The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.

The conservative-majority court on a 5-4 vote with the court's liberals in dissent blocked in full a ruling by a federal judge in California barring the Republican president from spending the money on the basis that Congress did not specifically authorise the funds to be spent on the wall project fiercely opposed by Democrats and Mexico's government.

"Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!" Trump tweeted just minutes after the court acted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1154883345546928128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

A brief order explaining the court's decision said the government "made a sufficient showing" that the groups challenging the decision did not have grounds to bring a lawsuit.

"Today's decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands, and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona," said Gloria Smith, an attorney with environmental group the Sierra Club, which sued to block the funds.

In a highly unusual move, Trump on Feb. 15 declared a national emergency in a bid to fund the wall without congressional approval, an action Democrats said exceeded his powers under the U.S. Constitution and usurped the authority of Congress.

The administration has said it plans to redirect $6.7 billion from the Departments of Defence and Treasury towards wall construction under the emergency declaration after failing to convince Congress to provide the money, including the $2.5 billion in Pentagon funding. Congress earlier failed to provide $5.7 billion in wall funding demanded by Trump in a showdown in which the president triggered a 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government that ended in January.

Campaign promise

The administration said a court decision was needed quickly because it needs to spend the money before the end of September, when the federal government's fiscal year ends.

Trump made the border wall a major 2016 campaign promise. The wall is part of his hardline immigration policies that are central to his 2020 re-election bid. Trump has said the wall is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive.

The Southern Border Communities Coalition, a group advocating for people living in border areas, joined the Sierra Club in suing to try to block Trump's action.

The challengers have said the wall would be disruptive to the environment in part because it could worsen flooding problems and have a negative impact on wildlife.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled on May 30 in Oakland, California that the administration's proposal to build parts of the border wall in California, New Mexico and Arizona with money appropriated for the Defence Department to use in the fight against illegal drugs was unlawful. The judge issued an injunction barring use of the Pentagon funds for a border wall.

The administration asked that the injunction barring use of the reprogrammed funds be put on hold pending an appeal but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to do so.

The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.

The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding. The conservative-majority court on a 5-4 vote with the court's liberals in dissent blocked in full a ruling by a federal judge in California barring the Republican president from spending the money on the basis that Congress did not specifically authorise the funds to be spent on the wall project fiercely opposed by Democrats and Mexico's government. "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!" Trump tweeted just minutes after the court acted. Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019 × A brief order explaining the court's decision said the government "made a sufficient showing" that the groups challenging the decision did not have grounds to bring a lawsuit. "Today's decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands, and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona," said Gloria Smith, an attorney with environmental group the Sierra Club, which sued to block the funds. In a highly unusual move, Trump on Feb. 15 declared a national emergency in a bid to fund the wall without congressional approval, an action Democrats said exceeded his powers under the U.S. Constitution and usurped the authority of Congress. The administration has said it plans to redirect $6.7 billion from the Departments of Defence and Treasury towards wall construction under the emergency declaration after failing to convince Congress to provide the money, including the $2.5 billion in Pentagon funding. Congress earlier failed to provide $5.7 billion in wall funding demanded by Trump in a showdown in which the president triggered a 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government that ended in January. Campaign promise The administration said a court decision was needed quickly because it needs to spend the money before the end of September, when the federal government's fiscal year ends. Trump made the border wall a major 2016 campaign promise. The wall is part of his hardline immigration policies that are central to his 2020 re-election bid. Trump has said the wall is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. The Southern Border Communities Coalition, a group advocating for people living in border areas, joined the Sierra Club in suing to try to block Trump's action. The challengers have said the wall would be disruptive to the environment in part because it could worsen flooding problems and have a negative impact on wildlife. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled on May 30 in Oakland, California that the administration's proposal to build parts of the border wall in California, New Mexico and Arizona with money appropriated for the Defence Department to use in the fight against illegal drugs was unlawful. The judge issued an injunction barring use of the Pentagon funds for a border wall. The administration asked that the injunction barring use of the reprogrammed funds be put on hold pending an appeal but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to do so.

US Supreme Court lets Trump use disputed funds of $2.5 billion for border wall

The US Supreme Court has allowed US President Donald Trump to use defence funds to build border wall. Donald Trump says it is a big win for border security. Watch this video to know more.

US Supreme Court allows use of funds for border wall

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/worried-about-undercount-states-and-cities-spend-promote-2020-census-168774">2020 census</a> following a backlash by civil rights campaigners.

Critics said the administration wanted to add the question to suppress participation by immigrant communities in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lawmaker-aims-to-get-citizenship-question-removed-from-us-census-181537">once-a-decade survey</a> that helps officials determine where to allocate federal resources.&nbsp;

"We are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population," the president told a news conference at the White House.

Two weeks ago, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-census-citizenship-question-for-now-230965">Supreme Court seemingly ended a legal and political battle</a> over the issue. It concluded that the Trump administration's stated reasons for including the question were "contrived," and blocked the move.

Stung by the conservative-majority high court's 5-4 decision, Trump raised the possibility of forcing the issue with an executive order or even postponing the census.

The stakes are immense,&nbsp;the census helps determine the disbursement of $675 billion in federal subsidies and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives allocated to each state.

A question on citizenship, which was dropped more than 60 years ago, could stop between 1.6 and 6.5 million immigrants from participating or answering truthfully, according to census officials.

Immigrants living in the country illegally would especially be reticent, out of fear that they would be identified for deportation.

As he announced the U-turn, Trump said he would sign an executive order requiring federal agencies to provide the Commerce Department with immigration information from their existing databases.

"It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the US population. Imperative," he said.

Rights groups and Democrats hailed Trump's climb-down.

"President @realDonaldTrump's census defeat is a significant victory for democracy and fair representation. Every person must be counted, and no one should be intimidated by the president and his capricious behaviour," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter.&nbsp;

"His retreat on adding the misguided citizen question to the census was long overdue."

The American Civil Liberties Union added that it will continue to monitor the Trump administration's efforts to count immigrants.

"When the details of Trump's new plan to compile citizenship data outside of the census come out -- and his plans for using that data -- we will scrutinise them closely and assess their legality."

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the 2020 census following a backlash by civil rights campaigners.

US President Donald Trump backed down Thursday from a push to force a controversial question on citizenship onto the 2020 census following a backlash by civil rights campaigners. Critics said the administration wanted to add the question to suppress participation by immigrant communities in the once-a-decade survey that helps officials determine where to allocate federal resources. "We are pursuing a new option to ensure a complete and timely count of the non-citizen population," the president told a news conference at the White House. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court seemingly ended a legal and political battle over the issue. It concluded that the Trump administration's stated reasons for including the question were "contrived," and blocked the move. Stung by the conservative-majority high court's 5-4 decision, Trump raised the possibility of forcing the issue with an executive order or even postponing the census. The stakes are immense, the census helps determine the disbursement of $675 billion in federal subsidies and the number of seats in the US House of Representatives allocated to each state. A question on citizenship, which was dropped more than 60 years ago, could stop between 1.6 and 6.5 million immigrants from participating or answering truthfully, according to census officials. Immigrants living in the country illegally would especially be reticent, out of fear that they would be identified for deportation. As he announced the U-turn, Trump said he would sign an executive order requiring federal agencies to provide the Commerce Department with immigration information from their existing databases. "It is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the US population. Imperative," he said. Rights groups and Democrats hailed Trump's climb-down. "President @realDonaldTrump's census defeat is a significant victory for democracy and fair representation. Every person must be counted, and no one should be intimidated by the president and his capricious behaviour," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter. "His retreat on adding the misguided citizen question to the census was long overdue." The American Civil Liberties Union added that it will continue to monitor the Trump administration's efforts to count immigrants. "When the details of Trump's new plan to compile citizenship data outside of the census come out -- and his plans for using that data -- we will scrutinise them closely and assess their legality."

Donald Trump backs down on including citizenship question in 2020 census

The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump's attempt to shut down a program that shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The nation's highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case during its October term with a decision expected next year, at the height of the 2020 presidential campaign.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2012 protecting the young immigrants known as "Dreamers" from deportation but Trump, who takes a hardline stance on immigration, moved to end the program after taking office.

The Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the Trump administration's effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which extends protection to the estimated 700,000 "Dreamers."

Several lower courts have ruled previously in the politically sensitive case, allowing it to continue, and the nine-member Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a five to four majority, will have the final say.

Two of the conservative justices on the bench were appointed by Trump.

Many of the "Dreamers" were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children and have never lived anywhere else.

Trump ordered an end to the DACA program in September 2017 but temporarily extended the protections from deportation and the case has been tangled up in the courts since then.

Several Democratic presidential candidates pledged during two days of debates this week to provide protection to "Dreamers" if elected to the White House.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, also spoke out in favour of the "Dreamers."

"The Supreme Court must now uphold the rulings of lower courts across the country, which have determined that the Trump Administration's cruel decision to terminate DACA was illegal," Pelosi said in a statement.

"In rescinding DACA and its vital protections, the Trump Administration forced hundreds of thousands of brave young men and women to live under a cloud of fear and uncertainty," she said.

The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump's attempt to shut down a program that shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump's attempt to shut down a program that shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation. The nation's highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case during its October term with a decision expected next year, at the height of the 2020 presidential campaign. President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2012 protecting the young immigrants known as "Dreamers" from deportation but Trump, who takes a hardline stance on immigration, moved to end the program after taking office. The Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the Trump administration's effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program which extends protection to the estimated 700,000 "Dreamers." Several lower courts have ruled previously in the politically sensitive case, allowing it to continue, and the nine-member Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a five to four majority, will have the final say. Two of the conservative justices on the bench were appointed by Trump. Many of the "Dreamers" were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children and have never lived anywhere else. Trump ordered an end to the DACA program in September 2017 but temporarily extended the protections from deportation and the case has been tangled up in the courts since then. Several Democratic presidential candidates pledged during two days of debates this week to provide protection to "Dreamers" if elected to the White House. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, also spoke out in favour of the "Dreamers." "The Supreme Court must now uphold the rulings of lower courts across the country, which have determined that the Trump Administration's cruel decision to terminate DACA was illegal," Pelosi said in a statement. "In rescinding DACA and its vital protections, the Trump Administration forced hundreds of thousands of brave young men and women to live under a cloud of fear and uncertainty," she said.

US Supreme Court to take up 'Dreamers' case

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion.

Forty-six years after its landmark Roe v Wade decision, the high court is at the heart of a heated offensive led by states with conservative majorities who oppose the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

This week alone, Alabama passed a law banning women from having an abortion even in cases of incest or rape and the Missouri legislature made illegal abortions from eight weeks of pregnancy. Both states have vowed to prosecute doctors who perform the procedure.

Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected, around six weeks of gestation, before most women know they are pregnant.

All of these laws flagrantly go against Roe v Wade, which guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable -- around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The new pieces of legislation are therefore widely expected to soon be blocked in court. But their backers seek to go beyond that step, planning to appeal such decisions until they reach the Supreme Court in hopes this will lead to the long-sought conservative goal of overturning the abortion ruling.

"All the conservative states across the US are testing the limits, they see it's a sympathetic court to the conservatives," Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law told AFP.

"(President Donald) Trump has changed the balance of the Supreme Court so that he now has a Supreme Court that is decisively conservative and unfriendly to women's reproductive rights, that's unquestionably true."

During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured the evangelical vote that had been initially hesitant to cast ballots for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the highest court in the land.

Pivot

Since his election, the president has brought two appointees to the high court -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and the progressives are now a minority of four on the nine-person bench.

"We know who put them in the court and why, we know that Trump and (president George W.) Bush are expecting them to vote to overturn Roe. But in the past, presidents have been wrong in their selection," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University.

"There are a lot of uncertainties, so we don't know where the conservative justices stand exactly."

She noted that during his confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh insisted he supported upholding past rulings.

"Chief Justice John Roberts is very aware of how the public perceives the Supreme Court. He likes the idea that people have respect for the court," said Sherry Colb of Cornell Law School.

In February, Roberts joined liberal justices in freezing the Louisiana law that critics say imposed such drastic conditions on doctors who perform abortion procedures that only one of them was left able to provide the service in the entire state.

Two years earlier, however, Roberts had backed a similar law in Texas.

Observers say the shift shows the chief justice places more emphasis on his central role on the bench over his own personal convictions.

'Patchwork'

In another sign of a tempered stance from the court, it has yet to decide whether to take up an appeal from Indiana seeking to uphold a law that treats a fetus as an individual.

Since December, the justices have put the case on their agenda a dozen times without making a decision either way -- a highly unusual process, Ziegler noted.

"They are continuing to kick the can down the road. I don't know what the point of waiting is, sooner or later, if they do want to take it, it starts to push it to 2020," when the next US presidential vote will take place, Ziegler added.

"If the idea is not to have a lot of controversies, stalling a decision to an election year is not a smart move."

A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law said such moves make it seem "unlikely" that the court will overturn its 1973 decision.

"But it is ready to chip away at it," he added.

"You will see a (conservative) majority that will increasingly relax the limits they place on the states."

Abortion rules vary greatly from state to state, in what Howard describes as a "patchwork" of legislation.

Some states discourage women from seeking the procedure by requiring two separate medical opinions and parental authorization for minors.&nbsp;

Others impose such strict conditions on clinics that most have closed.

Gostin pointed to the problem of unequal access for women in different states.

"A woman of means will always be able to get an abortion in the United States, she will be able to travel to California, New York, (Washington) DC," he said.

"The poor women in rural areas... they are the ones that are going to suffer."

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion.

