsp;Trump himself has described the case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country” and said that he had initially planned to appear in person at the hearing but then changed his mind. “I do not want to distract from the importance of the decision.”“It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court,” Trump said on Sunday in his characteristic tone, while warning of the stakes ahead.&nbsp;“If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status—Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/idf-receives-casket-with-hostage-body-from-red-cross-in-gaza-taken-for-identification-1762284793257">IDF receives casket with hostage body from Red Cross in Gaza; remains taken for identification</a>&nbsp;Katyal has already achieved a victory in the case in the lower court when, as lead counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, he won a 7-4 ruling at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which concluded that the American president had exceeded his authority. He will now urge the top court justices to uphold that judgment.&nbsp;Katyal has an impressive track record and represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore to challenge Trump-era travel bans. He is also a persistent adversary of Trump’s legal agenda.&nbsp;&nbsp;Katyal was born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, a physician mother and engineer father. He studied at Yale Law School, where he was mentored by constitutional scholar Akhil Amar. His sister, Sonia Katyal, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eam-dr-jaishankar-to-visit-canada-next-week-1762277224927">External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar to visit Canada next week</a>&nbsp;Another Indian-American lawyer, Pratik Shah, head of Akin Gump’s Supreme Court and Appellate practice, is also involved in the tariff challenge. Shah represents two educational toy makers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, who also argue that the president’s tariff actions exceeded statutory limits.&nbsp;WATCH: Yunus Govt Bows To Islamists, Drops Plan To Hire Music And Physical Education Teachers<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/yunus-govt-bows-to-islamists-drops-plan-to-hire-music-and-physical-education-teachers-1762278825457/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/yunus-govt-bows-to-islamists-drops-plan-to-hire-music-and-physical-education-teachers-1762278825457/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;

The question before the court is whether that law truly grants the president such power, or whether all tariff and taxation decisions rest with the Congress. The eyes of the entire world will be glued to the proceedings as Trump’s tariffs triggered a massive turmoil in the global economy.

Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal will be in the spotlight as he leads a challenge and will initiate arguments against Donald Trump’s tariffs in the US Supreme Court on Wednesday in a trial that could redraw the lines on presidential authority. The 54-year-old Katyal has argued more than 50 cases before the top court and is no stranger to high-stakes constitutional battles. Katyal will lead the arguments on the extent of presidential powers to impose tariffs and Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. The question before the court is whether that law truly grants the president such power, or whether all tariff and taxation decisions rest with the Congress. The eyes of the entire world will be glued to the proceedings as Trump’s tariffs triggered a massive turmoil in the global economy. Also Read: Towering Republican and 46th US vice president Dick Cheney dies at 84 Trump himself has described the case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country” and said that he had initially planned to appear in person at the hearing but then changed his mind. “I do not want to distract from the importance of the decision.” “It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court,” Trump said on Sunday in his characteristic tone, while warning of the stakes ahead. “If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status—Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!” Also Read: IDF receives casket with hostage body from Red Cross in Gaza; remains taken for identification Katyal has already achieved a victory in the case in the lower court when, as lead counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, he won a 7-4 ruling at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which concluded that the American president had exceeded his authority. He will now urge the top court justices to uphold that judgment. Katyal has an impressive track record and represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore to challenge Trump-era travel bans. He is also a persistent adversary of Trump’s legal agenda. Katyal was born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents, a physician mother and engineer father. He studied at Yale Law School, where he was mentored by constitutional scholar Akhil Amar. His sister, Sonia Katyal, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley. Also Read: External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar to visit Canada next week Another Indian-American lawyer, Pratik Shah, head of Akin Gump’s Supreme Court and Appellate practice, is also involved in the tariff challenge. Shah represents two educational toy makers, Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, who also argue that the president’s tariff actions exceeded statutory limits. WATCH: Yunus Govt Bows To Islamists, Drops Plan To Hire Music And Physical Education Teachers https://www.wionews.com/videos/yunus-govt-bows-to-islamists-drops-plan-to-hire-music-and-physical-education-teachers-1762278825457/embed

The question before the court is whether that law truly grants the president such power, or whether all tariff and taxation decisions rest with the Congress. The eyes of the entire world will be glued to the proceedings as Trump’s tariffs triggered a massive turmoil in the global economy.

Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal to argue against Trump’s tariffs in US Supreme Court

On Monday (October 27), US President Donald Trump's legal team submitted their long-awaited appeal of the Manhattan criminal case that resulted in his felony conviction for falsifying business records. The lawyers restated arguments made by Trump and his defense team throughout his trial in spring 2024, insisting the case should never have been brought and urging the presiding judge’s recusal due to previous political donations to Democratic causes. They also cited a 2024 Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity, arguing that it could potentially impact the New York case. This decision, though tied to another of Trump’s legal matters, was referenced as grounds for overturning the conviction. Many of these same claims were previously dismissed during the trial.&nbsp;"This case should never have gone to trial, let alone led to a guilty verdict,” said Trump’s attorneys, led by Robert Giuffra Jr., in a detailed 96-page document. Trump’s appeal is one part of his broader strategy to reverse the felony conviction, which involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress. Prosecutors argued that Trump, through his lawyer Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence her allegations of an affair. The jury concluded that Trump authorized false documentation regarding reimbursements to Cohen for the payment.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/netanyahu-orders-immediate-powerful-strikes-on-gaza-after-accusing-hamas-of-violating-ceasefire-1761668884919">Netanyahu orders immediate ‘powerful strikes’ on Gaza; Hamas postpones hostage body handover</a>&nbsp;The trial, which spanned seven weeks in the spring, was a major distraction for Trump’s third presidential campaign, with much of his time spent in the courthouse instead of on the campaign trail. Throughout the proceedings, Trump and his team repeatedly claimed the case was politically motivated, accusing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of bringing the charges as a way to undermine his political standing. "The DA, a Democrat, pursued these charges during a highly charged presidential election, with Trump as the leading Republican contender," Trump’s lawyers said in the appeal. “This case was as unprecedented as it was politically motivated.”&nbsp;The Manhattan DA’s office declined to comment on the appeal. Despite his conviction, Trump avoided jail time in January, but the felony charges still stand unless successfully overturned. Trump’s former lead attorney in the case, Todd Blanche, is now the Deputy US Attorney General. Another member of his trial team, Emil Bove III, was appointed by Trump to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A representative for Trump’s legal team described the appeal as a "powerhouse," adding that the former president would continue to fight against what they term “Democrat weaponisation”, focusing on his mission to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump’s attorneys file appeal over 'hush money' felony conviction

On Monday (October 27), US President Donald Trump's legal team submitted their long-awaited appeal of the Manhattan criminal case that resulted in his felony conviction for falsifying business records. The lawyers restated arguments made by Trump and his defense team throughout his trial in spring 2024, insisting the case should never have been brought and urging the presiding judge’s recusal due to previous political donations to Democratic causes. They also cited a 2024 Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity, arguing that it could potentially impact the New York case. This decision, though tied to another of Trump’s legal matters, was referenced as grounds for overturning the conviction. Many of these same claims were previously dismissed during the trial. "This case should never have gone to trial, let alone led to a guilty verdict,” said Trump’s attorneys, led by Robert Giuffra Jr., in a detailed 96-page document. Trump’s appeal is one part of his broader strategy to reverse the felony conviction, which involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress. Prosecutors argued that Trump, through his lawyer Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence her allegations of an affair. The jury concluded that Trump authorized false documentation regarding reimbursements to Cohen for the payment. Also Read: Netanyahu orders immediate ‘powerful strikes’ on Gaza; Hamas postpones hostage body handover The trial, which spanned seven weeks in the spring, was a major distraction for Trump’s third presidential campaign, with much of his time spent in the courthouse instead of on the campaign trail. Throughout the proceedings, Trump and his team repeatedly claimed the case was politically motivated, accusing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of bringing the charges as a way to undermine his political standing. "The DA, a Democrat, pursued these charges during a highly charged presidential election, with Trump as the leading Republican contender," Trump’s lawyers said in the appeal. “This case was as unprecedented as it was politically motivated.” The Manhattan DA’s office declined to comment on the appeal. Despite his conviction, Trump avoided jail time in January, but the felony charges still stand unless successfully overturned. Trump’s former lead attorney in the case, Todd Blanche, is now the Deputy US Attorney General. Another member of his trial team, Emil Bove III, was appointed by Trump to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A representative for Trump’s legal team described the appeal as a "powerhouse," adding that the former president would continue to fight against what they term “Democrat weaponisation”, focusing on his mission to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump’s lawyers appeal his Manhattan conviction over alleged ‘hush money’ payments, claiming political bias and citing a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

Trump’s attorneys file appeal over 'hush money' felony conviction, push for case dismissal

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative justices signaled their willingness on Wednesday to undercut another key section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 federal law enacted by Congress to prevent racial discrimination in voting.


