The US Supreme Court, in a dramatic nighttime intervention Saturday, paused President Donald Trump's unprecedented use of an obscure law to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process.
The emergency ruling, delivered in two terse paragraphs, noted that two of the most conservative of the nine justices had dissented.
The order temporarily prevents the government from continuing to expel migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act -- last used to round up Japanese-American citizens during World War II.
Trump invoked the law last month to deport Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
The unusual decision was triggered by imminent plans late Friday to expel dozens more Venezuelans under the Act, meaning they would have been deported with next to no ability to hear evidence against them or challenge their cases.
The court said "the government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order."
Trump justifies summary expulsions -- and the detention of people in El Salvador -- by insisting that he is cracking down on violent Venezuelan criminal gangs now classified by the US government as terrorists.
But the policy is fueling opposition concerns that the Republican is ignoring the US constitution in a broader bid to amass power.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-admin-using-tattoos-to-identify-gang-members-justify-deporting-migrants-experts-slam-method-as-too-simplistic-8979758">Trump admin using tattoos to 'identify' gang members, justify deporting migrants; experts slam method as 'too simplistic'</a>
The row over the Alien Enemies Act comes amid muscular assaults by the administration on big law firms, Harvard and other universities, and major independent media outlets.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which took the lead in seeking to halt Friday's planned deportations, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling.
"These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court. We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month," lead attorney Lee Gelernt said.
<h2><hl2>Tattoos and due process&nbsp;</hl2></h2>
Trump's election last November was won in large part on his aggressive promises to combat what he has repeatedly claimed is an "invasion" of violent migrants.
While there is no evidence to support the narrative of the United States being "invaded," Trump's rhetoric about rapists and murderers descending on suburban homes resonated with swaths of voters who have long been concerned about high levels of illegal immigration.
Trump has sent troops to the Mexican border, imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada for allegedly not doing enough to stop illegal crossings, and designated narco-gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 terrorist groups.
However, Democrats and civil rights groups have expressed alarm at an erosion of constitutional rights.
WATCH | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-administration-slammed-over-wrongful-deportation-of-abrego-garcia-8971391">Trump administration slammed over wrongful deportation of Abrego Garcia</a>
Under Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act -- previously seen only during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II -- migrants have been accused of gang membership and sent to El Salvador without ability to go before a judge or being charged with a crime.
Attorneys for several of the Venezuelans already deported had said their clients were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos.
In the most publicized case, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported last month to the infamous El Salvador mega-prison without charge.
The Trump administration said he had been included in a bigger batch of deportees due to an "administrative error" and a court ruled that it must facilitate his return.
However, Trump has since doubled down, insisting that Abrego Garcia is in fact a gang member, including posting an apparently doctored photo on social media Friday that showed MS-13 on his knuckles.
Most of the deported migrants are currently held in El Salvador's maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a mega-prison southeast of the capital San Salvador with capacity for 40,000 prisoners.
Inmates are packed in windowless cells, sleep on metal beds with no mattresses, and are forbidden visitors.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The court said "the government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order." WORLD

The US Supreme Court, in a dramatic nighttime intervention Saturday, paused President Donald Trump's unprecedented use of an obscure law to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process. The emergency ruling, delivered in two terse paragraphs, noted that two of the most conservative of the nine justices had dissented. The order temporarily prevents the government from continuing to expel migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act -- last used to round up Japanese-American citizens during World War II. Trump invoked the law last month to deport Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The unusual decision was triggered by imminent plans late Friday to expel dozens more Venezuelans under the Act, meaning they would have been deported with next to no ability to hear evidence against them or challenge their cases. The court said "the government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order." Trump justifies summary expulsions -- and the detention of people in El Salvador -- by insisting that he is cracking down on violent Venezuelan criminal gangs now classified by the US government as terrorists. But the policy is fueling opposition concerns that the Republican is ignoring the US constitution in a broader bid to amass power. Also read: Trump admin using tattoos to 'identify' gang members, justify deporting migrants; experts slam method as 'too simplistic' The row over the Alien Enemies Act comes amid muscular assaults by the administration on big law firms, Harvard and other universities, and major independent media outlets. The American Civil Liberties Union, which took the lead in seeking to halt Friday's planned deportations, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling. "These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court. We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month," lead attorney Lee Gelernt said. Tattoos and due process Trump's election last November was won in large part on his aggressive promises to combat what he has repeatedly claimed is an "invasion" of violent migrants. While there is no evidence to support the narrative of the United States being "invaded," Trump's rhetoric about rapists and murderers descending on suburban homes resonated with swaths of voters who have long been concerned about high levels of illegal immigration. Trump has sent troops to the Mexican border, imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada for allegedly not doing enough to stop illegal crossings, and designated narco-gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 terrorist groups. However, Democrats and civil rights groups have expressed alarm at an erosion of constitutional rights. WATCH | Trump administration slammed over wrongful deportation of Abrego Garcia Under Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act -- previously seen only during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II -- migrants have been accused of gang membership and sent to El Salvador without ability to go before a judge or being charged with a crime. Attorneys for several of the Venezuelans already deported had said their clients were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos. In the most publicized case, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported last month to the infamous El Salvador mega-prison without charge. The Trump administration said he had been included in a bigger batch of deportees due to an "administrative error" and a court ruled that it must facilitate his return. However, Trump has since doubled down, insisting that Abrego Garcia is in fact a gang member, including posting an apparently doctored photo on social media Friday that showed MS-13 on his knuckles. Most of the deported migrants are currently held in El Salvador's maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a mega-prison southeast of the capital San Salvador with capacity for 40,000 prisoners. Inmates are packed in windowless cells, sleep on metal beds with no mattresses, and are forbidden visitors. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

US Supreme Court temporarily prevents Trump admin to expel migrants under Alien Enemies Act

The US Supreme Court has rejected 26/11 Mumbai attacks co-conspirator Tahawwur Rana&rsquo;s plea seeking an emergency stay on his extradition to India.&nbsp; Rana was arrested in the US in 2009 for his involvement in terrorism-related activities, including a foiled plot to attack the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was also convicted for providing material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Rana, a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed more than 170 people, had approached the US Supreme Court, seeking an emergency stay on his previously allowed extradition.&nbsp;
Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/video-uks-birmingham-needs-the-pied-piper-as-rats-run-amok-in-city-amid-trash-piles-8933118">Video: UK&rsquo;s Birmingham needs the Pied Piper as rats run amok in city amid trash piles</a>
In his appeal, Rana said that his survival chances would be insufficient for facing trial in India, citing multiple factors.&nbsp; His petition specifically mentioned that &ldquo;if a stay is not entered, there will be no review at all, and the US courts will lose jurisdiction, and the petitioner will soon be dead.&rdquo;&nbsp;
The 26/11 terror attacks suspect alleged that his extradition to India would likely lead to his torture, given his status as a Pakistani-origin Muslim individual. Rana&rsquo;s extradition was greenlit by US President Donald Trump last month. Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/over-100-chemical-weapons-sites-may-still-be-existing-in-syria-report-8932763">Over 100 chemical weapons sites of Assad regime may still be existing in Syria: Report</a>
During a joint press conference at the White House with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump had announced the decision and suggested additional extraditions would follow. &ldquo;We are giving a very violent man (Tahawwur Rana) back to India immediately. There are more to follow because we have quite a few requests. We work with India on crime, and we want to make things better for India,&rdquo; Trump had said.&nbsp;
<h2>Who is Tahawwur Rana?</h2>
Rana, who holds Canadian citizenship and is of Pakistani origin, was found guilty in the United States for providing support to the LeT, a proscribed organisation.&nbsp; Rana is alleged to have assisted his associate David Coleman Headley, also known as Daood Gilani, who possessed US citizenship through his American mother and Pakistani father. US authorities apprehended Headley in October 2009. Rana had supported Headley and provided him with false credentials using which the latter travelled to India and scouted potential targets for LeT&rsquo;s 2008 assault.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/senior-us-official-heads-to-pakistan-with-focus-on-critical-minerals-deal-8930388" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Senior US official heads to Pakistan with focus on critical minerals deal</a> Investigators claim that the Pakistani terrorists who carried out the fatal attack used a blueprint that Rana was involved in creating. Rana is lodged at the metropolitan detention centre in Los Angeles and will be handed over to NIA by FBI on a day agreed upon by both sides.

World | India News: Rana, a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed more than 170 people, had approached the US Supreme Court, seeking an emergency stay on his previously allowed extradition.

The US Supreme Court has rejected 26/11 Mumbai attacks co-conspirator Tahawwur Rana’s plea seeking an emergency stay on his extradition to India. Rana was arrested in the US in 2009 for his involvement in terrorism-related activities, including a foiled plot to attack the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. He was also convicted for providing material support to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Rana, a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed more than 170 people, had approached the US Supreme Court, seeking an emergency stay on his previously allowed extradition. Also Read | Video: UK’s Birmingham needs the Pied Piper as rats run amok in city amid trash piles In his appeal, Rana said that his survival chances would be insufficient for facing trial in India, citing multiple factors. His petition specifically mentioned that “if a stay is not entered, there will be no review at all, and the US courts will lose jurisdiction, and the petitioner will soon be dead.” The 26/11 terror attacks suspect alleged that his extradition to India would likely lead to his torture, given his status as a Pakistani-origin Muslim individual. Rana’s extradition was greenlit by US President Donald Trump last month. Also Read | Over 100 chemical weapons sites of Assad regime may still be existing in Syria: Report During a joint press conference at the White House with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump had announced the decision and suggested additional extraditions would follow. “We are giving a very violent man (Tahawwur Rana) back to India immediately. There are more to follow because we have quite a few requests. We work with India on crime, and we want to make things better for India,” Trump had said. Who is Tahawwur Rana? Rana, who holds Canadian citizenship and is of Pakistani origin, was found guilty in the United States for providing support to the LeT, a proscribed organisation. Rana is alleged to have assisted his associate David Coleman Headley, also known as Daood Gilani, who possessed US citizenship through his American mother and Pakistani father. US authorities apprehended Headley in October 2009. Rana had supported Headley and provided him with false credentials using which the latter travelled to India and scouted potential targets for LeT’s 2008 assault. Also Read | Senior US official heads to Pakistan with focus on critical minerals deal Investigators claim that the Pakistani terrorists who carried out the fatal attack used a blueprint that Rana was involved in creating. Rana is lodged at the metropolitan detention centre in Los Angeles and will be handed over to NIA by FBI on a day agreed upon by both sides.