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion. Forty-six years after its landmark Roe v Wade decision, the high court is at the heart of a heated offensive led by states with conservative majorities who oppose the voluntary termination of pregnancy. This week alone, Alabama passed a law banning women from having an abortion even in cases of incest or rape and the Missouri legislature made illegal abortions from eight weeks of pregnancy. Both states have vowed to prosecute doctors who perform the procedure. Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected, around six weeks of gestation, before most women know they are pregnant. All of these laws flagrantly go against Roe v Wade, which guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable -- around 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new pieces of legislation are therefore widely expected to soon be blocked in court. But their backers seek to go beyond that step, planning to appeal such decisions until they reach the Supreme Court in hopes this will lead to the long-sought conservative goal of overturning the abortion ruling. "All the conservative states across the US are testing the limits, they see it's a sympathetic court to the conservatives," Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law told AFP. "(President Donald) Trump has changed the balance of the Supreme Court so that he now has a Supreme Court that is decisively conservative and unfriendly to women's reproductive rights, that's unquestionably true." During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured the evangelical vote that had been initially hesitant to cast ballots for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the highest court in the land. Pivot Since his election, the president has brought two appointees to the high court -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and the progressives are now a minority of four on the nine-person bench. "We know who put them in the court and why, we know that Trump and (president George W.) Bush are expecting them to vote to overturn Roe. But in the past, presidents have been wrong in their selection," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University. "There are a lot of uncertainties, so we don't know where the conservative justices stand exactly." She noted that during his confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh insisted he supported upholding past rulings. "Chief Justice John Roberts is very aware of how the public perceives the Supreme Court. He likes the idea that people have respect for the court," said Sherry Colb of Cornell Law School. In February, Roberts joined liberal justices in freezing the Louisiana law that critics say imposed such drastic conditions on doctors who perform abortion procedures that only one of them was left able to provide the service in the entire state. Two years earlier, however, Roberts had backed a similar law in Texas. Observers say the shift shows the chief justice places more emphasis on his central role on the bench over his own personal convictions. 'Patchwork' In another sign of a tempered stance from the court, it has yet to decide whether to take up an appeal from Indiana seeking to uphold a law that treats a fetus as an individual. Since December, the justices have put the case on their agenda a dozen times without making a decision either way -- a highly unusual process, Ziegler noted. "They are continuing to kick the can down the road. I don't know what the point of waiting is, sooner or later, if they do want to take it, it starts to push it to 2020," when the next US presidential vote will take place, Ziegler added. "If the idea is not to have a lot of controversies, stalling a decision to an election year is not a smart move." A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law said such moves make it seem "unlikely" that the court will overturn its 1973 decision. "But it is ready to chip away at it," he added. "You will see a (conservative) majority that will increasingly relax the limits they place on the states." Abortion rules vary greatly from state to state, in what Howard describes as a "patchwork" of legislation. Some states discourage women from seeking the procedure by requiring two separate medical opinions and parental authorization for minors. Others impose such strict conditions on clinics that most have closed. Gostin pointed to the problem of unequal access for women in different states. "A woman of means will always be able to get an abortion in the United States, she will be able to travel to California, New York, (Washington) DC," he said. "The poor women in rural areas... they are the ones that are going to suffer."

Will the US Supreme Court reconsider abortion rights?

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouri-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-abortions-after-eight-weeks-219305">Missouri lawmakers </a>passed a bill on Friday that prohibits women from seeking an abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy, days after Alabama enacted the most restrictive abortion law in the United States.

The legislation allows for an abortion after the eighth week only in the case of medical emergencies. On Wednesday, Alabama banned abortions at any time, with the same exception.

Similar laws have been proposed in more than a dozen other states as Republican-controlled legislatures push to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies.

The state's Republican governor, Mike Parson, is expected to sign the bill into law. He has said he would make Missouri "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country."

Missouri's House of Representatives gave its final legislative approval in a 110-44 vote after protesters were removed from the public gallery. Missouri senators overwhelmingly approved the legislation on Thursday.

"Today, the Missouri House stood for the unborn," the speaker of the house, Elijah Haahr, said in a statement. "The bold legislation we sent to the Governor's desk is the strongest and most comprehensive pro-life bill in the country."

Opposing the bill, Dr Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said it was a "terrifying time" for women in America.

"Planned Parenthood will not sit by and watch as politicians take our rights and freedoms to women's health care away," Wen said in a statement. "We will fight in Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, and everywhere else politicians interfere with medical care because women’s health care is health care and health care is a human right."

Renewed efforts to roll back Roe v. Wade, the landmark US&nbsp;Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, have been emboldened by two judicial appointments by President Donald Trump that have given conservatives a solid majority on the court.

At a time when US&nbsp;rates of abortion have sharply declined, the appointments have put fresh energy into the political struggle between religious conservatives and others who those who believe foetuses should have comparable rights to those of babies after birth, and those who see such restrictions as an infringement on women's rights.

The re-energized debate coincides with the run-up to the 2020 US&nbsp;presidential election. Abortion-rights activists argue that rolling back 45 years of legal precedent to criminalize abortion would endanger women who seek dangerous illegal abortions.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/abortion-ban-igniting-legal-political-battles-219101/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

HEALTH RISK?

The US&nbsp;abortion rights activists have vowed to go to court to block enforcement of the Alabama law, which is scheduled to take effect in six months.

The Missouri bill passed the Senate on Thursday in a party-line vote, with 24 Republicans supporting it and 10 Democrats opposed.

In common with the Alabama bill, it would outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest and make violations by doctors punishable by prison sentences.

The measure would not make women who seek out the procedure subject to criminal prosecution, although opponents of the statute said it was ambiguous about the criminal liability of a woman accused of inducing her own miscarriage.

The measure also would ban abortions altogether except for medical emergencies should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

As of May, lawmakers have introduced legislation to restrict abortions in at least 16 states this year. Governors in four have signed bills into law banning the procedure if an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, generally considered to be as early as six weeks.

Some Republicans pushing for abortion restrictions acknowledge they are deliberately doing so to instigate court challenges that will ultimately force the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

The ruling held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy that protects a woman's right to abortion.

It also allowed states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time a foetus could viably survive outside the womb. The opinion stated that viability is usually placed at about seven months, or 28 weeks, but may occur earlier.

Missouri lawmakers passed a bill on Friday that prohibits women from seeking an abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy, days after Alabama enacted the most restrictive abortion law in the United States.

Missouri lawmakers passed a bill on Friday that prohibits women from seeking an abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy, days after Alabama enacted the most restrictive abortion law in the United States. The legislation allows for an abortion after the eighth week only in the case of medical emergencies. On Wednesday, Alabama banned abortions at any time, with the same exception. Similar laws have been proposed in more than a dozen other states as Republican-controlled legislatures push to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies. The state's Republican governor, Mike Parson, is expected to sign the bill into law. He has said he would make Missouri "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country." Missouri's House of Representatives gave its final legislative approval in a 110-44 vote after protesters were removed from the public gallery. Missouri senators overwhelmingly approved the legislation on Thursday. "Today, the Missouri House stood for the unborn," the speaker of the house, Elijah Haahr, said in a statement. "The bold legislation we sent to the Governor's desk is the strongest and most comprehensive pro-life bill in the country." Opposing the bill, Dr Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said it was a "terrifying time" for women in America. "Planned Parenthood will not sit by and watch as politicians take our rights and freedoms to women's health care away," Wen said in a statement. "We will fight in Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, and everywhere else politicians interfere with medical care because women’s health care is health care and health care is a human right." Renewed efforts to roll back Roe v. Wade, the landmark US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, have been emboldened by two judicial appointments by President Donald Trump that have given conservatives a solid majority on the court. At a time when US rates of abortion have sharply declined, the appointments have put fresh energy into the political struggle between religious conservatives and others who those who believe foetuses should have comparable rights to those of babies after birth, and those who see such restrictions as an infringement on women's rights. The re-energized debate coincides with the run-up to the 2020 US presidential election. Abortion-rights activists argue that rolling back 45 years of legal precedent to criminalize abortion would endanger women who seek dangerous illegal abortions. × HEALTH RISK? The US abortion rights activists have vowed to go to court to block enforcement of the Alabama law, which is scheduled to take effect in six months. The Missouri bill passed the Senate on Thursday in a party-line vote, with 24 Republicans supporting it and 10 Democrats opposed. In common with the Alabama bill, it would outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest and make violations by doctors punishable by prison sentences. The measure would not make women who seek out the procedure subject to criminal prosecution, although opponents of the statute said it was ambiguous about the criminal liability of a woman accused of inducing her own miscarriage. The measure also would ban abortions altogether except for medical emergencies should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. As of May, lawmakers have introduced legislation to restrict abortions in at least 16 states this year. Governors in four have signed bills into law banning the procedure if an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, generally considered to be as early as six weeks. Some Republicans pushing for abortion restrictions acknowledge they are deliberately doing so to instigate court challenges that will ultimately force the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. The ruling held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy that protects a woman's right to abortion. It also allowed states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time a foetus could viably survive outside the womb. The opinion stated that viability is usually placed at about seven months, or 28 weeks, but may occur earlier.

Missouri follows Alabama by passing restrictive abortion bill

Missouri`s Senate passed a bill on Thursday to ban abortions eight weeks after conception, except for medical emergencies, the latest attempt in a Republican-controlled state legislature to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies.

The vote came a day after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-governor-signs-nations-strictest-abortion-ban-219055">Alabama`s governor</a> signed into law the country`s most restrictive abortion bill, outlawing nearly all abortions, absent a medical emergency.

The Missouri bill now goes back to the state House of Representatives, where it originated, for final legislative action. The House is expected to approve the bill.&nbsp;

The Alabama and Missouri measures, along with similar legislation proposed in more than a dozen other states, represent the latest efforts by political conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade, the landmark US&nbsp;Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The renewed push to overturn or roll back that 1973 decision comes after abortion foes were emboldened by President Donald Trump`s appointment of two new Supreme Court justices, giving conservatives a solid majority on the high court.

It also has thrust the emotional abortion debate back into the forefront of national politics in the run-up to the 2020 US&nbsp;presidential election, and at a time when rates of abortion have sharply declined.

The Missouri legislation, dubbed Missouri Stands for the Unborn bill, passed the Senate on a straight party-line vote, with 24 Republicans supporting it and 10 Democrats opposed.&nbsp;

Should the measure win final passage in the House, the ban would go into effect on Aug. 28, with or without the governor`s signature.

A WAVE OF STATE LEGISLATION

Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, is expected to the sign the bill, which he has said would make Missouri "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country."

The bill would outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest after eight weeks of pregnancy, with violations by doctors punishable by prison sentences, though women who seek out the procedure would not be subject to criminal prosecution.

The measure also would ban abortions altogether, except for medical emergencies, should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

As of May, legislation to restrict abortions has been introduced in at least 16 states this year. Governors in four of those states have signed bills into law banning the procedure if an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, generally considered to be as early as six weeks.&nbsp;

The recent flurry of statehouse action has reignited clashes between religious conservatives and others who say protections for the sanctity of life should extend to the unborn, and those, including civil libertarians, who see such measures as an infringement on the rights of women to control their own bodies.

Abortion-rights activists argue that rolling back 45 years of legal precedent to criminalize abortion would expose many women to dangerous health risks posed by illegal abortion providers.

Some Republicans pushing for abortion restrictions acknowledge they are doing so as a deliberate strategy of instigating court challenges that will ultimately force the US Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Roe held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy that protects a woman`s right to abortion.

It also allowed states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time a fetus could viably survive outside the womb, except in cases in which a woman`s health was otherwise at risk. The opinion stated that viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. A full-term pregnancy typically is about 40 weeks.

Nearly one in four women in the United States will undergo an abortion by the age of 45, though the overall US&nbsp;abortion rate dropped by 25 per cent between 2008 and 2014 - from 19.3 to 14.6 per 1,000 women, according to Guttmacher Institute research published in 2017 in the American Journal of Public Health.

Guttmacher said available information suggested that improved contraceptive use, especially among young women who account for a third of unintended pregnancies, was a key factor.

Parson said the number of annual abortions in Missouri had fallen from a high of more than 20,000 to a recent all-time low of fewer than 3,000. He cited "decades of conservative pro-life leadership" for the decline.

Missouri`s Senate passed a bill on Thursday to ban abortions eight weeks after conception, except for medical emergencies, the latest attempt in a Republican-controlled state legislature to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies.

Missouri`s Senate passed a bill on Thursday to ban abortions eight weeks after conception, except for medical emergencies, the latest attempt in a Republican-controlled state legislature to restrict the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies. The vote came a day after Alabama`s governor signed into law the country`s most restrictive abortion bill, outlawing nearly all abortions, absent a medical emergency. The Missouri bill now goes back to the state House of Representatives, where it originated, for final legislative action. The House is expected to approve the bill. The Alabama and Missouri measures, along with similar legislation proposed in more than a dozen other states, represent the latest efforts by political conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade, the landmark US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The renewed push to overturn or roll back that 1973 decision comes after abortion foes were emboldened by President Donald Trump`s appointment of two new Supreme Court justices, giving conservatives a solid majority on the high court. It also has thrust the emotional abortion debate back into the forefront of national politics in the run-up to the 2020 US presidential election, and at a time when rates of abortion have sharply declined. The Missouri legislation, dubbed Missouri Stands for the Unborn bill, passed the Senate on a straight party-line vote, with 24 Republicans supporting it and 10 Democrats opposed. Should the measure win final passage in the House, the ban would go into effect on Aug. 28, with or without the governor`s signature. A WAVE OF STATE LEGISLATION Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, is expected to the sign the bill, which he has said would make Missouri "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country." The bill would outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest after eight weeks of pregnancy, with violations by doctors punishable by prison sentences, though women who seek out the procedure would not be subject to criminal prosecution. The measure also would ban abortions altogether, except for medical emergencies, should Roe v. Wade be overturned. As of May, legislation to restrict abortions has been introduced in at least 16 states this year. Governors in four of those states have signed bills into law banning the procedure if an embryonic heartbeat can be detected, generally considered to be as early as six weeks. The recent flurry of statehouse action has reignited clashes between religious conservatives and others who say protections for the sanctity of life should extend to the unborn, and those, including civil libertarians, who see such measures as an infringement on the rights of women to control their own bodies. Abortion-rights activists argue that rolling back 45 years of legal precedent to criminalize abortion would expose many women to dangerous health risks posed by illegal abortion providers. Some Republicans pushing for abortion restrictions acknowledge they are doing so as a deliberate strategy of instigating court challenges that will ultimately force the US Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Roe held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to privacy that protects a woman`s right to abortion. It also allowed states to place restrictions on the procedure from the time a fetus could viably survive outside the womb, except in cases in which a woman`s health was otherwise at risk. The opinion stated that viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. A full-term pregnancy typically is about 40 weeks. Nearly one in four women in the United States will undergo an abortion by the age of 45, though the overall US abortion rate dropped by 25 per cent between 2008 and 2014 - from 19.3 to 14.6 per 1,000 women, according to Guttmacher Institute research published in 2017 in the American Journal of Public Health. Guttmacher said available information suggested that improved contraceptive use, especially among young women who account for a third of unintended pregnancies, was a key factor. Parson said the number of annual abortions in Missouri had fallen from a high of more than 20,000 to a recent all-time low of fewer than 3,000. He cited "decades of conservative pro-life leadership" for the decline.