US: Are black voting rights under siege? US top court may nullify Voting Rights Act

The US Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to back a challenge by a Christian therapist to a Colorado law that bans "conversion therapy" for minors who are questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor who argues that the prohibition from holding such conversations with minors is a violation of her First Amendment free speech rights.Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed mental health professionals from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of their patients under 18 years old.&nbsp;Conversion therapy is banned in more than 20 US states and much of Europe, with both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association opposed to its use.&nbsp;"Miss Chiles is being silenced and the kids and families who want her help are unable to access it," James Campbell, her lawyer, told the conservative majority court during 90 minutes of oral arguments.&nbsp;"She's discussing concepts of identity and behavior and attractions and how they fit together," Campbell said. "That absolutely has to be protected by the First Amendment."Campbell, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, dismissed studies showing conversion therapy can be harmful, saying they "treat voluntary conversations the same as shock therapy."&nbsp;Chiles brought her case before the nation's top court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, after two lower courts ruled in favour of Colorado.<h2>‘Debunked’</h2>&nbsp;Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, asked Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, who was defending the law, to point to the "best evidence" that talk therapy causes harm to minors.&nbsp;"All of the theories underlying conversion therapy have been debunked," Stevenson said, adding that there is "not a single expert, not a single study, not a single mental health professional willing to endorse conversion therapy."&nbsp;"People have been trying to do conversion therapy for 100 years with no record of success," she said.&nbsp;"The harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself and they try and they try and they fail," she said."And then they have shame and they're miserable and then it ruins their relationships with their family."&nbsp;Justice Samuel Alito, an archconservative, pushed back, saying medical consensus is "usually very reasonable" but there have been occasions when it "has been politicised, has been taken over by ideology."&nbsp;Alito cited "a time when many medical professionals thought that certain people should not be permitted to procreate because they had low IQs" or recommended that children with Down Syndrome be institutionalised.&nbsp;After taking office for his second term in January, President Donald Trump said the US government would henceforth only recognise two genders -- male and female -- and signed an executive order restricting gender transition medical procedures for people under the age of 19.&nbsp;In June, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee state law banning hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for minors. The court is expected to rule on the conversion therapy case in June and its decision could impact more than 20 other states with similar bans.&nbsp;The Supreme Court will also hear a challenge this term to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls from taking part in girls' sports -- another issue at the heart of the American culture wars.&nbsp;&nbsp;Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience. &nbsp;

Conversion therapy is banned in more than 20 US states and much of Europe, with both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association opposed to its use.

The US Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to back a challenge by a Christian therapist to a Colorado law that bans "conversion therapy" for minors who are questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor who argues that the prohibition from holding such conversations with minors is a violation of her First Amendment free speech rights. Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed mental health professionals from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of their patients under 18 years old. Conversion therapy is banned in more than 20 US states and much of Europe, with both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association opposed to its use. "Miss Chiles is being silenced and the kids and families who want her help are unable to access it," James Campbell, her lawyer, told the conservative majority court during 90 minutes of oral arguments. "She's discussing concepts of identity and behavior and attractions and how they fit together," Campbell said. "That absolutely has to be protected by the First Amendment." Campbell, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, dismissed studies showing conversion therapy can be harmful, saying they "treat voluntary conversations the same as shock therapy." Chiles brought her case before the nation's top court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, after two lower courts ruled in favour of Colorado. ‘Debunked’ Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, asked Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, who was defending the law, to point to the "best evidence" that talk therapy causes harm to minors. "All of the theories underlying conversion therapy have been debunked," Stevenson said, adding that there is "not a single expert, not a single study, not a single mental health professional willing to endorse conversion therapy." "People have been trying to do conversion therapy for 100 years with no record of success," she said. "The harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself and they try and they try and they fail," she said. "And then they have shame and they're miserable and then it ruins their relationships with their family." Justice Samuel Alito, an archconservative, pushed back, saying medical consensus is "usually very reasonable" but there have been occasions when it "has been politicised, has been taken over by ideology." Alito cited "a time when many medical professionals thought that certain people should not be permitted to procreate because they had low IQs" or recommended that children with Down Syndrome be institutionalised. After taking office for his second term in January, President Donald Trump said the US government would henceforth only recognise two genders -- male and female -- and signed an executive order restricting gender transition medical procedures for people under the age of 19. In June, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee state law banning hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for minors. The court is expected to rule on the conversion therapy case in June and its decision could impact more than 20 other states with similar bans. The Supreme Court will also hear a challenge this term to state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls from taking part in girls' sports -- another issue at the heart of the American culture wars. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Conversion therapy is banned in more than 20 US states and much of Europe, with both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association opposed to its use.