US Supreme Court rejects 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana’s last-ditch plea to stay extradition

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Biden-era federal regulation of untraceable "ghost guns" -- firearms sold in easy-to-assemble kits -- in a defeat for the powerful gun lobby.
Gun manufacturers and gun rights groups had challenged a 2022 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule that requires ghost guns, like other firearms, to have serial numbers and for their purchasers to undergo background checks.
The ATF rule also requires commercial sellers of what are known as "buy-build-shoot" kits, which sometimes include parts made by 3D printers, to be licensed and maintain records.
The Supreme Court upheld the ATF regulations in a 7-2 ruling with four conservative justices -- including all three first-term appointees of Republican President Donald Trump -- siding with the three liberals on the court.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the two most conservative justices, dissented.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said ghost guns fit the definition of what constitutes a firearm under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was passed by Congress after the assassinations of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.
"Perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot," Gorsuch said in the majority opinion. "But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious.
"Really, the kit's name says it all: "Buy Build Shoot," he said.
Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old Maryland man charged with murdering the CEO of UnitedHealth care in New York in December, was allegedly in possession of a ghost gun at the time of his arrest.
<h2><hl2>'Untraceable'&nbsp;</hl2></h2>
During arguments in October, then-solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration of president Joe Biden, told the court that regulation of ghost guns was "crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons and domestic abusers."
Prelogar said ghost guns were marketed as "ridiculously easy to assemble" with manufacturers boasting that buyers can go "from opening the mail to having a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes."
"Those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully purchase them or who plan to use them in crimes," she said.
"As a result, our nation has seen an explosion in crimes committed with ghost guns."
Peter Patterson, representing the gun manufacturers and gun rights groups objecting to the ATF rule, argued that the federal agency had "exceeded its authority" and "expanded the definition of firearm to include collections of parts that are not weapons."
The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in previous cases, striking down a ban, for example, on bump stocks -- devices which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire like a machine gun.
According to ATF figures, nearly 20,000 ghost guns were recovered at crime scenes in the United States in 2021 -- a tenfold increase from 2016. Solicitor General Prelogar said the number has dropped dramatically since the 2022 rule went into force.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court after a district court struck down the ATF rule and its ruling was upheld by a conservative-dominated appeals court panel.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

World: The ATF rule also requires commercial sellers of what are known as "buy-build-shoot" kits, which sometimes include parts made by 3D printers.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Biden-era federal regulation of untraceable "ghost guns" -- firearms sold in easy-to-assemble kits -- in a defeat for the powerful gun lobby. Gun manufacturers and gun rights groups had challenged a 2022 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule that requires ghost guns, like other firearms, to have serial numbers and for their purchasers to undergo background checks. The ATF rule also requires commercial sellers of what are known as "buy-build-shoot" kits, which sometimes include parts made by 3D printers, to be licensed and maintain records. The Supreme Court upheld the ATF regulations in a 7-2 ruling with four conservative justices -- including all three first-term appointees of Republican President Donald Trump -- siding with the three liberals on the court. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the two most conservative justices, dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch said ghost guns fit the definition of what constitutes a firearm under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was passed by Congress after the assassinations of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. "Perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot," Gorsuch said in the majority opinion. "But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious. "Really, the kit's name says it all: "Buy Build Shoot," he said. Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old Maryland man charged with murdering the CEO of UnitedHealth care in New York in December, was allegedly in possession of a ghost gun at the time of his arrest. 'Untraceable' During arguments in October, then-solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration of president Joe Biden, told the court that regulation of ghost guns was "crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons and domestic abusers." Prelogar said ghost guns were marketed as "ridiculously easy to assemble" with manufacturers boasting that buyers can go "from opening the mail to having a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes." "Those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully purchase them or who plan to use them in crimes," she said. "As a result, our nation has seen an explosion in crimes committed with ghost guns." Peter Patterson, representing the gun manufacturers and gun rights groups objecting to the ATF rule, argued that the federal agency had "exceeded its authority" and "expanded the definition of firearm to include collections of parts that are not weapons." The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in previous cases, striking down a ban, for example, on bump stocks -- devices which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire like a machine gun. According to ATF figures, nearly 20,000 ghost guns were recovered at crime scenes in the United States in 2021 -- a tenfold increase from 2016. Solicitor General Prelogar said the number has dropped dramatically since the 2022 rule went into force. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court after a district court struck down the ATF rule and its ruling was upheld by a conservative-dominated appeals court panel. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

US Supreme Court upholds Biden's untraceable 'ghost guns' regulation, aims to defeat powerful gun lobby

In the first major Supreme Court case involving an order by US President Donald Trump, his legal team has urged the justices to allow him to dismiss Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel.
The administration filed an emergency application on Sunday (Feb 16), requesting the court to overturn a lower court&rsquo;s ruling that temporarily reinstated Dellinger.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-prime-minister-keir-starmer-to-meet-us-president-donald-trump-next-week-after-us-freezes-europe-out-of-ukraine-talks-8729776" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">UK's Keir Starmer to meet Trump next week after US freezes Europe out of&nbsp;Ukraine&nbsp;talks</a>
The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency responsible for protecting government whistleblowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The role is separate from the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department.
<h2>White House: President&rsquo;s power at stake</h2>
In its filing, the administration argued that lower courts should not interfere with the president&rsquo;s authority to remove agency heads. &ldquo;This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,&rdquo; the filing stated. The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days.
This case raises a key constitutional question about whether Congress can restrict a president&rsquo;s ability to fire leaders of independent agencies, an issue that could shape Trump&rsquo;s broader efforts to restructure the federal government through mass dismissals.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-peace-talks-live-europe-plays-catch-up-in-paris-as-marco-rubio-arrives-in-saudi-arabia-for-talks-with-russia-without-zelensky-8729487" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Ukraine peace talks LIVE: Europe plays catch-up in Paris as Rubio arrives in Saudi for talks with Russia</a>
Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, was appointed to a five-year term under a statute that says he can only be removed &ldquo;for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.&rdquo; 
However, he received a one-sentence email on February 7 informing him that he was being terminated immediately, without any said cause.
<h2>Court battle over the dismissal</h2>
Dellinger challenged his firing in court, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order allowing him to remain in his position for two weeks while she considered a longer-term ruling.
In her order, Judge Jackson wrote that the law creating Dellinger&rsquo;s position intended to ensure the office&rsquo;s independence and protect it from political influence. She noted that the government&rsquo;s only response was to argue that the statute itself was unconstitutional.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-cant-do-a-thing-tehran-slams-netanyahu-for-vowing-to-finish-the-job-against-iran-with-trumps-help-8729162" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">'Israel can't do a thing': Tehran slams Netanyahu for vowing to 'finish the job' against Iran with Trump's help</a>
The administration&rsquo;s attempt to overturn Judge Jackson&rsquo;s order was then reviewed by a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On Saturday, the panel rejected the government&rsquo;s emergency motion to block the ruling.
The majority opinion, written by Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointed by President Biden, stated that the government&rsquo;s request was premature.
&ldquo;The question here is not whether the president is entitled to prompt review of his important constitutional arguments,&rdquo; the judges wrote. 
&ldquo;Of course he is. The issue before us is whether his mere claim of extraordinary harm justifies this court&rsquo;s immediate review, which would essentially remove the legal issues from the district court&rsquo;s ambit before its proceedings have concluded,&rdquo; they added.
(With inputs from agencies)

World:  “This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” Trump's legal team said in its filing.

In the first major Supreme Court case involving an order by US President Donald Trump, his legal team has urged the justices to allow him to dismiss Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The administration filed an emergency application on Sunday (Feb 16), requesting the court to overturn a lower court’s ruling that temporarily reinstated Dellinger. Also read: UK's Keir Starmer to meet Trump next week after US freezes Europe out of Ukraine talks The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency responsible for protecting government whistleblowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The role is separate from the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department. White House: President’s power at stake In its filing, the administration argued that lower courts should not interfere with the president’s authority to remove agency heads. “This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the filing stated. The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days. This case raises a key constitutional question about whether Congress can restrict a president’s ability to fire leaders of independent agencies, an issue that could shape Trump’s broader efforts to restructure the federal government through mass dismissals. Also read: Ukraine peace talks LIVE: Europe plays catch-up in Paris as Rubio arrives in Saudi for talks with Russia Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, was appointed to a five-year term under a statute that says he can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” However, he received a one-sentence email on February 7 informing him that he was being terminated immediately, without any said cause. Court battle over the dismissal Dellinger challenged his firing in court, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order allowing him to remain in his position for two weeks while she considered a longer-term ruling. In her order, Judge Jackson wrote that the law creating Dellinger’s position intended to ensure the office’s independence and protect it from political influence. She noted that the government’s only response was to argue that the statute itself was unconstitutional. Also read: 'Israel can't do a thing': Tehran slams Netanyahu for vowing to 'finish the job' against Iran with Trump's help The administration’s attempt to overturn Judge Jackson’s order was then reviewed by a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. On Saturday, the panel rejected the government’s emergency motion to block the ruling. The majority opinion, written by Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both appointed by President Biden, stated that the government’s request was premature. “The question here is not whether the president is entitled to prompt review of his important constitutional arguments,” the judges wrote. “Of course he is. The issue before us is whether his mere claim of extraordinary harm justifies this court’s immediate review, which would essentially remove the legal issues from the district court’s ambit before its proceedings have concluded,” they added. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire watchdog chief for no reason in major test of executive power

CALIFORNIA
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical challenge to California's vehicle emissions and electric vehicle standards, a case that could potentially reshape environmental regulation across the nation.
The dispute centres on an exceptional waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California in 2022, allowing the state to establish its own stringent vehicle emission limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates, which exceed national standards.
California, traditionally at the forefront of environmental regulation, has historically received more than 75 waivers since 1967, enabling the state to implement progressively more rigorous emissions performance requirements. The current legal challenge, initiated by Valero Energy's subsidiary Diamond Alternative Energy and associated fuel industry groups, seeks to contest this long-standing practice.
The case challenges the EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver, which had been previously rescinded during the Trump administration. Fuel producers argue that the state is effectively functioning as a "junior-varsity EPA" and overstepping its regulatory boundaries by implementing climate change mitigation strategies.
Central to the dispute is the unique provision within the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to waive preemption rules, permitting California to establish emissions standards more stringent than federal regulations. This legal mechanism has been crucial in driving environmental innovation and advancing clean vehicle technologies.
Valero and supporting groups contend that California's regulations exceed the EPA's statutory authority and potentially harm their commercial interests by reducing demand for traditional liquid fuels. They have invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a legal principle that allows judicial discretion in challenging executive agency actions.
The Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority has demonstrated increasing skepticism towards expansive regulatory powers in recent environmental cases. Previous rulings have significantly restricted the EPA's authority, including blocking the agency's "Good Neighbor" rule targeting ozone emissions and limiting its power to protect wetlands and regulate power plant carbon emissions.
The appellate court previously dismissed the lawsuit, determining that Valero and supporting states lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the waiver. However, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal suggests a potential willingness to scrutinise the EPA's regulatory approach.
This case carries profound implications for environmental policy, potentially affecting not only California's ability to set independent emissions standards but also the broader landscape of climate change mitigation efforts across the United States.
The outcome could significantly impact the automotive industry's transition towards electric vehicles, influence state-level environmental regulations, and potentially reshape the federal government's approach to combating climate change.
Environmental advocates and industry stakeholders are closely monitoring the proceedings, recognising that the Supreme Court's ruling could establish a critical precedent for future environmental regulatory frameworks.