Missouri Senate passes bill to ban abortions after eight weeks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed US&nbsp;government authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-immigration-agency-violates-human-rights-doesnt-deserve-a-dime-democrat-lawmakers-195965">hardline immigration policies</a>.

The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention at any time, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences.

The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, leaves open the possibility of individual immigrants challenging the federal law involved in the case on constitutional grounds if they are detained long after they have completed their sentences.

In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the US&nbsp;Congress when it wrote the law "meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing."

The Trump administration had appealed a lower court ruling in the case that favoured immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government's ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes. Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017.

The plaintiffs included two legal US&nbsp;residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.

Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offences are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed US government authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed US government authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies. The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention at any time, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences. The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, leaves open the possibility of individual immigrants challenging the federal law involved in the case on constitutional grounds if they are detained long after they have completed their sentences. In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the US Congress when it wrote the law "meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing." The Trump administration had appealed a lower court ruling in the case that favoured immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government's ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes. Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017. The plaintiffs included two legal US residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance. Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offences are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences.

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely after prison term: US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court backs Donald Trump's transgender military ban

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds.

The conservative-majority granted the Trump administration's request to lift injunctions issued by federal judges against the policy while a legal challenge continues in lower courts.

Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have kept the injunctions in place blocking the policy. The justices refused the administration's request for them to decide the merits of the legal fight even before a California-based federal appeals court already considering the matter is given a chance to rule.

The lawsuits challenging the policy were filed in 2017 by civil liberties and gay and transgender rights groups on behalf of current transgender military service members, including some deployed overseas with decades of experience in the armed forces, and transgender people aspiring to join the military.

Trump in 2017 announced a plan to ban transgender people from the military, moving to reverse a policy announced a year earlier under Democratic former President Barack Obama allowing them for the first time to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders.

Trump, whose administration also has taken other steps to limit the rights of transgender Americans, cited the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of having transgender military personnel.

Trump in March 2018 announced he would endorse a plan by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that replaced the ban on all transgender people.

The revised policy would ban the service of transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. It also would ban under certain circumstances transgender people who experience gender dysphoria, a condition the American Psychiatric Association defines as clinically significant distress due to "a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender" and the individual's gender identity.

Federal courts blocked the administration's policy, finding that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Various injunctions allowed transgender troops to join the armed forces as of Jan. 1, 2018.

Though another injunction issued by a judge in Maryland was not on appeal, the administration said in court papers the high court's action would apply to that one, too.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds. The conservative-majority granted the Trump administration's request to lift injunctions issued by federal judges against the policy while a legal challenge continues in lower courts. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have kept the injunctions in place blocking the policy. The justices refused the administration's request for them to decide the merits of the legal fight even before a California-based federal appeals court already considering the matter is given a chance to rule. The lawsuits challenging the policy were filed in 2017 by civil liberties and gay and transgender rights groups on behalf of current transgender military service members, including some deployed overseas with decades of experience in the armed forces, and transgender people aspiring to join the military. Trump in 2017 announced a plan to ban transgender people from the military, moving to reverse a policy announced a year earlier under Democratic former President Barack Obama allowing them for the first time to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders. Trump, whose administration also has taken other steps to limit the rights of transgender Americans, cited the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of having transgender military personnel. Trump in March 2018 announced he would endorse a plan by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that replaced the ban on all transgender people. The revised policy would ban the service of transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. It also would ban under certain circumstances transgender people who experience gender dysphoria, a condition the American Psychiatric Association defines as clinically significant distress due to "a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender" and the individual's gender identity. Federal courts blocked the administration's policy, finding that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Various injunctions allowed transgender troops to join the armed forces as of Jan. 1, 2018. Though another injunction issued by a judge in Maryland was not on appeal, the administration said in court papers the high court's action would apply to that one, too.

US Supreme Court allows Trump military transgender ban to go into effect

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn.

The court declined to hear an appeal by producers of foie gras, including the Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d`Oies du Quebec, a Canadian nonprofit that represents duck and goose farmers. In doing so, the high court left intact a 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law.

Animal rights groups contend that the force-feeding process is painful, gruesome and inhumane.

California enacted the law in 2004 but it did not go into effect until 2012. The Supreme Court in 2014 rejected an earlier appeal brought by producers and restaurants.

Foie gras means "fatty liver" in French. The product is produced by force-feeding corn to ducks and geese to enlarge their livers, which are harvested to make gourmet dishes.

The law specifically bans any product created by "force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird`s liver beyond a normal size."&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn.

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the latest challenge to California`s ban on foie gras, a delicacy produced from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese that have been force-fed corn. The court declined to hear an appeal by producers of foie gras, including the Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d`Oies du Quebec, a Canadian nonprofit that represents duck and goose farmers. In doing so, the high court left intact a 2017 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law. Animal rights groups contend that the force-feeding process is painful, gruesome and inhumane. California enacted the law in 2004 but it did not go into effect until 2012. The Supreme Court in 2014 rejected an earlier appeal brought by producers and restaurants. Foie gras means "fatty liver" in French. The product is produced by force-feeding corn to ducks and geese to enlarge their livers, which are harvested to make gourmet dishes. The law specifically bans any product created by "force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird`s liver beyond a normal size."

US Supreme Court rejects challenge to California foie gras ban

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-concerned-about-being-impeached-report-183111">President Donald Trump</a>'s administration asked the US&nbsp;Supreme Court this week to suspend nationwide orders by federal judges blocking two of his major policies in an unusual step but one in line with an aggressive White House litigation strategy.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court traditionally has been viewed as the court of last resort in the United States, but Trump's Justice Department increasingly has tried to enlist it in paring back or halting unfavourable rulings by lower courts on signature Trump policies, often at early stages of litigation. In another tactic, the administration has asked the justices to review disputes even before lower appeals courts have acted.

Trump has appointed conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to lifetime jobs on the Supreme Court since taking office last year, cementing its 5-4 conservative majority. The Republican president often has criticized lower court rulings that went against his policies and expressed his desire to be heard by the Supreme Court instead.&nbsp;

On Tuesday, the administration asked the high court for a stay of a San Francisco-based federal judge's nationwide injunction that blocked Trump's policy prohibiting asylum for immigrants who enter the United States outside an official port of entry.

On Thursday, the administration asked the court to stay nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges blocking Trump's plan to bar some transgender people from serving in the military, if the justices decline an unusual earlier request to review the cases before lower appeals courts have ruled.

Since Trump took office in January 2017, lower courts have issued a series of nationwide injunctions blocking a number of his policies such as his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries a policy the Supreme Court later allowed to go into effect.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who Trump ousted last month, had criticized federal judges for such injunctions. In Thursday's stay request over the transgender military policy, US&nbsp;Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, did too.

"Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine," Francisco wrote, adding that 25 such injunctions had been imposed on the Trump administration.

'NEW CIRCUMSTANCES'

Michael McConnell, who previously served alongside Gorsuch as a conservative judge on the Denver-based 10th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals and is now a professor of law at Stanford University in California, said the administration is responding to a recent legal development.

The issuance of nationwide injunctions like that one that has drawn the administration's ire did not become common until late in the Obama administration and have now "proliferated in this administration," McConnell said, adding that judges should limit the scope of their injunctions.

"The (solicitor general) cannot be faulted for responding to the new circumstances," McConnell said.

This week's two Justice Department requests for the Supreme Court to lift nationwide injunctions followed other administration efforts to stop trials in lower courts over federal policies, prevent documents from being released or shield administration officials from questioning.

Robert Loeb, a former Justice Department official who served under presidents of both parties, said the "amazing" number of Trump administration requests to the Supreme Court reflected a belief that its conservative majority will be sympathetic towards Trump.

"They may be breaking institutional boundaries because they view it as a more favourable forum than in the past," Loeb said.

Loeb said the Justice Department's actions repeatedly seeking early relief from lower court orders risk undermining the credibility of the solicitor general's office and politicizing the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The administration has asked the high court with some success for help in disputes over evidence, including in its bid to rescind a programme created by Trump's predecessor Barack Obama that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, and in its plan to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census.

There are signs that the administration's offensive against nationwide injunctions may be paying off in lower courts.

The San Francisco-based 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal-leaning court that Trump often criticizes, on Thursday narrowed an injunction issued by a federal judge against a plan to expand exemptions to birth control insurance, saying its nationwide scope was "overbroad."

In August, the 9th Circuit also threw out the nationwide aspect of an injunction issued by a federal judge involving the administration's move to withhold certain federal funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The degree to which the high court will be amenable to the administration's requests is not entirely clear. In the wake of heated Senate confirmation hearings for Trump's latest Supreme Court Kavanaugh, the justices have steered clear of some cases on volatile social issues involving abortion and rights for gay and transgender people.

It has not been a sure bet for the administration at the Supreme Court, however. The justices, for example, have rebuffed administration requests to stop trials in lower courts over the census question and a lawsuit concerning climate change.

President Donald Trump's administration asked the US Supreme Court this week to suspend nationwide orders by federal judges blocking two of his major policies in an unusual step but one in line with an aggressive White House litigation strategy.

President Donald Trump's administration asked the US Supreme Court this week to suspend nationwide orders by federal judges blocking two of his major policies in an unusual step but one in line with an aggressive White House litigation strategy. The Supreme Court traditionally has been viewed as the court of last resort in the United States, but Trump's Justice Department increasingly has tried to enlist it in paring back or halting unfavourable rulings by lower courts on signature Trump policies, often at early stages of litigation. In another tactic, the administration has asked the justices to review disputes even before lower appeals courts have acted. Trump has appointed conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to lifetime jobs on the Supreme Court since taking office last year, cementing its 5-4 conservative majority. The Republican president often has criticized lower court rulings that went against his policies and expressed his desire to be heard by the Supreme Court instead. On Tuesday, the administration asked the high court for a stay of a San Francisco-based federal judge's nationwide injunction that blocked Trump's policy prohibiting asylum for immigrants who enter the United States outside an official port of entry. On Thursday, the administration asked the court to stay nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges blocking Trump's plan to bar some transgender people from serving in the military, if the justices decline an unusual earlier request to review the cases before lower appeals courts have ruled. Since Trump took office in January 2017, lower courts have issued a series of nationwide injunctions blocking a number of his policies such as his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries a policy the Supreme Court later allowed to go into effect. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who Trump ousted last month, had criticized federal judges for such injunctions. In Thursday's stay request over the transgender military policy, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, did too. "Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine," Francisco wrote, adding that 25 such injunctions had been imposed on the Trump administration. 'NEW CIRCUMSTANCES' Michael McConnell, who previously served alongside Gorsuch as a conservative judge on the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and is now a professor of law at Stanford University in California, said the administration is responding to a recent legal development. The issuance of nationwide injunctions like that one that has drawn the administration's ire did not become common until late in the Obama administration and have now "proliferated in this administration," McConnell said, adding that judges should limit the scope of their injunctions. "The (solicitor general) cannot be faulted for responding to the new circumstances," McConnell said. This week's two Justice Department requests for the Supreme Court to lift nationwide injunctions followed other administration efforts to stop trials in lower courts over federal policies, prevent documents from being released or shield administration officials from questioning. Robert Loeb, a former Justice Department official who served under presidents of both parties, said the "amazing" number of Trump administration requests to the Supreme Court reflected a belief that its conservative majority will be sympathetic towards Trump. "They may be breaking institutional boundaries because they view it as a more favourable forum than in the past," Loeb said. Loeb said the Justice Department's actions repeatedly seeking early relief from lower court orders risk undermining the credibility of the solicitor general's office and politicizing the Supreme Court. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration has asked the high court with some success for help in disputes over evidence, including in its bid to rescind a programme created by Trump's predecessor Barack Obama that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, and in its plan to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census. There are signs that the administration's offensive against nationwide injunctions may be paying off in lower courts. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal-leaning court that Trump often criticizes, on Thursday narrowed an injunction issued by a federal judge against a plan to expand exemptions to birth control insurance, saying its nationwide scope was "overbroad." In August, the 9th Circuit also threw out the nationwide aspect of an injunction issued by a federal judge involving the administration's move to withhold certain federal funding from so-called "sanctuary cities" that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The degree to which the high court will be amenable to the administration's requests is not entirely clear. In the wake of heated Senate confirmation hearings for Trump's latest Supreme Court Kavanaugh, the justices have steered clear of some cases on volatile social issues involving abortion and rights for gay and transgender people. It has not been a sure bet for the administration at the Supreme Court, however. The justices, for example, have rebuffed administration requests to stop trials in lower courts over the census question and a lawsuit concerning climate change.