US Supreme Court hears challenge to 'conversion therapy' ban for minors

US President Donald Trump on Thursday took his bid to fire central bank governor Lisa Cook to the Supreme Court.Trump has sought to oust Cook from the Federal Reserve Board over allegations of mortgage fraud, but an appeals court ruled she could remain in her role for now. The ruling allowed Cook to participate in a two-day meeting this week during which the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates for the first time this year.&nbsp;In a filing with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer asked that Trump be allowed to fire Cook immediately.Lower court rulings allowing her to remain in her post were "improper judicial interference with the President's removal authority," Sauer said. Federal Reserve governors can only be removed "for cause" and the solicitor general said Trump had determined that the mortgage fraud allegations make Cook "unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board."&nbsp;Among the alleged false statements attributed to Cook, she is accused of claiming two primary residences, one in Michigan and another in Georgia. Cook, who was appointed by Democratic president Joe Biden and is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board, has denied the allegations and has not been charged with a crime.&nbsp;She filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's bid to fire her, calling it an "unprecedented and illegal" move. The legal dispute marks the latest test of presidential powers under Trump, as the 79-year-old Republican moves forcefully to exert executive authority over all of government. By removing Cook, Trump could add another voice to the Fed's board to try and sway its decisions on interest rates. The Supreme Court's conservative majority recently allowed Trump to fire members of other independent government boards, but it created a potential carveout for the Fed in its ruling.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The ruling allowed Cook to participate in a two-day meeting this week during which the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates for the first time this year

US President Donald Trump on Thursday took his bid to fire central bank governor Lisa Cook to the Supreme Court. Trump has sought to oust Cook from the Federal Reserve Board over allegations of mortgage fraud, but an appeals court ruled she could remain in her role for now. The ruling allowed Cook to participate in a two-day meeting this week during which the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates for the first time this year. In a filing with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer asked that Trump be allowed to fire Cook immediately. Lower court rulings allowing her to remain in her post were "improper judicial interference with the President's removal authority," Sauer said. Federal Reserve governors can only be removed "for cause" and the solicitor general said Trump had determined that the mortgage fraud allegations make Cook "unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board." Among the alleged false statements attributed to Cook, she is accused of claiming two primary residences, one in Michigan and another in Georgia. Cook, who was appointed by Democratic president Joe Biden and is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board, has denied the allegations and has not been charged with a crime. She filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's bid to fire her, calling it an "unprecedented and illegal" move. The legal dispute marks the latest test of presidential powers under Trump, as the 79-year-old Republican moves forcefully to exert executive authority over all of government. By removing Cook, Trump could add another voice to the Fed's board to try and sway its decisions on interest rates. The Supreme Court's conservative majority recently allowed Trump to fire members of other independent government boards, but it created a potential carveout for the Fed in its ruling. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The ruling allowed Cook to participate in a two-day meeting this week during which the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates for the first time this year

Donald Trump takes bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook to Supreme Court

us-supreme-court

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

us supreme-court

Trump Renews Effort to Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook | Battle Over Federal Reserve Independence

US Supreme Court upholds state bans on transgender women in female sports

SCOTUS hands Trump 'greatest increase in presidential power'. Deets inside

Supreme Court allows states to count mail-in ballots that come late; Trump fumes

US Supreme Court allows trump to end protections for Haitians, Syrians

SCOTUS makes it easier to deport Green Card holders: What it means for Indians?

'Would be a disgrace..': Trump pressures SCOTUS on birthright citizenship debate