Landmark legal battle pits state environmental standards against federal pollution control mechanisms

 



CALIFORNIA The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical challenge to California's vehicle emissions and electric vehicle standards, a case that could potentially reshape environmental regulation across the nation. The dispute centres on an exceptional waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California in 2022, allowing the state to establish its own stringent vehicle emission limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates, which exceed national standards. California, traditionally at the forefront of environmental regulation, has historically received more than 75 waivers since 1967, enabling the state to implement progressively more rigorous emissions performance requirements. The current legal challenge, initiated by Valero Energy's subsidiary Diamond Alternative Energy and associated fuel industry groups, seeks to contest this long-standing practice. The case challenges the EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver, which had been previously rescinded during the Trump administration. Fuel producers argue that the state is effectively functioning as a "junior-varsity EPA" and overstepping its regulatory boundaries by implementing climate change mitigation strategies. Central to the dispute is the unique provision within the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to waive preemption rules, permitting California to establish emissions standards more stringent than federal regulations. This legal mechanism has been crucial in driving environmental innovation and advancing clean vehicle technologies. Valero and supporting groups contend that California's regulations exceed the EPA's statutory authority and potentially harm their commercial interests by reducing demand for traditional liquid fuels. They have invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a legal principle that allows judicial discretion in challenging executive agency actions. The Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority has demonstrated increasing skepticism towards expansive regulatory powers in recent environmental cases. Previous rulings have significantly restricted the EPA's authority, including blocking the agency's "Good Neighbor" rule targeting ozone emissions and limiting its power to protect wetlands and regulate power plant carbon emissions. The appellate court previously dismissed the lawsuit, determining that Valero and supporting states lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the waiver. However, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal suggests a potential willingness to scrutinise the EPA's regulatory approach. This case carries profound implications for environmental policy, potentially affecting not only California's ability to set independent emissions standards but also the broader landscape of climate change mitigation efforts across the United States. The outcome could significantly impact the automotive industry's transition towards electric vehicles, influence state-level environmental regulations, and potentially reshape the federal government's approach to combating climate change. Environmental advocates and industry stakeholders are closely monitoring the proceedings, recognising that the Supreme Court's ruling could establish a critical precedent for future environmental regulatory frameworks.

US Supreme court to examine California's vehicle emissions regulations

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical challenge to California's vehicle emissions and electric vehicle standards, a case that could potentially reshape environmental regulation across the nation.

The dispute centres on an exceptional waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California in 2022, allowing the state to establish its own stringent vehicle emission limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates, which exceed national standards.

California, traditionally at the forefront of environmental regulation, has historically received more than 75 waivers since 1967, enabling the state to implement progressively more rigorous emissions performance requirements. The current legal challenge, initiated by Valero Energy's subsidiary Diamond Alternative Energy and associated fuel industry groups, seeks to contest this long-standing practice.

The case challenges the EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver, which had been previously rescinded during the Trump administration. Fuel producers argue that the state is effectively functioning as a "junior-varsity EPA" and overstepping its regulatory boundaries by implementing climate change mitigation strategies.

Central to the dispute is the unique provision within the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to waive preemption rules, permitting California to establish emissions standards more stringent than federal regulations. This legal mechanism has been crucial in driving environmental innovation and advancing clean vehicle technologies.

Valero and supporting groups contend that California's regulations exceed the EPA's statutory authority and potentially harm their commercial interests by reducing demand for traditional liquid fuels. They have invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a legal principle that allows judicial discretion in challenging executive agency actions.

The Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority has demonstrated increasing skepticism towards expansive regulatory powers in recent environmental cases. Previous rulings have significantly restricted the EPA's authority, including blocking the agency's "Good Neighbor" rule targeting ozone emissions and limiting its power to protect wetlands and regulate power plant carbon emissions.

The appellate court previously dismissed the lawsuit, determining that Valero and supporting states lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the waiver. However, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal suggests a potential willingness to scrutinise the EPA's regulatory approach.

This case carries profound implications for environmental policy, potentially affecting not only California's ability to set independent emissions standards but also the broader landscape of climate change mitigation efforts across the United States.

The outcome could significantly impact the automotive industry's transition towards electric vehicles, influence state-level environmental regulations, and potentially reshape the federal government's approach to combating climate change.

Environmental advocates and industry stakeholders are closely monitoring the proceedings, recognising that the Supreme Court's ruling could establish a critical precedent for future environmental regulatory frameworks.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical challenge to California's vehicle emissions and electric vehicle standards, a case that could potentially reshape environmental regulation across the nation.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a critical challenge to California's vehicle emissions and electric vehicle standards, a case that could potentially reshape environmental regulation across the nation. The dispute centres on an exceptional waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to California in 2022, allowing the state to establish its own stringent vehicle emission limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates, which exceed national standards. California, traditionally at the forefront of environmental regulation, has historically received more than 75 waivers since 1967, enabling the state to implement progressively more rigorous emissions performance requirements. The current legal challenge, initiated by Valero Energy's subsidiary Diamond Alternative Energy and associated fuel industry groups, seeks to contest this long-standing practice. The case challenges the EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver, which had been previously rescinded during the Trump administration. Fuel producers argue that the state is effectively functioning as a "junior-varsity EPA" and overstepping its regulatory boundaries by implementing climate change mitigation strategies. Central to the dispute is the unique provision within the Clean Air Act that allows the EPA to waive preemption rules, permitting California to establish emissions standards more stringent than federal regulations. This legal mechanism has been crucial in driving environmental innovation and advancing clean vehicle technologies. Valero and supporting groups contend that California's regulations exceed the EPA's statutory authority and potentially harm their commercial interests by reducing demand for traditional liquid fuels. They have invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a legal principle that allows judicial discretion in challenging executive agency actions. The Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority has demonstrated increasing skepticism towards expansive regulatory powers in recent environmental cases. Previous rulings have significantly restricted the EPA's authority, including blocking the agency's "Good Neighbor" rule targeting ozone emissions and limiting its power to protect wetlands and regulate power plant carbon emissions. The appellate court previously dismissed the lawsuit, determining that Valero and supporting states lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the waiver. However, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal suggests a potential willingness to scrutinise the EPA's regulatory approach. This case carries profound implications for environmental policy, potentially affecting not only California's ability to set independent emissions standards but also the broader landscape of climate change mitigation efforts across the United States. The outcome could significantly impact the automotive industry's transition towards electric vehicles, influence state-level environmental regulations, and potentially reshape the federal government's approach to combating climate change. Environmental advocates and industry stakeholders are closely monitoring the proceedings, recognising that the Supreme Court's ruling could establish a critical precedent for future environmental regulatory frameworks.

Donald Trump returns to the White House shielded with presidential immunity by the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;and with the prospect of cementing a conservative majority on the bench for at least a generation.

The Republican President-elect appointed three right-wing justices to the top&nbsp;court&nbsp;during his first term and may have the opportunity to name more during his second stint in the Oval Office.

Archconservatives Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, who wrote the opinion overturning the nationwide right to abortion, are the two oldest justices on the&nbsp;court&nbsp;and they could choose to step down knowing their replacements would be nominated by Trump.

"It certainly presents the opportunity for them to retire with some assurance that their successor would continue their philosophy," said Christopher Peters, a law professor at the University of Akron. "And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened."

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said if Thomas or Alito have any inclination to quit he expects it to happen "fairly quickly" -- before the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans could potentially lose control of the Senate.

Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;justices are appointed by the president for life but are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Trump, the only former US president to be convicted of a crime -- falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star -- will take office in January emboldened by the top&nbsp;court's ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution, Schwinn said.

Trump was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election but a trial was delayed by appeals that eventually landed in the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority.

In an opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the&nbsp;court&nbsp;ruled that a former president has broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office, but can be pursued for unofficial acts.

Smith, the special counsel, is winding down the election interference case against Trump in light of the long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting US president cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted.

<h2>'King above the law'</h2>

Schwinn said the immunity ruling "not only allows, but affirmatively invites, a president to engage in illegal behavior and provides a kind of roadmap for doing that while also immunizing themselves.

"And then the question is, 'Is a particular president willing to abuse that power or not?'" he said. "And you know, for my money, I guess a President Trump seems more likely to do that."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals on the&nbsp;court, warned in her blistering dissent to the immunity ruling that it makes the president a "king above the law."

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;did check Trump on a number of occasions during his first term in the White House.

The&nbsp;court&nbsp;initially blocked his Muslim travel ban, protected the young undocumented immigrants known as "Dreamers," and declined to be dragged into lawsuits filed by Trump surrogates falsely claiming he had won the 2020 election.

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress this time, the&nbsp;Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;will be "the last institution standing between Mr Trump and whatever he wants to do," Vladeck said in a New York Times essay.

But the&nbsp;court, Vladeck noted, has its own problems with approval ratings at near record lows and perceived ethics questions surrounding luxury vacations taken by Thomas and Alito that were paid for by powerful Republican billionaires.