Challenging judges' orders, Trump aims to enlist Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard.

Louisiana and Kansas had asked the highest court in the land to intervene after losing their case against leading family planning group Planned Parenthood before federal judges.

The Supreme Court left in place lower court decisions that found that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts for Planned Parenthood. It provides family planning care for low-income women.

"States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider's competence and the quality of the health care it provides," a panel of judges on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in February.

In order for the case to be heard at the Supreme Court, at least four of the nine justices would have had to agree. But only three backed such a hearing -- conservatives Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.

"So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" asked Thomas, speaking for the trio.

"I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.' That makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion."

Abortion remains a hot button in the United States, where the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v&nbsp;Wade decision, with many measures being implemented in recent years to complicate access to services to terminate a pregnancy.

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to name anti-abortion conservatives to the high court, hinting at possibly overturning the landmark ruling.

His nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now sit on the bench.

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard.

The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked an effort by some states to halt public abortion funding, even though three of the conservative justices wanted the case to be heard. Louisiana and Kansas had asked the highest court in the land to intervene after losing their case against leading family planning group Planned Parenthood before federal judges. The Supreme Court left in place lower court decisions that found that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts for Planned Parenthood. It provides family planning care for low-income women. "States may not terminate providers from their Medicaid program for any reason they see fit, especially when that reason is unrelated to the provider's competence and the quality of the health care it provides," a panel of judges on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in February. In order for the case to be heard at the Supreme Court, at least four of the nine justices would have had to agree. But only three backed such a hearing -- conservatives Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. "So what explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" asked Thomas, speaking for the trio. "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.' That makes the Court's decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion." Abortion remains a hot button in the United States, where the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v Wade decision, with many measures being implemented in recent years to complicate access to services to terminate a pregnancy. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to name anti-abortion conservatives to the high court, hinting at possibly overturning the landmark ruling. His nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh now sit on the bench.

US Supreme Court rejects state efforts to block abortion funding

President Donald Trump entered an extraordinary row Wednesday with the chief justice of the Supreme Court, claiming "shocking" bias against his policies in parts of the judiciary.

He singled out the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes left-leaning California, tweeting that its rulings "are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!"

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/i-have-another-250-billion-worth-of-tariffs-china-wants-to-make-a-deal-very-badly-says-trump-at-g20-178526">I have another $250 billion worth of tariffs, China wants to make a deal very badly, says Trump</a>

Earlier, Chief Justice John Roberts, who rarely makes political statements, rebuked criticism of the courts by Trump, insisting that the judiciary is "independent."

Responding to complaints by Trump that judges appointed by Democratic presidents act against the current White House, Roberts told the Associated Press: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."

"What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them," Roberts said.

"That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for," the chief justice added in a brief statement.

Trump, who is on holiday in Florida, fired back on Twitter.

"Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country," he wrote.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065346909362143232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He said that "a vast number" of cases concerning his controversial priorities, like a harsh crackdown on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-to-give-us-troops-authority-to-protect-immigration-agents-178295">illegal immigration</a>, had been overturned. "Please study the numbers, they are shocking," Trump wrote.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065351478347530241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

'Disgrace'

The row came one day after Trump criticized a federal judge who temporarily blocked the administration from its decision to deny the right to political asylum applications for people who enter the country illegally.

US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump move, which comes as a large group of Central American migrants, frequently described by Trump as dangerous, is heading on foot for the US southern border.

On Tuesday, Trump lashed out at the judge's ruling, calling it a "disgrace."

"This was an Obama judge, and I'll tell you what, this is not going to happen anymore," Trump said. "People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case."

"We will win that case in the Supreme Court of the United States," Trump said.

First time

Trump has repeatedly attacked the judiciary when cases have gone against him in the past but this was the first time that Roberts, a conservative jurist who was appointed to the nation's highest court by Republican president George W. Bush, has responded publicly.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump attacked the Mexican-American heritage of a judge who ruled against him in a case involving Trump University.&nbsp;

The US federal government consists of three branches -- the executive headed by the president, the legislative comprising the House of Representatives and Senate and the judicial made up of the courts. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is meant to be above the political fray.

Critics of the Trump immigration crackdown say that by restricting asylum seekers to border crossing points the government is effectively shutting the door on people who may truly be fleeing for their lives.

Trump's administration has argued that he has the executive power to curb immigration in the name of national security -- a power he invoked after taking office last year with a controversial ban on travellers from several mostly Muslim countries.

The final version of the order was upheld by the Supreme Court on June 26 after a protracted legal battle. 
&nbsp;

President Donald Trump entered an extraordinary row Wednesday with the chief justice of the Supreme Court, claiming "shocking" bias against his policies in parts of the judiciary.

President Donald Trump entered an extraordinary row Wednesday with the chief justice of the Supreme Court, claiming "shocking" bias against his policies in parts of the judiciary. He singled out the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes left-leaning California, tweeting that its rulings "are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!" Also read: I have another $250 billion worth of tariffs, China wants to make a deal very badly, says Trump Earlier, Chief Justice John Roberts, who rarely makes political statements, rebuked criticism of the courts by Trump, insisting that the judiciary is "independent." Responding to complaints by Trump that judges appointed by Democratic presidents act against the current White House, Roberts told the Associated Press: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them," Roberts said. "That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for," the chief justice added in a brief statement. Trump, who is on holiday in Florida, fired back on Twitter. "Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country," he wrote. Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why...... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018 × He said that "a vast number" of cases concerning his controversial priorities, like a harsh crackdown on illegal immigration, had been overturned. "Please study the numbers, they are shocking," Trump wrote. .....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018 × 'Disgrace' The row came one day after Trump criticized a federal judge who temporarily blocked the administration from its decision to deny the right to political asylum applications for people who enter the country illegally. US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump move, which comes as a large group of Central American migrants, frequently described by Trump as dangerous, is heading on foot for the US southern border. On Tuesday, Trump lashed out at the judge's ruling, calling it a "disgrace." "This was an Obama judge, and I'll tell you what, this is not going to happen anymore," Trump said. "People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case." "We will win that case in the Supreme Court of the United States," Trump said. First time Trump has repeatedly attacked the judiciary when cases have gone against him in the past but this was the first time that Roberts, a conservative jurist who was appointed to the nation's highest court by Republican president George W. Bush, has responded publicly. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump attacked the Mexican-American heritage of a judge who ruled against him in a case involving Trump University. The US federal government consists of three branches -- the executive headed by the president, the legislative comprising the House of Representatives and Senate and the judicial made up of the courts. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is meant to be above the political fray. Critics of the Trump immigration crackdown say that by restricting asylum seekers to border crossing points the government is effectively shutting the door on people who may truly be fleeing for their lives. Trump's administration has argued that he has the executive power to curb immigration in the name of national security -- a power he invoked after taking office last year with a controversial ban on travellers from several mostly Muslim countries. The final version of the order was upheld by the Supreme Court on June 26 after a protracted legal battle.

'You do indeed have Obama judges', Donald Trump hits back at US Supreme Court Justice

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/troops-will-not-fire-on-migrant-caravan-trump-175260">US troops will not fire on migrant caravan: Donald Trump</a>

US President Donald Trump said on Friday that illegal immigrants who throw rocks at the military would be arrested, but not fired upon by troops.

He made the remarks to reporters one day after he suggested the military could fire on members of a migrant caravan if they throw rocks at troops.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/asia-bibis-lawyer-leaves-pakistan-citing-threats-to-his-life-175254">Asia Bibi likely to face travel ban, lawyer flees Pakistan citing threats to life</a>

The Pakistani lawyer who saved a Christian woman convicted of blasphemy from the gallows left the country on Saturday, saying his life was under threat.

Saif-ul-Mulook's latest victory saw the freeing of Asia Bibi, who spent nearly a decade on death row, after the Supreme Court overturned her sentence on Wednesday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lankas-main-tamil-party-to-support-no-trust-motion-against-rajapaksa-175274">Sri Lanka's main Tamil party to support </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lankas-main-tamil-party-to-support-no-trust-motion-against-rajapaksa-175274">no-trust</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/sri-lankas-main-tamil-party-to-support-no-trust-motion-against-rajapaksa-175274"> motion against Rajapaksa</a>

Sri Lanka's main Tamil party - Tamil National Alliance - Saturday said it will support a no-trust motion against newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, amid mounting pressure on President Maithripala Sirisena to let the suspended parliament hold a vote to end the political crisis.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-wont-halt-trial-over-census-citizenship-question-175261">US Supreme Court won't halt trial over census citizenship question</a>

The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to halt a trial set to begin on Monday that will test the legality of the government's contentious decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are citizens.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-has-disgraced-us-prestige-irans-leader-khamenei-175258">Trump has 'disgraced' US prestige: Iran's leader Khamenei</a>

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday that President Donald Trump has "disgraced" US prestige and would be the ultimate loser from renewing sanctions on the Islamic republic.

US troops will not fire on migrant caravan: Donald Trump US President Donald Trump said on Friday that illegal immigrants who throw rocks at the military would be arrested, but not fired upon by troops.

US troops will not fire on migrant caravan: Donald Trump US President Donald Trump said on Friday that illegal immigrants who throw rocks at the military would be arrested, but not fired upon by troops. He made the remarks to reporters one day after he suggested the military could fire on members of a migrant caravan if they throw rocks at troops. Asia Bibi likely to face travel ban, lawyer flees Pakistan citing threats to life The Pakistani lawyer who saved a Christian woman convicted of blasphemy from the gallows left the country on Saturday, saying his life was under threat. Saif-ul-Mulook's latest victory saw the freeing of Asia Bibi, who spent nearly a decade on death row, after the Supreme Court overturned her sentence on Wednesday. Sri Lanka's main Tamil party to support no-trust motion against Rajapaksa Sri Lanka's main Tamil party - Tamil National Alliance - Saturday said it will support a no-trust motion against newly appointed Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, amid mounting pressure on President Maithripala Sirisena to let the suspended parliament hold a vote to end the political crisis. US Supreme Court won't halt trial over census citizenship question The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to halt a trial set to begin on Monday that will test the legality of the government's contentious decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are citizens. Trump has 'disgraced' US prestige: Iran's leader Khamenei Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday that President Donald Trump has "disgraced" US prestige and would be the ultimate loser from renewing sanctions on the Islamic republic.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to halt a trial set to begin on Monday that will test the legality of the government's contentious decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are citizens.

The justices announced the action in a one-sentence order. Three conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - said they would have granted the request for an indefinite postponement of the trial. Trump's new appointee to the nine-member court, Brett Kavanaugh, did not state publicly how he voted on the matter.

The decision benefits the 18 states challenging the census citizenship question in part because such a postponement could have made it impossible to resolve the dispute before census forms are printed starting next year.

The administration had argued there should be no trial until the justices rule on a fight over evidence. That dispute includes whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the US Census Bureau, should be forced to answer questions under oath about his motivations for the politically charged decision.

Opponents of the citizenship question have said it would deter people in immigrant communities from participating in the census, disproportionately affecting Democratic-leaning states' electoral representation and federal funding by undercounting the number of residents.

Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, who is among the state officials suing the administration, said the Trump administration has tried "every trick in the book" to block the case.

"You really have to wonder what they're trying to hide. We welcome the Supreme Court's decision and look forward to making our case in court as we fight for a full and fair census," Spitalnick said.

The US Justice Department, which is defending the administration, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The trial, in federal court in New York City, was scheduled in a pair of lawsuits. The first, spearheaded by Democratic officials, was brought by 18 states as well as a number of cities and counties. The other was filed by several immigrant rights groups that accused the administration of discrimination against non-white immigrants.

The administration, in explaining the citizenship question, has said more precise citizenship data is needed to better enforce a voting rights law in order to protect minorities.

There has not been a census question about citizenship status since 1950. The plaintiffs have said that in recent decades Census Bureau officials have opposed adding a citizenship question because of the risk of driving down response rates and undercounting the US population.

Manhattan US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in July that the plaintiffs "plausibly allege" that Ross's decision was motivated by discrimination.

Furman ruled in September that Ross must face a deposition by lawyers for the states because his "intent and credibility are directly at issue" in the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court later blocked that order.

The US Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. It is used in the allocation of seats in Congress and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds.

The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to halt a trial set to begin on Monday that will test the legality of the government's contentious decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are citizens.

The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to halt a trial set to begin on Monday that will test the legality of the government's contentious decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 national census whether they are citizens. The justices announced the action in a one-sentence order. Three conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - said they would have granted the request for an indefinite postponement of the trial. Trump's new appointee to the nine-member court, Brett Kavanaugh, did not state publicly how he voted on the matter. The decision benefits the 18 states challenging the census citizenship question in part because such a postponement could have made it impossible to resolve the dispute before census forms are printed starting next year. The administration had argued there should be no trial until the justices rule on a fight over evidence. That dispute includes whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the US Census Bureau, should be forced to answer questions under oath about his motivations for the politically charged decision. Opponents of the citizenship question have said it would deter people in immigrant communities from participating in the census, disproportionately affecting Democratic-leaning states' electoral representation and federal funding by undercounting the number of residents. Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, who is among the state officials suing the administration, said the Trump administration has tried "every trick in the book" to block the case. "You really have to wonder what they're trying to hide. We welcome the Supreme Court's decision and look forward to making our case in court as we fight for a full and fair census," Spitalnick said. The US Justice Department, which is defending the administration, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The trial, in federal court in New York City, was scheduled in a pair of lawsuits. The first, spearheaded by Democratic officials, was brought by 18 states as well as a number of cities and counties. The other was filed by several immigrant rights groups that accused the administration of discrimination against non-white immigrants. The administration, in explaining the citizenship question, has said more precise citizenship data is needed to better enforce a voting rights law in order to protect minorities. There has not been a census question about citizenship status since 1950. The plaintiffs have said that in recent decades Census Bureau officials have opposed adding a citizenship question because of the risk of driving down response rates and undercounting the US population. Manhattan US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in July that the plaintiffs "plausibly allege" that Ross's decision was motivated by discrimination. Furman ruled in September that Ross must face a deposition by lawyers for the states because his "intent and credibility are directly at issue" in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court later blocked that order. The US Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. It is used in the allocation of seats in Congress and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds.