"Without that public support, what would happen if Mr Trump simply ignored a decision by the nation's highest&nbsp;court&nbsp;that he doesn't like?" Vladeck asked.

"If the&nbsp;court&nbsp;rules against Mr Trump and he tells the justices to pound sand, what will happen then?"

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION&nbsp;audience. 
&nbsp;

Donald Trump returns to the White House shielded with presidential immunity by the Supreme Court and with the prospect of cementing a conservative majority on the bench for at least a generation.

Donald Trump returns to the White House shielded with presidential immunity by the Supreme Court and with the prospect of cementing a conservative majority on the bench for at least a generation. The Republican President-elect appointed three right-wing justices to the top court during his first term and may have the opportunity to name more during his second stint in the Oval Office. Archconservatives Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, who wrote the opinion overturning the nationwide right to abortion, are the two oldest justices on the court and they could choose to step down knowing their replacements would be nominated by Trump. "It certainly presents the opportunity for them to retire with some assurance that their successor would continue their philosophy," said Christopher Peters, a law professor at the University of Akron. "And I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that happened." Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said if Thomas or Alito have any inclination to quit he expects it to happen "fairly quickly" -- before the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans could potentially lose control of the Senate. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president for life but are subject to confirmation by the Senate. Trump, the only former US president to be convicted of a crime -- falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn star -- will take office in January emboldened by the top court's ruling in July that an ex-president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution, Schwinn said. Trump was charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election but a trial was delayed by appeals that eventually landed in the Supreme Court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority. In an opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that a former president has broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office, but can be pursued for unofficial acts. Smith, the special counsel, is winding down the election interference case against Trump in light of the long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting US president cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted. 'King above the law' Schwinn said the immunity ruling "not only allows, but affirmatively invites, a president to engage in illegal behavior and provides a kind of roadmap for doing that while also immunizing themselves. "And then the question is, 'Is a particular president willing to abuse that power or not?'" he said. "And you know, for my money, I guess a President Trump seems more likely to do that." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals on the court, warned in her blistering dissent to the immunity ruling that it makes the president a "king above the law." Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the Supreme Court did check Trump on a number of occasions during his first term in the White House. The court initially blocked his Muslim travel ban, protected the young undocumented immigrants known as "Dreamers," and declined to be dragged into lawsuits filed by Trump surrogates falsely claiming he had won the 2020 election. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress this time, the Supreme Court will be "the last institution standing between Mr Trump and whatever he wants to do," Vladeck said in a New York Times essay. But the court, Vladeck noted, has its own problems with approval ratings at near record lows and perceived ethics questions surrounding luxury vacations taken by Thomas and Alito that were paid for by powerful Republican billionaires. "Without that public support, what would happen if Mr Trump simply ignored a decision by the nation's highest court that he doesn't like?" Vladeck asked. "If the court rules against Mr Trump and he tells the justices to pound sand, what will happen then?" Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Trump returns to White House shielded with presidential immunity by US Supreme Court

US President-elect Donald Trump has started his transition ahead of taking the oath of office in January 2025. From the names he suggested for cabinet and other key positions in the White House, it is clear that his second non-consecutive term will try to settle political scores while ensuring protection from court cases.&nbsp;

Based on the profiles of Team Trump, here is an analysis of how different aspects of government will be impacted, from global wars to domestic security.

Note: This time, most of Trump's nominees will eventually get the jobs, as the Senate and House of Represenatives are also Republican-controlled after the November 5 general election. Only the most controversial nominations might get stuck at committee level in House and Senate. But this article assumes all the names would be final.

WATCH- Trump's Cabinet: Congressman Matt Gaetz Named As Attorney General

<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/trumps-cabinet-congressman-matt-gaetz-named-as-attorney-general-776076/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

<h2>ENDING WARS IN UKRAINE AND WEST ASIA</h2>

Trump had often claimed during the re-election campaign that he is the only one who can end the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, and prevent World War 3. The time has come for him to deliver.&nbsp;

He has picked Marco Rubio to lead the State Department. As secretary of state, the Florida Senator will lead efforts to de-escalate the situation.&nbsp;

Trump also chose Mike Huckabee, a staunch defender of Israel, as the US ambassador to the Jewish nation, which is engaged in a multi-front war with terror groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is also fighting Iran and its proxies like Houthi rebels in Yemen, and other militants in Iraq and Syria. The choice of Huckabee is a clear indication that ultimately, the US will favour Israel's views on ending the conflict.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tulsi-gabbard-newly-elected-trumps-spy-chief-served-in-us-military-for-over-two-decades-776235">Also read: Tulsi Gabbard, newly-appointed Trump's spy chief, served in US military for over two decades</a>

But can he really end the war? Trump is averse to the US being dragged into foreign wars, and particularly opposed to paying for them. Also remember that he was the architect of the Abram Accords, the agreements of peace and cooperation between Israel and several of its enemy Arab states. It is quite possible that Trump and his team would be able to start negotiations that could end the war in the Middle East.

The US efforts to end Russia-Ukraine war are going to be skewed in favour of Russia, with Trump having a direct line with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time. Trump had been dismissive and critical about Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling him the 'greatest salesman'. Don't forget that Trump's first impeachment in 2019 came as a result of his blocking of aid to Ukraine (to force it to investigate the current President Joe Biden).&nbsp;

The efforts at the United Nations to end the Ukraine war will be led by Trump nominee for US envoy, Elise Stefanik.

Any move by Trump to end the war in a way that could favour Russia would again put him at odds with NATO, which has been helping Ukraine with funds and arms to fight Russia, along with the Biden administration. Trump, in his first term, had wanted the US to cut its contributions to NATO, and pressured its other members from Europe to pay up and level the field on financial contributions to the western military alliance.&nbsp;

<h2>TRUMP'S LEGAL CASES: SHAKING UP THE JUDICIARY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE&nbsp;</h2>

Trump wants to protect himself from conviction and sentencing in the ongoing legal battles, and will try to wind up all of them.&nbsp;

The cases deal with the 2020 election interference and the 2021 Capitol Hill riot, tax evasion, handling of classified documents, and the Stormy Daniels hush money payment.&nbsp;

Trump will ensure that presidential immunity is intact, and take more efforts to protect himself from future prosecution once he leaves office.

Trump's picks for key posts in the Justice Department are a clear indication of his intentions. He named Matt Gaetz as the attorney general, thus giving the country's top prosecutor role to a staunch ally. One of the things Trump said Gaetz would do is 'end weaponised government', code for what his surrogates call 'lawfare' against political opponents.&nbsp;

More interesting is his pick of Todd Blanche as deputy attorney general. Blanche was a defence lawyer for several of Trump's court cases.

Many of Trump's cases are being heard in New York courts. Keeping that in mind, he has appointed Jay Clayton, a loyalist, as the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, a very powerful post within the justice department.

<h2>THE BORDER, IMMIGRATION AND HOMELAND SECURITY</h2>

Trump made no secret of his hatred for immigrants trying to enter the US from the southern border. He started building a wall in his first term and will continue to strengthen efforts to prevent individuals and caravans from entering or getting asylum in the US. His homeland security secretary pick, Kristi Noem, is going to play a key role in implementing this.

Trump has once said that he would be a dictator 'may be on the first day', and ordering the deportation of illegal migrants could be one of the things he would do on day one or first week in office.&nbsp;

For this, he has appointed Tom Homan as the border czar who once promised to carry out the largest mass deportation ever by the US. 
Homan comes with significant experience, having led the immigration and customs enforcement in the first Trump administration.

<h2>SHAKING UP THE INTELLIGENCE ESTABLISHMENT</h2>

Trump has been a target of several investigations led by the intelligence establishment, or what he calls the deep state, particularly the classified documents investigation led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is even talk that he will clip the wings of FBI with funding cuts. In broader terms, Trump has promised to dismantle the deep state, a reference mainly to the government-intelligence cooperation that led to what he calls a 'witchhunt' during and after his first term in office.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-20-tulsi-gabbard-nominated-to-head-us-intelligence-matt-gaetz-to-lead-justice-department-775994">Also read: Trump 2.0: Tulsi Gabbard nominated to head US Intelligence, Matt Gaetz to lead Justice Department</a> 
&nbsp;

Leading the charge would be Tulsi Gabbard, who Trump named as director of national intelligence. Trump also brought back his former DNI John Ratcliffe as the director of Central Intelligence Agency.&nbsp;

There is speculation that Trump would shake up FBI, with a leadership change and reorganisation of its structure. In his view, the agency was used by Biden administration as a tool to prosecute him.

<h2>FUTURE OF AMERICA AT WAR: DEFENCE AND SOLDIERS</h2>

Trump has exhibited strong support for American soldiers and veterans, who in turn backed him in large numbers. His opposition to foreign wars is part economic rationale and part isolationalist approach to global security affairs.&nbsp;

Trump does not want to send American boots to the ground, and had started the process of US troop withrdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan when he left office.&nbsp;

He might find an ally in his new defence secretary nominee Peter Hegseth, who has seen wars first hand. Hegseth was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and Afghanistan in 2011. Having had no strategic or decision making role in military or national securty affairs, his approach is likely to be more grassroots, with an ear for the concerns of the American soldier than the larger goal of global policing.

This might erode the traditional role of America as the pre-eminent global power the international community looks up to intervene in and resolve conflicts.&nbsp;

Will the US want to give strategic space to Russia and rising China in this regard? That's an open question for now. Remember, however, that Trump had cooperated with Russia in helping eliminate the Islamic State terror group in the Middle East.

Trump has nominated the controversial Flordia Congressman Mike Waltz as the national security advisor. The former Army Green Beret is a war veteran of Afghanistan and worked as policy advisor to Republican administrations.

Waltz' appointment is also significant in the context of China, a country Trump might want to keep in check. Waltz has been critical of China on various issues like the mistreatment of the Uighur Muslims. He was also an advocate of the theory that the Covid pandemic originated in a Chinese lab.

<h2>GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND WASTE: WILL ELON MUSK CHANGE THINGS?</h2>

The appointment of the world's richest man Elon Musk, and Trump challenger-turned ally Vivek Ramaswamy to run a new agency of government efficiency is signficant. Trump wants to protect the upper middle class and the rich from taxes, while reducing government spending, and soverign debt. Musk has promised a trillion-dollar cut in government waste. Trump's Repubican base advocates least amount of goverment invervention in their lives. It would be interesting to see how much waste he is able to cut.

<h2>ENVIRONMENT: BACK TO FOSSIL FUELS AND POLLUTING VEHICLES?</h2>

Trump has been an ally of the fossil fuel lobby, having taken the US out of the Paris Accord to tackle climate change during his first term. Trump said he would 'drill baby, drill' to bring back America's very old dominance as the top oil producer. This will practically end the commitments to environmental causes.&nbsp;

For this he has roped in Lee Zeldin, who has no practical experience in the field, to run the environmental protection agency. Zeldin promised to 'restore US energy dominance', meaning back to drilling untapped reserves of petroleum in US and its territorial waters. He also promised, as did Trump, to 'revitalise the auto industry'.

Both these policies appeal to the rust belt America, which is looking forward to a windfall of jobs in the auto and oil sectors.&nbsp;

<h2>HEALTHCARE: WILL BIG PHARMA FACE THE MUSIC?</h2>

At the fag end of his first term, Trump and his allies amplified Covid conspiracy theories as the pandemic hit the US. It might even be argued that Covid was a cause of Trump's defeat in the 2020 election. Now, he has appointed as health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, the former Democrat who had openly opposed the Covid vaccination mandate. Will he reopen the Covid files and investigate America's response to it is one question. The other is whether he will take on Big Pharma, which made billions of dollars of profit during the Covid pandemic, particularly through their Covid vaccines.

<h2>BUT WHO CAN BLOCK TRUMP?</h2>

Roughly half of Senate and the full House of Representatives went into election along with the presidential election on November 5. Senate term is for six years and the House of Representatives' term is two years. This means there will be mid-term elections, and the Congress composition could change in next couple of years in favour of Democrats who can then block Trump's legislative agenda.

This acts as a check and balance system offering legislature's oversight on presidential actions, as much of it (except perhaps presidential orders) will need Congressional approval.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Democrat-chaired committees in the Senate and House could also put a spanner in the works on Trump policies. The other major check mechanism is the Supreme Court, whose nine judges these days have clear political leanings. Currently, the bench has a Conservative tilt, and Trump will get the opportunity to name more judges. Remember that Supreme Court judges can serve till death, and their rulings can impact a generation.

Then there is the media, the fourth pillar of democracy. Besides the Democrats, much of US media is likely to serve as the Opposition. We can expect dirt to be digged up on all his nominees before, during or after they assume office.

US President-elect Donald Trump has started his transition ahead of taking the oath of office in January 2025. From the names he suggested for cabinet and other key positions in the White House, it is clear that his second non-consecutive term will try to settle political scores while ensuring protection from court cases.

US President-elect Donald Trump has started his transition ahead of taking the oath of office in January 2025. From the names he suggested for cabinet and other key positions in the White House, it is clear that his second non-consecutive term will try to settle political scores while ensuring protection from court cases. Based on the profiles of Team Trump, here is an analysis of how different aspects of government will be impacted, from global wars to domestic security. Note: This time, most of Trump's nominees will eventually get the jobs, as the Senate and House of Represenatives are also Republican-controlled after the November 5 general election. Only the most controversial nominations might get stuck at committee level in House and Senate. But this article assumes all the names would be final. WATCH- Trump's Cabinet: Congressman Matt Gaetz Named As Attorney General × ENDING WARS IN UKRAINE AND WEST ASIA Trump had often claimed during the re-election campaign that he is the only one who can end the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, and prevent World War 3. The time has come for him to deliver. He has picked Marco Rubio to lead the State Department. As secretary of state, the Florida Senator will lead efforts to de-escalate the situation. Trump also chose Mike Huckabee, a staunch defender of Israel, as the US ambassador to the Jewish nation, which is engaged in a multi-front war with terror groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is also fighting Iran and its proxies like Houthi rebels in Yemen, and other militants in Iraq and Syria. The choice of Huckabee is a clear indication that ultimately, the US will favour Israel's views on ending the conflict. Also read: Tulsi Gabbard, newly-appointed Trump's spy chief, served in US military for over two decades But can he really end the war? Trump is averse to the US being dragged into foreign wars, and particularly opposed to paying for them. Also remember that he was the architect of the Abram Accords, the agreements of peace and cooperation between Israel and several of its enemy Arab states. It is quite possible that Trump and his team would be able to start negotiations that could end the war in the Middle East. The US efforts to end Russia-Ukraine war are going to be skewed in favour of Russia, with Trump having a direct line with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time. Trump had been dismissive and critical about Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling him the 'greatest salesman'. Don't forget that Trump's first impeachment in 2019 came as a result of his blocking of aid to Ukraine (to force it to investigate the current President Joe Biden). The efforts at the United Nations to end the Ukraine war will be led by Trump nominee for US envoy, Elise Stefanik. Any move by Trump to end the war in a way that could favour Russia would again put him at odds with NATO, which has been helping Ukraine with funds and arms to fight Russia, along with the Biden administration. Trump, in his first term, had wanted the US to cut its contributions to NATO, and pressured its other members from Europe to pay up and level the field on financial contributions to the western military alliance. TRUMP'S LEGAL CASES: SHAKING UP THE JUDICIARY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Trump wants to protect himself from conviction and sentencing in the ongoing legal battles, and will try to wind up all of them. The cases deal with the 2020 election interference and the 2021 Capitol Hill riot, tax evasion, handling of classified documents, and the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Trump will ensure that presidential immunity is intact, and take more efforts to protect himself from future prosecution once he leaves office. Trump's picks for key posts in the Justice Department are a clear indication of his intentions. He named Matt Gaetz as the attorney general, thus giving the country's top prosecutor role to a staunch ally. One of the things Trump said Gaetz would do is 'end weaponised government', code for what his surrogates call 'lawfare' against political opponents. More interesting is his pick of Todd Blanche as deputy attorney general. Blanche was a defence lawyer for several of Trump's court cases. Many of Trump's cases are being heard in New York courts. Keeping that in mind, he has appointed Jay Clayton, a loyalist, as the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, a very powerful post within the justice department. THE BORDER, IMMIGRATION AND HOMELAND SECURITY Trump made no secret of his hatred for immigrants trying to enter the US from the southern border. He started building a wall in his first term and will continue to strengthen efforts to prevent individuals and caravans from entering or getting asylum in the US. His homeland security secretary pick, Kristi Noem, is going to play a key role in implementing this. Trump has once said that he would be a dictator 'may be on the first day', and ordering the deportation of illegal migrants could be one of the things he would do on day one or first week in office. For this, he has appointed Tom Homan as the border czar who once promised to carry out the largest mass deportation ever by the US. Homan comes with significant experience, having led the immigration and customs enforcement in the first Trump administration. SHAKING UP THE INTELLIGENCE ESTABLISHMENT Trump has been a target of several investigations led by the intelligence establishment, or what he calls the deep state, particularly the classified documents investigation led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is even talk that he will clip the wings of FBI with funding cuts. In broader terms, Trump has promised to dismantle the deep state, a reference mainly to the government-intelligence cooperation that led to what he calls a 'witchhunt' during and after his first term in office. Also read: Trump 2.0: Tulsi Gabbard nominated to head US Intelligence, Matt Gaetz to lead Justice Department Leading the charge would be Tulsi Gabbard, who Trump named as director of national intelligence. Trump also brought back his former DNI John Ratcliffe as the director of Central Intelligence Agency. There is speculation that Trump would shake up FBI, with a leadership change and reorganisation of its structure. In his view, the agency was used by Biden administration as a tool to prosecute him. FUTURE OF AMERICA AT WAR: DEFENCE AND SOLDIERS Trump has exhibited strong support for American soldiers and veterans, who in turn backed him in large numbers. His opposition to foreign wars is part economic rationale and part isolationalist approach to global security affairs. Trump does not want to send American boots to the ground, and had started the process of US troop withrdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan when he left office. He might find an ally in his new defence secretary nominee Peter Hegseth, who has seen wars first hand. Hegseth was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and Afghanistan in 2011. Having had no strategic or decision making role in military or national securty affairs, his approach is likely to be more grassroots, with an ear for the concerns of the American soldier than the larger goal of global policing. This might erode the traditional role of America as the pre-eminent global power the international community looks up to intervene in and resolve conflicts. Will the US want to give strategic space to Russia and rising China in this regard? That's an open question for now. Remember, however, that Trump had cooperated with Russia in helping eliminate the Islamic State terror group in the Middle East. Trump has nominated the controversial Flordia Congressman Mike Waltz as the national security advisor. The former Army Green Beret is a war veteran of Afghanistan and worked as policy advisor to Republican administrations. Waltz' appointment is also significant in the context of China, a country Trump might want to keep in check. Waltz has been critical of China on various issues like the mistreatment of the Uighur Muslims. He was also an advocate of the theory that the Covid pandemic originated in a Chinese lab. GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND WASTE: WILL ELON MUSK CHANGE THINGS? The appointment of the world's richest man Elon Musk, and Trump challenger-turned ally Vivek Ramaswamy to run a new agency of government efficiency is signficant. Trump wants to protect the upper middle class and the rich from taxes, while reducing government spending, and soverign debt. Musk has promised a trillion-dollar cut in government waste. Trump's Repubican base advocates least amount of goverment invervention in their lives. It would be interesting to see how much waste he is able to cut. ENVIRONMENT: BACK TO FOSSIL FUELS AND POLLUTING VEHICLES? Trump has been an ally of the fossil fuel lobby, having taken the US out of the Paris Accord to tackle climate change during his first term. Trump said he would 'drill baby, drill' to bring back America's very old dominance as the top oil producer. This will practically end the commitments to environmental causes. For this he has roped in Lee Zeldin, who has no practical experience in the field, to run the environmental protection agency. Zeldin promised to 'restore US energy dominance', meaning back to drilling untapped reserves of petroleum in US and its territorial waters. He also promised, as did Trump, to 'revitalise the auto industry'. Both these policies appeal to the rust belt America, which is looking forward to a windfall of jobs in the auto and oil sectors. HEALTHCARE: WILL BIG PHARMA FACE THE MUSIC? At the fag end of his first term, Trump and his allies amplified Covid conspiracy theories as the pandemic hit the US. It might even be argued that Covid was a cause of Trump's defeat in the 2020 election. Now, he has appointed as health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, the former Democrat who had openly opposed the Covid vaccination mandate. Will he reopen the Covid files and investigate America's response to it is one question. The other is whether he will take on Big Pharma, which made billions of dollars of profit during the Covid pandemic, particularly through their Covid vaccines. BUT WHO CAN BLOCK TRUMP? Roughly half of Senate and the full House of Representatives went into election along with the presidential election on November 5. Senate term is for six years and the House of Representatives' term is two years. This means there will be mid-term elections, and the Congress composition could change in next couple of years in favour of Democrats who can then block Trump's legislative agenda. This acts as a check and balance system offering legislature's oversight on presidential actions, as much of it (except perhaps presidential orders) will need Congressional approval. Democrat-chaired committees in the Senate and House could also put a spanner in the works on Trump policies. The other major check mechanism is the Supreme Court, whose nine judges these days have clear political leanings. Currently, the bench has a Conservative tilt, and Trump will get the opportunity to name more judges. Remember that Supreme Court judges can serve till death, and their rulings can impact a generation. Then there is the media, the fourth pillar of democracy. Besides the Democrats, much of US media is likely to serve as the Opposition. We can expect dirt to be digged up on all his nominees before, during or after they assume office.