US Supreme Court won't halt trial over census citizenship question

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago.

This year is different.

After Republican officials said in September they would move the Hispanic-majority city's only polling place to a remote spot outside the city limits, across railroad tracks and away from bus lines, Torres decided to vote by mail.

"I wanted to be sure I could vote," said Torres, 57, who works at a meatpacking plant in this western Kansas city best known for its history as a Wild West outpost. "I didn't want to take any chances."

Torres and other voters interviewed by Reuters said they were worried voting would be more difficult at the new location. Some were skeptical of the official explanation: that construction will hinder access to the usual site.

The move sparked an outcry from voting rights groups that say Republicans are trying to limit Hispanic votes. The American Civil Liberties Union asked the courts to force Dodge City to open another polling site – a request denied by a judge on Thursday.

Democrats are mobilizing to rent vans, line up volunteers to drive people to the polls and set up a hotline to ask for rides.

Kansas is just one front in a broad national struggle over voting restrictions passed by Republicans, who say they are needed to combat voter fraud.

Democrats and advocacy groups are scrambling in courtrooms and on the ground to resist efforts they say will stack the deck against minority voters likely to back Democrats in next Tuesday's elections, where control of the US Congress will be at stake.

The national voting rights debate, which accelerated after the US Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, has been particularly intense this year in states with tight, high-stakes election races such as Kansas, Georgia, North Dakota and Tennessee.

"There are a lot of grim things happening, but people are awake and highly engaged to fight back on this issue," said Leah Aden, deputy director of litigation at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

'SLAP IN THE FACE'

On a recent afternoon in Dodge City, where about 60 percent of the 27,000 residents are Hispanic, many of the mostly Hispanic workers pouring out of a beef processing plant during a shift change were surprised to find a trio of Kansas Democrats waiting for them.

"Do you know your polling place has moved?" Democratic congressional candidate Alan LaPolice asked as he and two aides handed out more than 300 packets with bilingual information on where to vote and how to call for a ride to get there.

Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, 18, a first-time voter in November and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said the new polling site would make it tough on people unable to get time off from work to vote, or had transportation or language issues.

"People can't just leave the plants to vote. You can't just run over on your lunch break," Rangel-Lopez said.

Suspicions about the motive behind the polling place change come naturally in Kansas, where Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's foremost advocates of restrictive voting and immigration laws, is in a tight race for governor against Democrat Laura Kelly.

"This is a slap in the face to voters here," said Ford County Democratic Party Chairman Johnny Dunlap. "They should be making voting easier, not harder."

Debbie Cox, the Republican county clerk who ordered the move, declined requests for comment on her decision to set up a new polling place about 4 miles (6 km) from the old one.

But the state's elections director, who works under Kobach, said Cox chose the best available alternative with adequate parking and space.

'KOBACH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS'

"I have trouble understanding how this was voter suppression. There just weren't many options for polling sites that fit the criteria," Kansas Elections Director Bryan Caskey said. "I can say with 100 percent certainty that Secretary Kobach had nothing to do with this."

Kobach has relentlessly promoted theories about the threat of voter fraud and was a leader on President Donald Trump's disbanded election integrity commission formed to look into possible fraud in the 2016 election.

While Republicans say new voting restrictions such as tougher ID requirements and aggressive voter-roll purges are necessary to ensure honest elections or clean up voter rolls, independent studies have found that voter fraud is extremely rare.

Other states with major election races also have wrestled with voting rights issues. In North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Kevin Cramer are in a close Senate race, Native American tribal leaders have mobilized to help up to 10,000 residents in rural reservations whose voting eligibility has been threatened by a state law requiring a residential street address on ID's.

Many reservation residents use post office boxes for mail delivery and do not have street addresses. The law, which Republicans said was aimed at fighting voter fraud, was passed after Heitkamp was elected to the Senate by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong Native American support.

Precinct maps and satellite images of the state's five reservations are being used to help generate street addresses, which can be recorded and printed on tribal letterhead, said OJ Semans, co-executive director of Four Directions, a Native American voting rights group.

"This is about being pushed into a corner and having to fight back," Semans said. "We want to make sure the state thinks twice about doing something like this again."

Groups in Georgia sued to block Democrat Stacey Abrams' opponent for governor, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the state's top election official, from throwing out more than 50,000 voter registration applications put on hold under the state's "exact match" law requiring personal information on voter applications to match state databases.

The lawsuit alleged the vast majority of the disputed applications were from black voters.

Jimmy Carter, a former US president and Georgia governor, even weighed in, calling on Kemp to resign his post supervising elections. Kemp has refused to step down and says he is fairly applying Georgia's laws.

In Tennessee, home to another crucial US Senate race between Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican Marsha Blackburn, a lawsuit by voting rights groups led a judge to order that people in majority-black Shelby County be allowed to fix their incomplete voter registration applications and vote.

Democrats in Tennessee have formed the first statewide voter protection team to watch for problems at the polls. Tennessee Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini calls them an "army of poll watchers."

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago. This year is different.

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago. This year is different. After Republican officials said in September they would move the Hispanic-majority city's only polling place to a remote spot outside the city limits, across railroad tracks and away from bus lines, Torres decided to vote by mail. "I wanted to be sure I could vote," said Torres, 57, who works at a meatpacking plant in this western Kansas city best known for its history as a Wild West outpost. "I didn't want to take any chances." Torres and other voters interviewed by Reuters said they were worried voting would be more difficult at the new location. Some were skeptical of the official explanation: that construction will hinder access to the usual site. The move sparked an outcry from voting rights groups that say Republicans are trying to limit Hispanic votes. The American Civil Liberties Union asked the courts to force Dodge City to open another polling site – a request denied by a judge on Thursday. Democrats are mobilizing to rent vans, line up volunteers to drive people to the polls and set up a hotline to ask for rides. Kansas is just one front in a broad national struggle over voting restrictions passed by Republicans, who say they are needed to combat voter fraud. Democrats and advocacy groups are scrambling in courtrooms and on the ground to resist efforts they say will stack the deck against minority voters likely to back Democrats in next Tuesday's elections, where control of the US Congress will be at stake. The national voting rights debate, which accelerated after the US Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, has been particularly intense this year in states with tight, high-stakes election races such as Kansas, Georgia, North Dakota and Tennessee. "There are a lot of grim things happening, but people are awake and highly engaged to fight back on this issue," said Leah Aden, deputy director of litigation at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'SLAP IN THE FACE' On a recent afternoon in Dodge City, where about 60 percent of the 27,000 residents are Hispanic, many of the mostly Hispanic workers pouring out of a beef processing plant during a shift change were surprised to find a trio of Kansas Democrats waiting for them. "Do you know your polling place has moved?" Democratic congressional candidate Alan LaPolice asked as he and two aides handed out more than 300 packets with bilingual information on where to vote and how to call for a ride to get there. Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, 18, a first-time voter in November and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said the new polling site would make it tough on people unable to get time off from work to vote, or had transportation or language issues. "People can't just leave the plants to vote. You can't just run over on your lunch break," Rangel-Lopez said. Suspicions about the motive behind the polling place change come naturally in Kansas, where Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's foremost advocates of restrictive voting and immigration laws, is in a tight race for governor against Democrat Laura Kelly. "This is a slap in the face to voters here," said Ford County Democratic Party Chairman Johnny Dunlap. "They should be making voting easier, not harder." Debbie Cox, the Republican county clerk who ordered the move, declined requests for comment on her decision to set up a new polling place about 4 miles (6 km) from the old one. But the state's elections director, who works under Kobach, said Cox chose the best available alternative with adequate parking and space. 'KOBACH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS' "I have trouble understanding how this was voter suppression. There just weren't many options for polling sites that fit the criteria," Kansas Elections Director Bryan Caskey said. "I can say with 100 percent certainty that Secretary Kobach had nothing to do with this." Kobach has relentlessly promoted theories about the threat of voter fraud and was a leader on President Donald Trump's disbanded election integrity commission formed to look into possible fraud in the 2016 election. While Republicans say new voting restrictions such as tougher ID requirements and aggressive voter-roll purges are necessary to ensure honest elections or clean up voter rolls, independent studies have found that voter fraud is extremely rare. Other states with major election races also have wrestled with voting rights issues. In North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Kevin Cramer are in a close Senate race, Native American tribal leaders have mobilized to help up to 10,000 residents in rural reservations whose voting eligibility has been threatened by a state law requiring a residential street address on ID's. Many reservation residents use post office boxes for mail delivery and do not have street addresses. The law, which Republicans said was aimed at fighting voter fraud, was passed after Heitkamp was elected to the Senate by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong Native American support. Precinct maps and satellite images of the state's five reservations are being used to help generate street addresses, which can be recorded and printed on tribal letterhead, said OJ Semans, co-executive director of Four Directions, a Native American voting rights group. "This is about being pushed into a corner and having to fight back," Semans said. "We want to make sure the state thinks twice about doing something like this again." Groups in Georgia sued to block Democrat Stacey Abrams' opponent for governor, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the state's top election official, from throwing out more than 50,000 voter registration applications put on hold under the state's "exact match" law requiring personal information on voter applications to match state databases. The lawsuit alleged the vast majority of the disputed applications were from black voters. Jimmy Carter, a former US president and Georgia governor, even weighed in, calling on Kemp to resign his post supervising elections. Kemp has refused to step down and says he is fairly applying Georgia's laws. In Tennessee, home to another crucial US Senate race between Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican Marsha Blackburn, a lawsuit by voting rights groups led a judge to order that people in majority-black Shelby County be allowed to fix their incomplete voter registration applications and vote. Democrats in Tennessee have formed the first statewide voter protection team to watch for problems at the polls. Tennessee Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini calls them an "army of poll watchers."

Ahead of US elections, fears of voter suppression and efforts to fight back

Melissa Madara was not surprised to receive death threats on Friday as her Brooklyn witchcraft store prepared to host a public hexing of newly confirmed US&nbsp;Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh this weekend.

The planned casting of an anti-Kavanaugh spell, one of the more striking instances of politically disgruntled Americans turning to the supernatural when frustrated by democracy, has drawn backlash from some Christian groups but support from like-minded witch covens.

"It gives the people who are seeking agency a little bit of chance to have that back," Madara said. The ritual was scheduled to be livestreamed on Facebook and Instagram at 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday (1200 GMT Sunday).

Seated at a desk phone among bird skulls and crystal balls at Catland Books, the occult shop she co-owns, Madara said the Kavanaugh hex is expected to be the most popular event the store has hosted since its 2013 opening, including spells aimed at President Donald Trump. Madara declined to provide details of what the latest ritual will entail.

More than 15,000 people who have seen Catland Books promotions on Facebook have expressed interest in attending the event, vastly exceeding the shop's 60-person capacity.

Not everyone is a witchcraft fan. Madara said she had fielded numerous irate calls from critics, with at least one threatening violence. “Every time we host something like this there’s always people who like to call in with death threats or read us scripture," she said.

As far as supporters go, some are sexual assault survivors still angry that the US&nbsp;Senate confirmed Kavanaugh's lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court despite accusations that he had sexually assaulted multiple women.

Kavanaugh has denied the allegations, and an FBI investigation failed to corroborate his accusers' accounts.

Democrats hope lingering outrage over Kavanaugh, particularly among women, will translate into election gains for them on November&nbsp;6. Republicans are likewise trying to seize on anger among conservatives at how they perceive Kavanaugh was mistreated.

Believers in mysticism on both sides of the political divide are taking matters into their own hands.

Plans for the Catland Books event have sparked "counter hexes" around the country by those seeking to undo the spell that the Brooklyn witches cast against Kavanaugh, Madara said.

Even mainstream clergy was joining the fray. Rev. Gary Thomas of the Diocese of San Jose in California said on Friday that he would include Kavanaugh in his prayers at Saturday mass.

"I think this is much more serious than people give it credit for," Thomas said. "Conjuring a hex can be very dangerous."

Politically oriented witchcraft has seen a renewed surge in popularity since Trump took office.

Magician Michael Hughes drew crowds of supporters and more than 12,000 "likes" to his Facebook page when he held a “mass spell" to curse Trump in February 2017.

"We are embracing witchcraft's true roots as the magik of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised," Catland Books said in a&nbsp;Facebook post for its event.

Melissa Madara was not surprised to receive death threats on Friday as her Brooklyn witchcraft store prepared to host a public hexing of newly confirmed US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh this weekend.

Melissa Madara was not surprised to receive death threats on Friday as her Brooklyn witchcraft store prepared to host a public hexing of newly confirmed US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh this weekend. The planned casting of an anti-Kavanaugh spell, one of the more striking instances of politically disgruntled Americans turning to the supernatural when frustrated by democracy, has drawn backlash from some Christian groups but support from like-minded witch covens. "It gives the people who are seeking agency a little bit of chance to have that back," Madara said. The ritual was scheduled to be livestreamed on Facebook and Instagram at 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday (1200 GMT Sunday). Seated at a desk phone among bird skulls and crystal balls at Catland Books, the occult shop she co-owns, Madara said the Kavanaugh hex is expected to be the most popular event the store has hosted since its 2013 opening, including spells aimed at President Donald Trump. Madara declined to provide details of what the latest ritual will entail. More than 15,000 people who have seen Catland Books promotions on Facebook have expressed interest in attending the event, vastly exceeding the shop's 60-person capacity. Not everyone is a witchcraft fan. Madara said she had fielded numerous irate calls from critics, with at least one threatening violence. “Every time we host something like this there’s always people who like to call in with death threats or read us scripture," she said. As far as supporters go, some are sexual assault survivors still angry that the US Senate confirmed Kavanaugh's lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court despite accusations that he had sexually assaulted multiple women. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations, and an FBI investigation failed to corroborate his accusers' accounts. Democrats hope lingering outrage over Kavanaugh, particularly among women, will translate into election gains for them on November 6. Republicans are likewise trying to seize on anger among conservatives at how they perceive Kavanaugh was mistreated. Believers in mysticism on both sides of the political divide are taking matters into their own hands. Plans for the Catland Books event have sparked "counter hexes" around the country by those seeking to undo the spell that the Brooklyn witches cast against Kavanaugh, Madara said. Even mainstream clergy was joining the fray. Rev. Gary Thomas of the Diocese of San Jose in California said on Friday that he would include Kavanaugh in his prayers at Saturday mass. "I think this is much more serious than people give it credit for," Thomas said. "Conjuring a hex can be very dangerous." Politically oriented witchcraft has seen a renewed surge in popularity since Trump took office. Magician Michael Hughes drew crowds of supporters and more than 12,000 "likes" to his Facebook page when he held a “mass spell" to curse Trump in February 2017. "We are embracing witchcraft's true roots as the magik of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised," Catland Books said in a Facebook post for its event.

New York witches aim hex at Supreme Court's Brett Kavanaugh despite death threats

Just three days after he was narrowly confirmed to the US Supreme Court despite facing allegations of sexual assault, Brett Kavanaugh is set to take his seat on the bench on Tuesday morning, solidifying a conservative majority for years to come.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kavanaugh-seeks-new-tone-after-supreme-court-fight-trump-apologises-for-process-170304">Also Read:&nbsp;Trump apologises to Kavanaugh, says he is innocent of sexual assault charges</a>

Kavanaugh, 53, will join the eight other justices to hear arguments in cases involving a federal criminal sentencing law, bringing the nine-member court back up to full strength after the retirement of Anthony Kennedy in July.

Kavanaugh's confirmation gave Republican President Donald Trump a major victory, with his second lifetime appointee to the nation's highest judicial body. Neil Gorsuch joined the court last year.

The bitterly divided US Senate voted 50-48 on Saturday to confirm Kavanaugh, with just one Democrat supporting him.

Kavanaugh's elevation to the high court had been considered safe until California university professor Christine Blasey Ford went public with explosive allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in 1982, while they were in high school. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Kavanaugh denied the allegations and in a blistering partisan attack during a Senate hearing on September 27, accused Democrats of an "orchestrated political hit."

He wrote later in a newspaper opinion piece that he regretted some of his comments, but critics said it raised questions about whether he would treat all who come before him fairly. Hundreds of law professors and even retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee, said Kavanaugh's remarks should disqualify him from the job.

Other analysts said the court's reputation could suffer as it becomes perceived as a political, rather than a legal, institution.

At a White House ceremony on Monday night, Kavanaugh sought to put the confirmation battle behind him, saying he was starting his new job without bitterness.

"Although the Senate confirmation process tested me as it has tested others, it did not change me," he said.

Kavanaugh moves to the Supreme Court after spending 12 years as a judge on the influential US Court of Appeals in Washington, where he built a conservative judicial record and a reputation for being affable and well-prepared.

In the 1990s, before becoming a judge, Kavanaugh was part of special counsel Kenneth Starr's team that investigated Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The new justice is widely expected to push the court further to the right as he is replacing Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes voted with the liberal justices on key social issues, including in pivotal cases on gay rights.

Kavanaugh can be expected to cast crucial votes on a matters including abortion, gun control, immigration, and voting rights.

Kavanaugh's views on presidential powers could be tested within days in a dispute over whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross should submit to questioning by lawyers suing the Trump administration over a decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

If an appeals court does not stop Ross's deposition, the administration is expected to turn to the high court.

Although his reputation was tarnished by the sexual misconduct claims, Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearings that he had a record of promoting women in the legal profession.

All four of the law clerks Kavanaugh has hired this term are women, which is a first for a Supreme Court justice. Kavanaugh has moved into the chambers previously occupied by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who has taken over Kennedy's chambers.

The oral arguments on Tuesday concern the 1984 Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" criminal sentencing law that boosts prison sentences after multiple violent felonies or drug offenses.

The cases challenge the types of crimes that qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA and can lead to 15-year mandatory minimum sentences for the defendant. In one case, the justices will review a Florida robbery conviction. The other two cases relate to burglary convictions in Tennessee and Arkansas.

Just three days after he was narrowly confirmed to the US Supreme Court despite facing allegations of sexual assault, Brett Kavanaugh is set to take his seat on the bench on Tuesday morning, solidifying a conservative majority for years to come.

Just three days after he was narrowly confirmed to the US Supreme Court despite facing allegations of sexual assault, Brett Kavanaugh is set to take his seat on the bench on Tuesday morning, solidifying a conservative majority for years to come. Also Read: Trump apologises to Kavanaugh, says he is innocent of sexual assault charges Kavanaugh, 53, will join the eight other justices to hear arguments in cases involving a federal criminal sentencing law, bringing the nine-member court back up to full strength after the retirement of Anthony Kennedy in July. Kavanaugh's confirmation gave Republican President Donald Trump a major victory, with his second lifetime appointee to the nation's highest judicial body. Neil Gorsuch joined the court last year. The bitterly divided US Senate voted 50-48 on Saturday to confirm Kavanaugh, with just one Democrat supporting him. Kavanaugh's elevation to the high court had been considered safe until California university professor Christine Blasey Ford went public with explosive allegations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in 1982, while they were in high school. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh denied the allegations and in a blistering partisan attack during a Senate hearing on September 27, accused Democrats of an "orchestrated political hit." He wrote later in a newspaper opinion piece that he regretted some of his comments, but critics said it raised questions about whether he would treat all who come before him fairly. Hundreds of law professors and even retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee, said Kavanaugh's remarks should disqualify him from the job. Other analysts said the court's reputation could suffer as it becomes perceived as a political, rather than a legal, institution. At a White House ceremony on Monday night, Kavanaugh sought to put the confirmation battle behind him, saying he was starting his new job without bitterness. "Although the Senate confirmation process tested me as it has tested others, it did not change me," he said. Kavanaugh moves to the Supreme Court after spending 12 years as a judge on the influential US Court of Appeals in Washington, where he built a conservative judicial record and a reputation for being affable and well-prepared. In the 1990s, before becoming a judge, Kavanaugh was part of special counsel Kenneth Starr's team that investigated Democratic President Bill Clinton. The new justice is widely expected to push the court further to the right as he is replacing Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes voted with the liberal justices on key social issues, including in pivotal cases on gay rights. Kavanaugh can be expected to cast crucial votes on a matters including abortion, gun control, immigration, and voting rights. Kavanaugh's views on presidential powers could be tested within days in a dispute over whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross should submit to questioning by lawyers suing the Trump administration over a decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. If an appeals court does not stop Ross's deposition, the administration is expected to turn to the high court. Although his reputation was tarnished by the sexual misconduct claims, Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearings that he had a record of promoting women in the legal profession. All four of the law clerks Kavanaugh has hired this term are women, which is a first for a Supreme Court justice. Kavanaugh has moved into the chambers previously occupied by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who has taken over Kennedy's chambers. The oral arguments on Tuesday concern the 1984 Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" criminal sentencing law that boosts prison sentences after multiple violent felonies or drug offenses. The cases challenge the types of crimes that qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA and can lead to 15-year mandatory minimum sentences for the defendant. In one case, the justices will review a Florida robbery conviction. The other two cases relate to burglary convictions in Tennessee and Arkansas.

After bruising fight, Kavanaugh set to begin life as US Supreme Court judge

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the assets must be turned over to American families of victims of the 1983 bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, among others.

The hearings at the tribunal were separate from Iran's claim relating to current US sanctions against Teheran.

Iran's claim in both cases is based on a 1955 Amity Treaty, which was signed 24 years before Iran's Islamic Revolution that turned the two countries into arch enemies.

"The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism," Richard Visek, legal advisor to the US Department of State, said on Monday, calling on the court to reject Iran's suit.

Washington announced last week it would withdraw from the Amity Treaty after the tribunal ordered the US to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

It will take a year for a withdrawal from the Amity Treaty to take effect and Iran's case against the asset seizure, which was filed in 2016, will continue regardless.

The hearings in The Hague will run until Friday and focus on US objections to the UN's highest court's jurisdiction. No date for a ruling has been set.

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts.

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the assets must be turned over to American families of victims of the 1983 bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, among others. The hearings at the tribunal were separate from Iran's claim relating to current US sanctions against Teheran. Iran's claim in both cases is based on a 1955 Amity Treaty, which was signed 24 years before Iran's Islamic Revolution that turned the two countries into arch enemies. "The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism," Richard Visek, legal advisor to the US Department of State, said on Monday, calling on the court to reject Iran's suit. Washington announced last week it would withdraw from the Amity Treaty after the tribunal ordered the US to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety. It will take a year for a withdrawal from the Amity Treaty to take effect and Iran's case against the asset seizure, which was filed in 2016, will continue regardless. The hearings in The Hague will run until Friday and focus on US objections to the UN's highest court's jurisdiction. No date for a ruling has been set.

US rejects Iran's legal claim to recover $1.75 billion in frozen assets

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump's drive to move the country's political institutions to the right.&nbsp;

The Senate voted 50-48 to approve Kavanaugh as protesters rallied across the country against a nominee who has been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man and had questions raised over his candour and partisan rhetoric.

The prolonged nomination battle has roiled American politics and passions -- the vote was disrupted on several occasions by angry protests from the gallery -- but handed Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency.

It drew the line under a bruising nomination process defined by harrowing testimony from a woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were teenagers -- and by his fiery rebuttal.

The two-vote margin of victory made it the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote since 1881 -- and by far the most contentious since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

As Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Kavanaugh during a private Supreme Court ceremony, protesters demonstrated loudly outside, at one point rushing the steps of the court and banging on its ornate bronze doors while some sat on a Lady Justice statue.

The confirmation means Trump has succeeded in having his two picks seated on the court -- tilting it decidedly to the right in a major coup for the Republican leader less than halfway through his term.

During an evening rally in Topeka, Kansas, Trump was greeted by prolonged cheers on what he called a "truly historic night."

"I stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory for our nation, our people and our beloved Constitution," he told supporters after signing Kavanaugh's commission aboard Air Force One.

A separate, public swearing-in ceremony is planned for 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) Monday in the White House's East Room.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has railed against Kavanaugh's critics, said he was "proud" of his colleagues while Vice President Mike Pence, who presided in the Senate during the vote, called it a "historic day for our country."

It reflects a high water mark of the Trump presidency: Republican control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the judiciary's top court.

But the Kavanaugh spectacle, fueled by extraordinary accusations and counter-claims in nationally televised hearings, and tense battles over an 11th-hour FBI investigation to address the assault allegations, has inflamed political passions.

'Shame!' 
Hours before the vote, scores of protesters broke through barricades and staged a raucous sit-in protest on the US Capitol steps.

As protesters chanted "Shame!" and "November is coming!" police took several dozen demonstrators down the steps and put them in plastic flex-cuffs.&nbsp;

With tensions simmering, Pence got an earful from activists who booed and chanted "Vote them out!" as he walked to his motorcade.

Kavanaugh's confirmation process has laid bare the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill and the political polarization of America just a month before midterm elections.

"You don't hand matches to an arsonist, and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob. That's what they have become. The democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern," Trump said.&nbsp;

"Republicans are the party of law and order and justice. And we really have become even more so than ever before the party of opportunity and wealth."

Democratic senators, who had battled hard to block the 53-year-old judge, insisted the caustic battle over Kavanaugh would galvanize Democrats at the polls.&nbsp;

"It is a sad day, but the recourse will have to be on election day," Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar told reporters.

Kavanaugh's confirmation had already been all but sealed Friday, when he won the support of key Senate Republican Susan Collins and conservative Democrat Joe Manchin.

'Presumption of innocence' 
The choice of Kavanaugh to replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy was controversial from the start -- but the initial focus was solely on the conservative views held by the married father of two.

His ascent to the Supreme Court was thrown into doubt last week after university research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her at a Washington area gathering in the early 1980s.

The brutal hearing sparked a supplemental FBI dive into Kavanaugh's background and a weeklong delay of the Senate vote.&nbsp;

While many Republicans said they were satisfied with the FBI probe, Democrats and Blasey Ford's lawyers called the investigation insufficient.

'Praying for the country' 
Kavanaugh's nomination seals a conservative majority on the nine-seat high court, possibly for decades to come.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested on Capitol Hill this week -- including several dozen in the hours leading to the final vote.&nbsp;

Authorities took the rare step of putting up low metal fencing around the Capitol, keeping the public some distance from the building. But protesters overran the barricades and defiantly claimed the Capitol steps.

After the confirmation, activists gathered in their hundreds on the steps of the Supreme Court, chanting slogans and banging on its closed front doors.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, said it was time for the Senate -- and Americans -- to "heal" after such a divisive few weeks.

She acknowledged the anguish of the protesters who interrupted the historic Senate vote, telling reporters afterward that "I was closing my eyes and praying. Praying for them, praying for us and praying for the country."