Trump 2.0: What will his 'revenge cabinet' do to the US and world? Who can stop him?

Donald Trump during an interview said that "only stupid people put old" individuals to the Supreme Court, seemingly overlooking the fact that he himself is 78 years old and running for the highest office in the executive branch.

Donald Trump during an interview said that "only stupid people put old" individuals to the Supreme Court, seemingly overlooking the fact that he himself is 78 years old and running for the highest office in the executive branch. Trump made these comments during an interview with Bloomberg in Chicago. He said, "And somebody said, 'Would you come up with a list of 20 or 25 justices, in this case mostly judges, that you'd put in in case it were necessary?'" During his one term as president, Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, including Neil Gorsuch (49 at the time), Brett Kavanaugh (53), and Amy Coney Barrett (48). These choices were relatively younger than many previous appointees. Also read: India shared list of Canada-based gangsters and terrorists. Ottawa did nothing “Now, it's amazing because I got three in four years,” Trump said, referring to his nominations. “Most people get none because, you know, you put them in the young. You tend to put them in young. Only stupid people put old. “You know, you don’t put old in, because they’re there for two years or three years, right?" The interviewer, Micklethwait, then pointed out, "You're a 78-year old man running for president." When confronted about his own age, Trump sidestepped the comment and instead focused on his record of appointments. “So, I got three,” he responded. “A lot of presidents get none, I got three. And, uh, I think they’ve been three great choices too, by the way.” Also read: Trump rally suspect wrongfully arrested for assassination bid sues California sheriff Nowadays, it is common for presidents to select younger candidates for the Supreme Court, as justices hold lifetime appointments. Appointing younger individuals allows a president to install someone with an identical ideology on the court for decades. Trump is running for another term in the White House and is currently the oldest candidate for president in US history. If he wins in November, he will be 82 years old by the end of his term in 2029. His age has been a frequent point of criticism from Democrats, who have questioned his mental acuity, and whether he is fit to serve. (With inputs from agencies)

At 78, Trump claims ‘only stupid people’ appoint older justices to Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to enforce in Texas federal guidance requiring hospitals to perform abortions if needed to stabilise a patient's emergency medical condition.

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to enforce in Texas federal guidance requiring hospitals to perform abortions if needed to stabilise a patient's emergency medical condition. The justices turned away the Justice Department's appeal of a lower court's decision that halted enforcement of the guidance in Texas, where a Republican-backed near-total ban on abortion is in effect, and against members of two anti-abortion medical associations. The Biden administration issued the guidance in July 2022 to protect access to abortion after the Supreme Court's conservative majority the previous month overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalised abortion nationwide. The guidance reminded healthcare providers across the country of their obligations under a 1986 federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA) to ensure Medicare-participating hospitals offer emergency care stabilising patients regardless of their ability to pay. Medicare is the government healthcare program for the elderly. Hospitals that violate EMTALA risk losing Medicare funding. The guidance made clear that under that law physicians must provide a woman an abortion if needed to resolve a medical emergency and stabilise the patient even in states where the procedure is banned, and that the measure preempts state bans that offer no exceptions for medical emergencies or with exceptions that are too narrow. Texas law prohibits abortions unless the pregnancy places the woman at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." Republican-governed Texas and two anti-abortion medical associations - the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, sued the administration, arguing that the guidance unlawfully purports to compel healthcare providers to perform abortions. US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in 2022 blocked enforcement of the guidance, finding that it is an unlawful interpretation of the EMTALA statute, and would allow abortions beyond what is permitted by Texas law. Also read: Largest evacuation drive ordered in Florida as Hurricane Milton nears The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 2 upheld Hendrix's decision, ruling that "EMTALA does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion." The 5th Circuit's decision came a month after the top court in Texas ruled against a woman who was seeking an emergency abortion of her non-viable pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates have challenged the scope of abortion ban exceptions in several states due to uncertainty, including among physicians, about what medical emergencies during pregnancy would permit health providers to perform the procedure. In a similar case in June, the Supreme Court permitted, for the time being, abortions to be performed in Idaho when pregnant women are facing medical emergencies. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in the Idaho case revived a federal judge's decision that EMTALA takes precedence over Idaho's Republican-backed near-total abortion ban when the two conflict. While the justices lifted a block they had placed on the judge's ruling in the case, they did not resolve the dispute on its merits, opting instead to dismiss it as "improvidently granted." Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

US Supreme Court rejects Biden's bid to enforce emergency abortions in Texas

After the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 28)&nbsp;declined to reinstate&nbsp;US President Joe Biden administration's recent effort to cancel loans for millions of borrowers, Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said that she will continue to fight for student debt forgiveness.

<h2>Why are Republican-led states opposing the SAVE plan?</h2>

Over a dozen Republican-led states together had taken legal action against the federal government over the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, claiming it could cost at least $475 billion over a decade. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the loan forgiveness plan to be $276 billion.

Recently, the Supreme Court refused a Justice Department request to overturn a ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Biden's loan forgiveness plan. This plan was introduced by the White House last year, after another student loan relief proposal from the incumbent president, which aimed to forgive up to $20,000 in debt for millions of Americans, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-releases-first-pics-of-weapon-thomas-crooks-used-to-shoot-donald-trump-754150">Revealed: FBI releases first pics of weapon Thomas Crooks used to shoot Trump</a>

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court asked for a comprehensive ruling on the SAVE plan by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals "with appropriate dispatch." Student loan forgiveness was a significant point during Biden's 2020 campaign, and Harris said that if she is elected in November, she would continue with the current president's strategy for debt relief.

"@POTUS and I have canceled nearly $170 billion in student debt for almost 5 million Americans. We are also fighting to defend our SAVE Plan, which has lowered payments for millions of Americans. We won't stop fighting to build an economy that works for every American," Harris wrote on X, previously known as Twitter.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/stop-spreading-false-narratives-china-warns-blinken-on-taiwan-during-beijing-visit-754217">Stop spreading false narratives: China warns Sullivan on Taiwan during visit</a>

<h2>Key features of the SAVE plan for student debt relief</h2>

The SAVE plan is designed to provide relief to borrowers by reducing the required monthly payments on federal loans from 10 per cent to 5 per cent of their discretionary income. Those earning less than 225 per cent of the federal poverty line, or $32,800 annually, would not be required to make payments on their loans.&nbsp;

Additionally, the plan would allow for loan balances of $12,000 or less to be forgiven after 10 years of timely payments. In April, the Biden administration announced that nearly eight&nbsp;million people had signed up for the SAVE plan, with 4.5 million borrowers having monthly payments reduced to $0.

(With inputs from agencies)

After the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 28) declined to reinstate US President Joe Biden administration's recent effort to cancel loans for millions of borrowers, Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said that she will continue to fight for student debt forgiveness.

After the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 28) declined to reinstate US President Joe Biden administration's recent effort to cancel loans for millions of borrowers, Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said that she will continue to fight for student debt forgiveness. Why are Republican-led states opposing the SAVE plan? Over a dozen Republican-led states together had taken legal action against the federal government over the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, claiming it could cost at least $475 billion over a decade. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the loan forgiveness plan to be $276 billion. Recently, the Supreme Court refused a Justice Department request to overturn a ruling from the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Biden's loan forgiveness plan. This plan was introduced by the White House last year, after another student loan relief proposal from the incumbent president, which aimed to forgive up to $20,000 in debt for millions of Americans, was struck down by the Supreme Court. Also read | Revealed: FBI releases first pics of weapon Thomas Crooks used to shoot Trump In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court asked for a comprehensive ruling on the SAVE plan by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals "with appropriate dispatch." Student loan forgiveness was a significant point during Biden's 2020 campaign, and Harris said that if she is elected in November, she would continue with the current president's strategy for debt relief. "@POTUS and I have canceled nearly $170 billion in student debt for almost 5 million Americans. We are also fighting to defend our SAVE Plan, which has lowered payments for millions of Americans. We won't stop fighting to build an economy that works for every American," Harris wrote on X, previously known as Twitter. Also read: Stop spreading false narratives: China warns Sullivan on Taiwan during visit Key features of the SAVE plan for student debt relief The SAVE plan is designed to provide relief to borrowers by reducing the required monthly payments on federal loans from 10 per cent to 5 per cent of their discretionary income. Those earning less than 225 per cent of the federal poverty line, or $32,800 annually, would not be required to make payments on their loans. Additionally, the plan would allow for loan balances of $12,000 or less to be forgiven after 10 years of timely payments. In April, the Biden administration announced that nearly eight million people had signed up for the SAVE plan, with 4.5 million borrowers having monthly payments reduced to $0. (With inputs from agencies)

Kamala Harris says 'won't stop fighting' for student debt relief after Supreme Court blocks Biden's SAVE plan

In the final six months of his Presidential tenure Joe Biden seems to have set his sights on major reforms in the US Supreme Court. Watch in for more details!

US: Joe Biden slams 'extremism' in Supreme Court, accuses SC of 'undermining public confidence'

Here, we bring you the news that is trending across WION's social media platforms: - Biden announces plan on Supreme Court reform - 'Film men and women athletes in same way' - MP Liquor shop owner lures customer, lands in trouble - Musk claims Google places search ban on Trump

Biden announces plan on Supreme Court reform | Trending on WION

US President Joe Biden announced plans Monday for urgent reforms to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, in a bold but long-shot move as he seeks to make a mark in his last six months in power.