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump's drive to move the country's political institutions to the right.

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump's drive to move the country's political institutions to the right. The Senate voted 50-48 to approve Kavanaugh as protesters rallied across the country against a nominee who has been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man and had questions raised over his candour and partisan rhetoric. The prolonged nomination battle has roiled American politics and passions -- the vote was disrupted on several occasions by angry protests from the gallery -- but handed Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency. It drew the line under a bruising nomination process defined by harrowing testimony from a woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were teenagers -- and by his fiery rebuttal. The two-vote margin of victory made it the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote since 1881 -- and by far the most contentious since Clarence Thomas in 1991. As Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Kavanaugh during a private Supreme Court ceremony, protesters demonstrated loudly outside, at one point rushing the steps of the court and banging on its ornate bronze doors while some sat on a Lady Justice statue. The confirmation means Trump has succeeded in having his two picks seated on the court -- tilting it decidedly to the right in a major coup for the Republican leader less than halfway through his term. During an evening rally in Topeka, Kansas, Trump was greeted by prolonged cheers on what he called a "truly historic night." "I stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory for our nation, our people and our beloved Constitution," he told supporters after signing Kavanaugh's commission aboard Air Force One. A separate, public swearing-in ceremony is planned for 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) Monday in the White House's East Room. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has railed against Kavanaugh's critics, said he was "proud" of his colleagues while Vice President Mike Pence, who presided in the Senate during the vote, called it a "historic day for our country." It reflects a high water mark of the Trump presidency: Republican control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the judiciary's top court. But the Kavanaugh spectacle, fueled by extraordinary accusations and counter-claims in nationally televised hearings, and tense battles over an 11th-hour FBI investigation to address the assault allegations, has inflamed political passions. 'Shame!' Hours before the vote, scores of protesters broke through barricades and staged a raucous sit-in protest on the US Capitol steps. As protesters chanted "Shame!" and "November is coming!" police took several dozen demonstrators down the steps and put them in plastic flex-cuffs. With tensions simmering, Pence got an earful from activists who booed and chanted "Vote them out!" as he walked to his motorcade. Kavanaugh's confirmation process has laid bare the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill and the political polarization of America just a month before midterm elections. "You don't hand matches to an arsonist, and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob. That's what they have become. The democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern," Trump said. "Republicans are the party of law and order and justice. And we really have become even more so than ever before the party of opportunity and wealth." Democratic senators, who had battled hard to block the 53-year-old judge, insisted the caustic battle over Kavanaugh would galvanize Democrats at the polls. "It is a sad day, but the recourse will have to be on election day," Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar told reporters. Kavanaugh's confirmation had already been all but sealed Friday, when he won the support of key Senate Republican Susan Collins and conservative Democrat Joe Manchin. 'Presumption of innocence' The choice of Kavanaugh to replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy was controversial from the start -- but the initial focus was solely on the conservative views held by the married father of two. His ascent to the Supreme Court was thrown into doubt last week after university research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her at a Washington area gathering in the early 1980s. The brutal hearing sparked a supplemental FBI dive into Kavanaugh's background and a weeklong delay of the Senate vote. While many Republicans said they were satisfied with the FBI probe, Democrats and Blasey Ford's lawyers called the investigation insufficient. 'Praying for the country' Kavanaugh's nomination seals a conservative majority on the nine-seat high court, possibly for decades to come. Hundreds of protesters were arrested on Capitol Hill this week -- including several dozen in the hours leading to the final vote. Authorities took the rare step of putting up low metal fencing around the Capitol, keeping the public some distance from the building. But protesters overran the barricades and defiantly claimed the Capitol steps. After the confirmation, activists gathered in their hundreds on the steps of the Supreme Court, chanting slogans and banging on its closed front doors. Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, said it was time for the Senate -- and Americans -- to "heal" after such a divisive few weeks. She acknowledged the anguish of the protesters who interrupted the historic Senate vote, telling reporters afterward that "I was closing my eyes and praying. Praying for them, praying for us and praying for the country."

Brett Kavanaugh sworn into Supreme Court after fight that divided US

President Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, looked headed for a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday after two crucial senators said that sexual misconduct accusations against the judge would not prevent them from voting to confirm him.

If Kavanaugh is approved in a final Senate vote, likely on Saturday, Trump will have achieved a victory in his drive to consolidate conservative dominance of the nation's highest court and move the American judiciary to the right.

Two key senators, Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Joe Manchin, both seen as swing votes, said they would support Kavanaugh, after weeks of debate about sexual violence and the nominee's temperament that gripped the nation.

Kavanaugh's confirmation would give conservatives a solid 5-4 majority in future legal battles on contentious issues such as abortion rights, immigration, industry regulation, presidential powers, and gay and transgender rights.

A sharply partisan battle over the nomination became an intense personal and political drama when university professor Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were high school students in Maryland in 1982.

Collins, in remarks on the Senate floor explaining her decision to back Kavanaugh, said Ford's accusations against him "fail to meet the more-likely-than-not standard."

As protesters in a Capitol Hill hallway shouted, "Shame! Shame! Shame!" Manchin told reporters an FBI investigation, which did not find corroborating evidence of Ford's accusations, was thorough.

"I believe Dr. Ford. Something happened to Dr. Ford. I don't believe the facts show that it was Brett Kavanaugh, but I believe something happened," Manchin said.

Two other women also made accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in the 1980s. He denied those accusations, as well as Ford's, in angry testimony to a Senate committee.

The only Republican to vote against Kavanaugh, Senator Lisa Murkowski, said in a speech on the Senate floor on Friday night that her decision was "agonizing" but after watching Kavanaugh's Senate testimony she "could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time."

About 100 demonstrators were arrested on Friday in Senate office buildings, the Capitol Building, and outside the Supreme Court, the U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement. More than 300 were arrested on Thursday.

Republicans hold a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate, and with the two key senators choosing to vote in favour of Kavanaugh, the confirmation looked locked-in late on Friday.

Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a group that opposes Trump's judicial nominees, said Kavanaugh would join the court "with a cloud over his head."

"He will be an illegitimate justice, and his confirmation will mark a point of no return for the Supreme Court's reputation as the one, apolitical branch of government," Fallon said.

HEADED FOR THE COURT

In theory, Kavanaugh could be confirmed, sworn in and sitting on the mahogany bench in the traditional black justice's robe by Tuesday, when the court is next in session. White House officials have said Kavanaugh would be sworn in swiftly.

The Kavanaugh fight has riveted Americans just weeks before Nov. 6 elections in which Democrats are trying to take control of the US Congress from the Republicans.

Several recent polls show that Republican enthusiasm about voting, which had lagged behind Democrats, jumped after a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

But Democrats say women angered at the Kavanaugh accusations will turn out in large numbers to vote out Republicans.

Trump, himself accused by numerous women during the 2016 presidential election of sexual misconduct, tweeted his approval of the Senate vote on Friday, saying, "Very proud of the U.S. Senate for voting 'YES' to advance the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh!"

Senators had backed Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge, in a procedural vote earlier on Friday that moved the Republican-controlled Senate toward a definitive decision.

Trump has made appointing conservative judges a major plank of his presidency, and last year his nominee Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate.

Ford's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was broadcast live on television last Thursday and captured the attention of some 20 million people watching on broadcast and cable networks.

In an angry rebuttal later that day, Kavanaugh said the accusations were part of a "political hit" by Democrats.

His nomination became a flashpoint in the #MeToo social media movement against sexual harassment and assault. Trump mocked Ford on Tuesday during a political rally in Mississippi, further angering Democrats and women campaigning for an end to sexual violence.

The FBI sent Congress documents detailing additional interviews about Kavanaugh that the agency conducted at the request of some Republican and Democratic senators.

While the documents have not been made public, Republicans said they did not back up sexual assault allegations by Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California.

Similarly, Republicans said the FBI found nobody to support assault claims by Deborah Ramirez, who was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale University in the 1980s.

Democrats called the FBI report a whitewash and said the White House placed constraints on the FBI, which did not speak to many potential witnesses.

President Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, looked headed for a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday after two crucial senators said that sexual misconduct accusations against the judge would not prevent them from voting to confirm him.

President Donald Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, looked headed for a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday after two crucial senators said that sexual misconduct accusations against the judge would not prevent them from voting to confirm him. If Kavanaugh is approved in a final Senate vote, likely on Saturday, Trump will have achieved a victory in his drive to consolidate conservative dominance of the nation's highest court and move the American judiciary to the right. Two key senators, Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Joe Manchin, both seen as swing votes, said they would support Kavanaugh, after weeks of debate about sexual violence and the nominee's temperament that gripped the nation. Kavanaugh's confirmation would give conservatives a solid 5-4 majority in future legal battles on contentious issues such as abortion rights, immigration, industry regulation, presidential powers, and gay and transgender rights. A sharply partisan battle over the nomination became an intense personal and political drama when university professor Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were high school students in Maryland in 1982. Collins, in remarks on the Senate floor explaining her decision to back Kavanaugh, said Ford's accusations against him "fail to meet the more-likely-than-not standard." As protesters in a Capitol Hill hallway shouted, "Shame! Shame! Shame!" Manchin told reporters an FBI investigation, which did not find corroborating evidence of Ford's accusations, was thorough. "I believe Dr. Ford. Something happened to Dr. Ford. I don't believe the facts show that it was Brett Kavanaugh, but I believe something happened," Manchin said. Two other women also made accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in the 1980s. He denied those accusations, as well as Ford's, in angry testimony to a Senate committee. The only Republican to vote against Kavanaugh, Senator Lisa Murkowski, said in a speech on the Senate floor on Friday night that her decision was "agonizing" but after watching Kavanaugh's Senate testimony she "could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time." About 100 demonstrators were arrested on Friday in Senate office buildings, the Capitol Building, and outside the Supreme Court, the U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement. More than 300 were arrested on Thursday. Republicans hold a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate, and with the two key senators choosing to vote in favour of Kavanaugh, the confirmation looked locked-in late on Friday. Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a group that opposes Trump's judicial nominees, said Kavanaugh would join the court "with a cloud over his head." "He will be an illegitimate justice, and his confirmation will mark a point of no return for the Supreme Court's reputation as the one, apolitical branch of government," Fallon said. HEADED FOR THE COURT In theory, Kavanaugh could be confirmed, sworn in and sitting on the mahogany bench in the traditional black justice's robe by Tuesday, when the court is next in session. White House officials have said Kavanaugh would be sworn in swiftly. The Kavanaugh fight has riveted Americans just weeks before Nov. 6 elections in which Democrats are trying to take control of the US Congress from the Republicans. Several recent polls show that Republican enthusiasm about voting, which had lagged behind Democrats, jumped after a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. But Democrats say women angered at the Kavanaugh accusations will turn out in large numbers to vote out Republicans. Trump, himself accused by numerous women during the 2016 presidential election of sexual misconduct, tweeted his approval of the Senate vote on Friday, saying, "Very proud of the U.S. Senate for voting 'YES' to advance the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh!" Senators had backed Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge, in a procedural vote earlier on Friday that moved the Republican-controlled Senate toward a definitive decision. Trump has made appointing conservative judges a major plank of his presidency, and last year his nominee Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate. Ford's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was broadcast live on television last Thursday and captured the attention of some 20 million people watching on broadcast and cable networks. In an angry rebuttal later that day, Kavanaugh said the accusations were part of a "political hit" by Democrats. His nomination became a flashpoint in the #MeToo social media movement against sexual harassment and assault. Trump mocked Ford on Tuesday during a political rally in Mississippi, further angering Democrats and women campaigning for an end to sexual violence. The FBI sent Congress documents detailing additional interviews about Kavanaugh that the agency conducted at the request of some Republican and Democratic senators. While the documents have not been made public, Republicans said they did not back up sexual assault allegations by Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. Similarly, Republicans said the FBI found nobody to support assault claims by Deborah Ramirez, who was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale University in the 1980s. Democrats called the FBI report a whitewash and said the White House placed constraints on the FBI, which did not speak to many potential witnesses.

Backing from senators puts Trump nominee Kavanaugh on track for US Supreme Court

Brett Kavanaugh, the embattled US Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Donald Trump, was poised to win Senate confirmation on Saturday, weathering sexual misconduct allegations and attacks on his character and temperament.

After weeks of intense debate that has gripped the nation, the conservative appeals court judge on Friday won vows of support from two centrist senators, leaving no clear path in the Senate for Kavanaugh's opponents to block him.

Earlier on Friday, he barely survived a procedural test, when senators voted 51-49 to advance his nomination to a final vote that was set for around 5 pm (2100 GMT) on Saturday. It could come slightly sooner, however.

Confirmation of Kavanaugh would give Trump a clear win in his drive to cement conservative dominance of the high court, a bitter outcome for Democrats who could not get their own liberal nominee confirmed due to Republican delaying tactics in 2016.

Republicans held open an empty seat that year, which Trump filled in 2017 with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh would replace, retired this year after decades of being a swing vote on the court.

With divisive cases on abortion rights, immigration, transgender rights and business regulation headed for the court, Kavanaugh likely would give conservatives the upper hand.

His confirmation would also allow Trump to hit the campaign trail ahead of the November 6 congressional elections bragging that he has kept his 2016 promise to mold a more conservative American judiciary.

Capping a suspenseful day on Friday, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine declared on the Senate floor, "I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh."

She praised his judicial record and argued there was no corroboration of sexual assault charges made against him by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct decades ago. Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations.

Moments after Collins pledged to back Kavanaugh, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in a tough race for re-election in West Virginia where Trump is popular, also declared his support, leaving little doubt of a Republican victory.

Senators then endured a rare all-night session to satisfy the requirement of 30 hours of debate following Friday's vote.

Amid tighter-than-usual security, a large group of protesters assembled on the grounds of the Capitol, chanting "We believe (sexual assault) survivors" and "Shame on you."

Senate Republicans, except for Lisa Murkowski, stood by Kavanaugh in a move that could resonate, particularly with women voters, in the November 6 elections to determine control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Even before the lurid sexual assault charges surfaced, Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate were fighting hard to stop Kavanaugh, saying his conservative judicial philosophy could result in rolling back abortion rights, gay rights and protections for immigrants. They also challenged the veracity of some of his Judiciary Committee testimony.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Kavanaugh represents "a hard-right, conservative jurisprudence, far, far away from what average Americans believe."

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell led the nominee's defense, calling him "one of the most impressive, stunningly qualified nominees in our nation's history" and accusing Democrats of a "smear" campaign.

Brett Kavanaugh, the embattled US Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Donald Trump, was poised to win Senate confirmation on Saturday, weathering sexual misconduct allegations and attacks on his character and temperament.

Brett Kavanaugh, the embattled US Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Donald Trump, was poised to win Senate confirmation on Saturday, weathering sexual misconduct allegations and attacks on his character and temperament. After weeks of intense debate that has gripped the nation, the conservative appeals court judge on Friday won vows of support from two centrist senators, leaving no clear path in the Senate for Kavanaugh's opponents to block him. Earlier on Friday, he barely survived a procedural test, when senators voted 51-49 to advance his nomination to a final vote that was set for around 5 pm (2100 GMT) on Saturday. It could come slightly sooner, however. Confirmation of Kavanaugh would give Trump a clear win in his drive to cement conservative dominance of the high court, a bitter outcome for Democrats who could not get their own liberal nominee confirmed due to Republican delaying tactics in 2016. Republicans held open an empty seat that year, which Trump filled in 2017 with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh would replace, retired this year after decades of being a swing vote on the court. With divisive cases on abortion rights, immigration, transgender rights and business regulation headed for the court, Kavanaugh likely would give conservatives the upper hand. His confirmation would also allow Trump to hit the campaign trail ahead of the November 6 congressional elections bragging that he has kept his 2016 promise to mold a more conservative American judiciary. Capping a suspenseful day on Friday, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine declared on the Senate floor, "I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh." She praised his judicial record and argued there was no corroboration of sexual assault charges made against him by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford. Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct decades ago. Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations. Moments after Collins pledged to back Kavanaugh, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in a tough race for re-election in West Virginia where Trump is popular, also declared his support, leaving little doubt of a Republican victory. Senators then endured a rare all-night session to satisfy the requirement of 30 hours of debate following Friday's vote. Amid tighter-than-usual security, a large group of protesters assembled on the grounds of the Capitol, chanting "We believe (sexual assault) survivors" and "Shame on you." Senate Republicans, except for Lisa Murkowski, stood by Kavanaugh in a move that could resonate, particularly with women voters, in the November 6 elections to determine control of the Senate and House of Representatives. Even before the lurid sexual assault charges surfaced, Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate were fighting hard to stop Kavanaugh, saying his conservative judicial philosophy could result in rolling back abortion rights, gay rights and protections for immigrants. They also challenged the veracity of some of his Judiciary Committee testimony. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Kavanaugh represents "a hard-right, conservative jurisprudence, far, far away from what average Americans believe." Republican Leader Mitch McConnell led the nominee's defense, calling him "one of the most impressive, stunningly qualified nominees in our nation's history" and accusing Democrats of a "smear" campaign.

US Senate heads to final vote on Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans gained confidence on Thursday that his US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would win Senate confirmation after two wavering lawmakers <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-probe-does-not-support-kavanaugh-assault-claims-senate-judiciary-chairman-169489">responded positively to an FBI report</a> on accusations of sexual misconduct against the judge.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kavanaugh-would-win-senate-confirmation-once-fbi-finishes-probe-trump-169066">Kavanaugh would win Senate confirmation once FBI finishes probe: Trump</a>

The report, sent by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the middle of the night, was denounced by Democrats as a whitewash that was too narrow in scope and ignored critical witnesses.

Thousands of anti-Kavanaugh protesters rallied outside the Supreme Court and entered a Senate office building, holding signs such as "Believe Survivors" and "Kava-Nope." Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested including actress Amy Schumer.&nbsp;

But Republicans moved forward with plans for a key procedural vote on Friday and a final vote on Saturday on confirming the conservative federal appeals judge for a lifetime job on the top US court.

Comments by two crucial Republican senators - Jeff Flake and Susan Collins - indicated the FBI report, which was the latest twist in the pitched political battle over Kavanaugh, may have allayed their concerns about him. Flake, a frequent Trump critic, was instrumental in getting the president to order the FBI investigation last Friday.

Trump, himself accused by numerous women during the 2016 presidential race of sexual misconduct, wrote on Twitter that the FBI report showed that the allegations against Kavanaugh were "totally uncorroborated."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-hearing-kavanaugh-accuser-100-cent-certain-he-assaulted-her-168053">'100 per cent' certain he assaulted me, says Brett Kavanaugh accuser in US Senate hearing</a>

Collins said the FBI investigation appeared to be thorough. Flake said he saw no additional corroborating information against Kavanaugh, although he was "still reading" it. Another undecided Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, did not offer her view on the FBI report.

Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. If all the Democrats oppose Kavanaugh, Trump cannot afford to lose the support of more than one Republican for his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tiebreaking vote. No Republicans have said they will vote against Kavanaugh. 
While the comments by Flake and Collins were positive, neither explicitly announced support for Kavanaugh.&nbsp;

A previously undecided Democratic Senator, Heidi Heitkamp, said she would vote against Kavanaugh, citing "concerns about his past conduct" and questions about his "temperament, honesty and impartiality" after his angry, defiant testimony a week ago to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Joe Manchin, the only remaining undecided Democrat, said he would finish reading the report on Friday morning.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein noted that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh himself or Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor from California who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in 1982.

"It smacks of a whitewash," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters, saying the report should not give political cover for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh because "it is blatantly incomplete."

Most Democrats opposed Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh from the outset. If confirmed, he would deepen conservative control of the court. The sharply partisan battle became an intense political drama when Ford and two other women emerged to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in the 1980s when he was in high school and college. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations.

The Kavanaugh fight has riveted Americans weeks before November 6 elections in which Democrats are trying to take control of Congress from the Republicans.&nbsp;

Kavanaugh's nomination has become a flashpoint in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault. The nomination battle boiled down to a "he said, she said" conflict requiring senators to decide between diametrically opposed accounts offered by Kavanaugh and Ford.

Trump on Tuesday mocked Ford during a political rally in Mississippi.

On Thursday afternoon, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a small gathering in Boca Raton, Florida that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, according to the Palm Beach Post.

Stevens, an appointee of Republican President Gerald Ford who often sided with liberal justices on key rulings, told a group of retirees that he initially thought Kavanaugh was qualified, but that "his performance at the hearings ultimately changed my mind."&nbsp;

Behind closed doors

The FBI report was not released to the public. Senators were allowed to read it behind closed doors in a secure location in the Capitol, without taking notes or making copies.

A senior Senate Republican aide said there was growing confidence that Collins, Flake and Manchin - all swing votes - would support Kavanaugh. If so, that could be enough for a Trump victory.&nbsp;

White House spokesman Raj Shah said the Trump administration was "fully confident" Kavanaugh had the necessary support.

"I feel pretty good about where we are," added Senator John Thune, a member of Senate Republican leadership.

Some protesters, many dressed in black, crowded into the Hart Senate Office Building after rallying in front of the Supreme Court on a sunny, warm autumn day.

"I'm sick and tired of seeing women's experiences not be given weight," demonstrator Christine Zagrobelny, 29, a software engineer from New York City, said outside the Supreme Court.

Republican leaders sounded unmoved.

"When the noise fades, when the uncorroborated mud washes away, what`s left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said after receiving a staff briefing on the report, "There`s nothing in it that we didn`t already know."

"These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations," Grassley added.

White House spokesman Shah told CNN the FBI reached out to 10 people and "comprehensively interviewed" nine of them.

"The White House didn`t micromanage the FBI," he said.

In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Ford`s lawyers noted that the agency declined to interview Ford or any of more than a dozen people they identified to provide relevant information, calling the five-day investigation "a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice."

Ford testified last week at a dramatic Judiciary Committee hearing that when she was 15, a drunken 17-year-old Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to remove her clothing and covered her mouth after she screamed. Kavanaugh denied the allegation and painted himself as the victim of a "political hit."

Attorneys for Deborah Ramirez, who has said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were students at Yale University, wrote a separate letter to Wray expressing disappointment that FBI agents had not followed up on their interview with her by talking to more than 20 witnesses she identified as being able to corroborate her account.

President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans gained confidence on Thursday that his US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would win Senate confirmation after two wavering lawmakers responded positively to an FBI report on accusations of sexual misconduct against the judge.

President Donald Trump's fellow Republicans gained confidence on Thursday that his US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would win Senate confirmation after two wavering lawmakers responded positively to an FBI report on accusations of sexual misconduct against the judge. Also read: Kavanaugh would win Senate confirmation once FBI finishes probe: Trump The report, sent by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the middle of the night, was denounced by Democrats as a whitewash that was too narrow in scope and ignored critical witnesses. Thousands of anti-Kavanaugh protesters rallied outside the Supreme Court and entered a Senate office building, holding signs such as "Believe Survivors" and "Kava-Nope." Hundreds of demonstrators were arrested including actress Amy Schumer. But Republicans moved forward with plans for a key procedural vote on Friday and a final vote on Saturday on confirming the conservative federal appeals judge for a lifetime job on the top US court. Comments by two crucial Republican senators - Jeff Flake and Susan Collins - indicated the FBI report, which was the latest twist in the pitched political battle over Kavanaugh, may have allayed their concerns about him. Flake, a frequent Trump critic, was instrumental in getting the president to order the FBI investigation last Friday. Trump, himself accused by numerous women during the 2016 presidential race of sexual misconduct, wrote on Twitter that the FBI report showed that the allegations against Kavanaugh were "totally uncorroborated." Also read: '100 per cent' certain he assaulted me, says Brett Kavanaugh accuser in US Senate hearing Collins said the FBI investigation appeared to be thorough. Flake said he saw no additional corroborating information against Kavanaugh, although he was "still reading" it. Another undecided Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, did not offer her view on the FBI report. Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. If all the Democrats oppose Kavanaugh, Trump cannot afford to lose the support of more than one Republican for his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tiebreaking vote. No Republicans have said they will vote against Kavanaugh. While the comments by Flake and Collins were positive, neither explicitly announced support for Kavanaugh. A previously undecided Democratic Senator, Heidi Heitkamp, said she would vote against Kavanaugh, citing "concerns about his past conduct" and questions about his "temperament, honesty and impartiality" after his angry, defiant testimony a week ago to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Joe Manchin, the only remaining undecided Democrat, said he would finish reading the report on Friday morning. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein noted that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh himself or Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor from California who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault in 1982. "It smacks of a whitewash," Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters, saying the report should not give political cover for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh because "it is blatantly incomplete." Most Democrats opposed Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh from the outset. If confirmed, he would deepen conservative control of the court. The sharply partisan battle became an intense political drama when Ford and two other women emerged to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in the 1980s when he was in high school and college. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations. The Kavanaugh fight has riveted Americans weeks before November 6 elections in which Democrats are trying to take control of Congress from the Republicans. Kavanaugh's nomination has become a flashpoint in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault. The nomination battle boiled down to a "he said, she said" conflict requiring senators to decide between diametrically opposed accounts offered by Kavanaugh and Ford. Trump on Tuesday mocked Ford during a political rally in Mississippi. On Thursday afternoon, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told a small gathering in Boca Raton, Florida that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, according to the Palm Beach Post. Stevens, an appointee of Republican President Gerald Ford who often sided with liberal justices on key rulings, told a group of retirees that he initially thought Kavanaugh was qualified, but that "his performance at the hearings ultimately changed my mind." Behind closed doors The FBI report was not released to the public. Senators were allowed to read it behind closed doors in a secure location in the Capitol, without taking notes or making copies. A senior Senate Republican aide said there was growing confidence that Collins, Flake and Manchin - all swing votes - would support Kavanaugh. If so, that could be enough for a Trump victory. White House spokesman Raj Shah said the Trump administration was "fully confident" Kavanaugh had the necessary support. "I feel pretty good about where we are," added Senator John Thune, a member of Senate Republican leadership. Some protesters, many dressed in black, crowded into the Hart Senate Office Building after rallying in front of the Supreme Court on a sunny, warm autumn day. "I'm sick and tired of seeing women's experiences not be given weight," demonstrator Christine Zagrobelny, 29, a software engineer from New York City, said outside the Supreme Court. Republican leaders sounded unmoved. "When the noise fades, when the uncorroborated mud washes away, what`s left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said after receiving a staff briefing on the report, "There`s nothing in it that we didn`t already know." "These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations," Grassley added. White House spokesman Shah told CNN the FBI reached out to 10 people and "comprehensively interviewed" nine of them. "The White House didn`t micromanage the FBI," he said. In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Ford`s lawyers noted that the agency declined to interview Ford or any of more than a dozen people they identified to provide relevant information, calling the five-day investigation "a stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of justice." Ford testified last week at a dramatic Judiciary Committee hearing that when she was 15, a drunken 17-year-old Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to remove her clothing and covered her mouth after she screamed. Kavanaugh denied the allegation and painted himself as the victim of a "political hit." Attorneys for Deborah Ramirez, who has said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were students at Yale University, wrote a separate letter to Wray expressing disappointment that FBI agents had not followed up on their interview with her by talking to more than 20 witnesses she identified as being able to corroborate her account.

Republicans aim to confirm Brett Kavanaugh this weekend; protesters arrested

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