The 81-year-old Democrat is calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's recent ruling backing Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity, according to the White House.

The Democrat is also calling for term limits for Supreme Court justices, who currently serve for life, following shock rulings such as the repeal of the nationwide right to abortion.

Biden, who will further unveil the plans in a speech in Austin, Texas later Monday, will also seek an enforceable ethics code after a string of scandals.

Also watch |&nbsp;US Presidential race: President Biden may announce plans on Supreme Court reform

<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/us-presidential-race-president-biden-may-announce-plans-on-supreme-court-reform-745121/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He had confirmed he would seek the reforms during an Oval Office address last week outlining his priorities after deciding to drop out of the 2024 election, though the plans have almost no hope of getting through a deeply divided Congress.

"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one," Biden said in an opinion piece published Monday.

"What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach."

Though their chances are slim, the proposed reforms reflect Biden's growing frustration with a court packed with Trump-appointed judges, and come as opinion polls show a growing loss of public confidence in the institution.

The White House said that both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for November's election, "look forward to working with Congress" on the plans.

Biden had previously resisted calls to overhaul or reform the court of nine lifetime-appointed justices.

But the White House said Biden would now seek 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, with new justices being appointed every two years.

<h2>- 'Close to zero' -</h2>

This would "reduce the chance that any single presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come," it said in a fact sheet.

He would also seek a "binding, enforceable" ethics code similar to those that apply to federal judges.

The top court has a 6-3 conservative majority, with three judges who were appointed while Trump was president, and has dealt Biden several blows in recent years.

The court stunned the world in 2022 when it overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had underpinned the federal right to abortion. At least 20 states have now brought in full or partial abortion bans.

This year the court significantly rolled back the power of federal agencies, while also partially ruling in early July in favor of Republican nominee Trump's immunity claims.

Trump is now using that ruling to challenge his recent criminal conviction in a porn star-hush money case as well as a series of other prosecutions.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been rocked by ethics scandals involving arch-conservative justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas recently admitted that two luxury vacations he took in 2019 were paid for by a billionaire Republican political donor.

Thomas, the longest-service justice on the court, has also ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election, after his wife took part in the drive to keep Trump in power despite his electoral loss.

And Justice Samuel Alito has rejected calls to recuse himself from some Trump-related cases after flags linked to the former president's false election fraud claims were discovered to have been flown outside his home and vacation property.

Legal expert Steven Schwinn warned, however, that Biden had a "close to zero" chance of getting the plan through.

But Biden was probably trying to "raise public consciousness" and "introduce the Supreme Court as an election issue," Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, told AFP.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION&nbsp;audience. 
&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden announced plans Monday for urgent reforms to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, in a bold but long-shot move as he seeks to make a mark in his last six months in power.

US President Joe Biden announced plans Monday for urgent reforms to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, in a bold but long-shot move as he seeks to make a mark in his last six months in power. The 81-year-old Democrat is calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's recent ruling backing Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity, according to the White House. The Democrat is also calling for term limits for Supreme Court justices, who currently serve for life, following shock rulings such as the repeal of the nationwide right to abortion. Biden, who will further unveil the plans in a speech in Austin, Texas later Monday, will also seek an enforceable ethics code after a string of scandals. Also watch | US Presidential race: President Biden may announce plans on Supreme Court reform × He had confirmed he would seek the reforms during an Oval Office address last week outlining his priorities after deciding to drop out of the 2024 election, though the plans have almost no hope of getting through a deeply divided Congress. "This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one," Biden said in an opinion piece published Monday. "What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach." Though their chances are slim, the proposed reforms reflect Biden's growing frustration with a court packed with Trump-appointed judges, and come as opinion polls show a growing loss of public confidence in the institution. The White House said that both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for November's election, "look forward to working with Congress" on the plans. Biden had previously resisted calls to overhaul or reform the court of nine lifetime-appointed justices. But the White House said Biden would now seek 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, with new justices being appointed every two years. - 'Close to zero' - This would "reduce the chance that any single presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come," it said in a fact sheet. He would also seek a "binding, enforceable" ethics code similar to those that apply to federal judges. The top court has a 6-3 conservative majority, with three judges who were appointed while Trump was president, and has dealt Biden several blows in recent years. The court stunned the world in 2022 when it overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had underpinned the federal right to abortion. At least 20 states have now brought in full or partial abortion bans. This year the court significantly rolled back the power of federal agencies, while also partially ruling in early July in favor of Republican nominee Trump's immunity claims. Trump is now using that ruling to challenge his recent criminal conviction in a porn star-hush money case as well as a series of other prosecutions. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been rocked by ethics scandals involving arch-conservative justices. Justice Clarence Thomas recently admitted that two luxury vacations he took in 2019 were paid for by a billionaire Republican political donor. Thomas, the longest-service justice on the court, has also ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election, after his wife took part in the drive to keep Trump in power despite his electoral loss. And Justice Samuel Alito has rejected calls to recuse himself from some Trump-related cases after flags linked to the former president's false election fraud claims were discovered to have been flown outside his home and vacation property. Legal expert Steven Schwinn warned, however, that Biden had a "close to zero" chance of getting the plan through. But Biden was probably trying to "raise public consciousness" and "introduce the Supreme Court as an election issue," Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, told AFP. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits to adhere to WION's style guide. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Biden unveils Supreme Court reform plans ahead of presidential elections

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons. The court's intervention could have unravelled President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden’s federal firearms conviction. Additionally, the court declined to entertain an appeal against an assault weapons ban in Illinois. The court instead sent the whole set of gun cases back to lower courts.

A law that has been used to convict Hunter Biden was sent to lower courts for review.

The SCOTUS justices directed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the high court's June ruling that struck down a longstanding ban on drug users having guns. Hunter's defence is now citing that ruling in a case filed against him for buying a gun when he was addicted to drugs.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hunter-biden-sues-fox-news-over-mock-trial-miniseries-736998" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/hunter-biden-sues-fox-news-over-mock-trial-miniseries-736998&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgQEAE">Hunter Biden sues Fox News over `mock trial` miniseries</a>

The SCOTUS also sent back other gun cases to lower courts challenging a law that bars people from having a gun after they are convicted of a crime. Earlier, an appeal court had ruled that a lifetime ban on convicts may violate his Second Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed to a lower court's decision that supported a blanket ban on assault weapons in Illinois. However, he still declined to take up the challenge as he chose to wait for the judgment by lower courts.

<h2>Bruen ruling of 2022</h2>

This move came after the famous 2022 ruling, known as Bruen, that expanded gun laws in the US, intended to protect victims of domestic violence.

The Bruen ruling said gun laws must be grounded in historic tradition to stay on the books.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-reiterates-wont-pardon-son-hunter-biden-id-abide-by-the-jury-decision-731644" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-reiterates-wont-pardon-son-hunter-biden-id-abide-by-the-jury-decision-731644&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjh0tjH_oiHAxUOUGwGHeNuA_0QxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE">Joe Biden reiterates won`t pardon son Hunter Biden: `I`d abide by the jury decision`</a>

However, this time around, the SCOTUS appeared reluctant to dive right into the mess.

“At least for now, the court seems unwilling to jump right back into the messy fight that it touched off two years ago in the Bruen case with respect to exactly what the Second Amendment does and doesn’t prohibit,” CNN quoted an analyst as saying.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons.

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday (Jul 2) declined to hear a petition against a federal law that prohibits convicted felons and drug users from carrying weapons. The court's intervention could have unravelled President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden’s federal firearms conviction. Additionally, the court declined to entertain an appeal against an assault weapons ban in Illinois. The court instead sent the whole set of gun cases back to lower courts. A law that has been used to convict Hunter Biden was sent to lower courts for review. The SCOTUS justices directed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the high court's June ruling that struck down a longstanding ban on drug users having guns. Hunter's defence is now citing that ruling in a case filed against him for buying a gun when he was addicted to drugs. Also read: Hunter Biden sues Fox News over `mock trial` miniseries The SCOTUS also sent back other gun cases to lower courts challenging a law that bars people from having a gun after they are convicted of a crime. Earlier, an appeal court had ruled that a lifetime ban on convicts may violate his Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed to a lower court's decision that supported a blanket ban on assault weapons in Illinois. However, he still declined to take up the challenge as he chose to wait for the judgment by lower courts. Bruen ruling of 2022 This move came after the famous 2022 ruling, known as Bruen, that expanded gun laws in the US, intended to protect victims of domestic violence. The Bruen ruling said gun laws must be grounded in historic tradition to stay on the books. Also read: Joe Biden reiterates won`t pardon son Hunter Biden: `I`d abide by the jury decision` However, this time around, the SCOTUS appeared reluctant to dive right into the mess. “At least for now, the court seems unwilling to jump right back into the messy fight that it touched off two years ago in the Bruen case with respect to exactly what the Second Amendment does and doesn’t prohibit,” CNN quoted an analyst as saying. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal against law used in Hunter Biden’s conviction

In a big relief for Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court ruled that he enjoys some immunity from prosecution as former President. Watch in for more details!

US Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity from prosecution

The Supreme Court in a landmark ruling Monday said former President Donald Trump enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution for "official acts" during his presidency. Watch in for more details!

Donald Trump has immunity for official acts, US Supreme Court rules

US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump has immunity for official acts

BREAKING: US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump's immunity only for official actions

The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 27) issued a decision that will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now. The decision came despite the state's strict ban on the procedure, clearing the way for women experiencing medical emergencies to obtain abortions in the state.&nbsp;

The decision comes two years after the conservative-majority bench overturned the nationwide right to terminate a pregnancy, making reproductive rights a pivotal issue that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election.&nbsp;

The 6-3 decision upheld an earlier court's ruling that, in cases when two statutes conflict, Idaho's nearly complete abortion prohibition must give way to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), a 1986 US law.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/major-us-mobile-carriers-hit-by-third-party-outage-stranding-travelers-abroad-735791">Major US mobile carriers hit by third-party outage, stranding travelers abroad</a>

Notably, a copy of the decision was mistakenly uploaded on the court's website, making it a significant abortion decision that was leaked online ahead of its official publication for the second time in the last two years.&nbsp;

Medical experts have said conditions that could threaten the woman's life and health could require an abortion to stabilise her or avoid seizures, vital organ damage and failure, and more.&nbsp;

The court's decision lifted a block that the justices had placed on the lower court's ruling in January. But the Supreme Court did not resolve the underlying legal dispute.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boeing-says-missing-paperwork-reason-for-alaska-air-incident-safety-regulators-take-action-735783">Boeing says missing paperwork reason for Alaska Air incident; safety regulators take action</a>&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Rules of US Presidential debate explained

<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/rules-of-us-presidential-debate-explained-735781/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Supreme Court&nbsp;Justice Elena Kagan said, "All of these cases are rare, but within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman is her life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place."&nbsp;

"Now, that's the category of cases in which EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) says, my gosh, of course, the abortion is necessary to assure that no material deterioration occurs. And yet Idaho says, sorry, no abortion here. And the result is that these patients are now helicoptered out of state," Kagan added.&nbsp;

President Joe Biden said, "The stakes could not be higher and the contrast could not be clearer. My administration is committed to defending reproductive freedom and maintains our long-standing position that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need."&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 27) issued a decision that will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now. The decision came despite the state's strict ban on the procedure, clearing the way for women experiencing medical emergencies to obtain abortions in the state.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 27) issued a decision that will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now. The decision came despite the state's strict ban on the procedure, clearing the way for women experiencing medical emergencies to obtain abortions in the state. The decision comes two years after the conservative-majority bench overturned the nationwide right to terminate a pregnancy, making reproductive rights a pivotal issue that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election. The 6-3 decision upheld an earlier court's ruling that, in cases when two statutes conflict, Idaho's nearly complete abortion prohibition must give way to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), a 1986 US law. Also read: Major US mobile carriers hit by third-party outage, stranding travelers abroad Notably, a copy of the decision was mistakenly uploaded on the court's website, making it a significant abortion decision that was leaked online ahead of its official publication for the second time in the last two years. Medical experts have said conditions that could threaten the woman's life and health could require an abortion to stabilise her or avoid seizures, vital organ damage and failure, and more. The court's decision lifted a block that the justices had placed on the lower court's ruling in January. But the Supreme Court did not resolve the underlying legal dispute. Also read: Boeing says missing paperwork reason for Alaska Air incident; safety regulators take action Watch: Rules of US Presidential debate explained × Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said, "All of these cases are rare, but within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman is her life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place." "Now, that's the category of cases in which EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) says, my gosh, of course, the abortion is necessary to assure that no material deterioration occurs. And yet Idaho says, sorry, no abortion here. And the result is that these patients are now helicoptered out of state," Kagan added. President Joe Biden said, "The stakes could not be higher and the contrast could not be clearer. My administration is committed to defending reproductive freedom and maintains our long-standing position that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need." (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court allows emergency abortion access in Idaho for now

On Monday (June 24), the Biden administration's plea for the repeal of state prohibitions on gender-affirming healthcare was taken up by the Supreme Court.

The top court's decision to hear the plea comes as Republican-led states have imposed multiple restrictions on transgender people's access to health care, participation in school athletics, restroom use, and drag performances.&nbsp;

The next term of the court, which begins in October and ends in June 2025, is likely to include oral arguments and verdict.

The case is the first in which the conservative-majority court, which has a 6-3 majority, will rule on a case involving teen transgender rights, which has been a contentious subject in both the healthcare and education sectors.

New federal regulations aimed at safeguarding transgender students are among the many safeguards for transgender individuals that the administration and Democratic-led states have expanded.

The Tennessee law that limits puberty blockers and hormone treatment for transgender kids is the subject of the case before the court. After being blocked by lower courts, laws in Tennessee and Kentucky were finally permitted to go into force by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-prosecutors-push-for-criminal-charges-against-boeing-over-737-max-crash-settlement-breach-reports-734675">US prosecutors push for criminal charges against Boeing over 737 Max crash settlement breach – Reports</a>

Counsel for the transgender teenagers in Tennessee told the judges, "Without this Court's prompt intervention, transgender youth and their families will remain in limbo, uncertain of whether and where they can access needed medical care."

The Oscar-nominated actor Elliot Page, who starred in films like "Juno," "Inception," and "The Umbrella Academy," is one among the 57 transgender individuals who have signed a legal filing endorsing a Supreme Court review.

Even though these therapies have been accessible in the US for more than ten years and are supported by significant medical associations, South Carolina became the 25th state last month to pass legislation limiting or outlawing gender-affirming medical therapy for younger transgender patients.

Previously, when lower courts had blocked the state limitations on such therapies, the justices had authorised Idaho to impose them widely.

Watch |&nbsp;LGBTQ pride flags to be banned from flying at US embassies

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/lgbtq-pride-flags-to-be-banned-from-flying-at-us-embassies-704090/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

There are laws in at least 24 states that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in specific sports for women or girls. At least 11 states have passed legislation prohibiting transgender women and girls from using the women's and girls' restrooms in public schools, as well as in some other types of government buildings.

"The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution and its modern precedent,” Chase Strangio, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, told NBC news.

(With inputs from agencies)

On Monday (June 24), the Biden administration's plea for the repeal of state prohibitions on gender-affirming healthcare was taken up by the Supreme Court. The top court's decision to hear the plea comes as Republican-led states have imposed multiple restrictions on transgender people's access to health care, participation in school athletics, restroom use, and drag performances.

On Monday (June 24), the Biden administration's plea for the repeal of state prohibitions on gender-affirming healthcare was taken up by the Supreme Court. The top court's decision to hear the plea comes as Republican-led states have imposed multiple restrictions on transgender people's access to health care, participation in school athletics, restroom use, and drag performances. The next term of the court, which begins in October and ends in June 2025, is likely to include oral arguments and verdict. The case is the first in which the conservative-majority court, which has a 6-3 majority, will rule on a case involving teen transgender rights, which has been a contentious subject in both the healthcare and education sectors. New federal regulations aimed at safeguarding transgender students are among the many safeguards for transgender individuals that the administration and Democratic-led states have expanded. The Tennessee law that limits puberty blockers and hormone treatment for transgender kids is the subject of the case before the court. After being blocked by lower courts, laws in Tennessee and Kentucky were finally permitted to go into force by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati. Also read: US prosecutors push for criminal charges against Boeing over 737 Max crash settlement breach – Reports Counsel for the transgender teenagers in Tennessee told the judges, "Without this Court's prompt intervention, transgender youth and their families will remain in limbo, uncertain of whether and where they can access needed medical care." The Oscar-nominated actor Elliot Page, who starred in films like "Juno," "Inception," and "The Umbrella Academy," is one among the 57 transgender individuals who have signed a legal filing endorsing a Supreme Court review. Even though these therapies have been accessible in the US for more than ten years and are supported by significant medical associations, South Carolina became the 25th state last month to pass legislation limiting or outlawing gender-affirming medical therapy for younger transgender patients. Previously, when lower courts had blocked the state limitations on such therapies, the justices had authorised Idaho to impose them widely. Watch | LGBTQ pride flags to be banned from flying at US embassies × There are laws in at least 24 states that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in specific sports for women or girls. At least 11 states have passed legislation prohibiting transgender women and girls from using the women's and girls' restrooms in public schools, as well as in some other types of government buildings. "The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution and its modern precedent,” Chase Strangio, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, told NBC news. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court to weigh landmark case on gender-affirming healthcare amid nationwide restrictions

A Washington state couple's argument was rejected by the Supreme Court on Thursday, preserving a Trump-era tax on foreign assets. The case could have compromised current tax laws and blown up Democratic talk of a wealth tax.

A Washington state couple's argument was rejected by the Supreme Court on Thursday, preserving a Trump-era tax on foreign assets. The case could have compromised current tax laws and blown up Democratic talk of a wealth tax. A 7-2 majority voted to uphold the tax. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Kavanaugh reiterated that the opinion was "narrow" and unrelated to the controversial wealth tax matter. The question of whether the government could tax investment revenues that had not yet been received was at stake in the much-watched lawsuit. The couple from Washington state, Charles and Kathleen Moore, contested a $15,000 tax they were issued due to their investment in an Indian company. According to the Moores, the taxed profits were never given to them, instead, they were reinvested. The tax in question was passed by Congress in 2017 by former President Donald Trump. Over ten years, the provision was predicted to raise $340 billion. A federal wealth tax is something that President Joe Biden and several congressional Democrats have been eyeing for many years, and some conservative organisations warned that the government's win could pave the way for it. Also read: Mark Rutte to succeed Stoltenberg as NATO secretary-general amid escalating global tensions The bottom line, according to Kavanaugh, is that "Moores’ argument, taken to its logical conclusion, could render vast swaths of the Internal Revenue Code unconstitutional. "And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. Government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue," he added. Biden and other Democrats have advocated higher taxes on the rich to fund their spending proposals, many of which are intended to benefit lower- and middle-class Americans. Biden has advocated for a "Billionaire Minimum Income Tax," which would impose a 25% tax rate on people worth more than $100 million. This tax would be applied to the "full income," or unrealised profits, of the rich. One of the attorneys defending the Moores co-wrote two positive opinion pieces praising the justice in the Wall Street Journal last year, which prompted Democrats on Capitol Hill to demand that Justice Samuel Alito resign. Alito objected to the recusal request. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax on foreign assets; handing Biden potential win

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday (June 14) declared unlawful a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, rejecting yet another firearms restriction - this time one enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.

US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks'

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Starbucks wins Supreme Court battle over rehiring fired workers<o:p></o:p></h2>

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of Starbucks in a major labour case, overturning a lower court's order to restore seven Memphis employees who were fired while attempting to unionise. The unanimous decision may make it more difficult for courts to intervene quickly in suspected unfair labour practices under federal law.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Judicial order overturned<o:p></o:p></h2>

The justices unanimously overturned an injunction issued by a lower court at the request of the United States National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which had ordered Starbucks to rehire the workers awaiting an administrative proceeding against the Seattle-based coffee business. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts granted the preliminary injunction under the National Labor Relations Act based on an erroneous legal approach that Starbucks deemed unduly broad.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Stringent test for injunctions<o:p></o:p></h2>

The Supreme Court's ruling was based on Starbucks' claim that the lower court should have used a stringent four-factor test while examining the NLRB's request for an injunction. This test considers the risk of irreparable injury as well as the likelihood of success on the merits. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, returned the case to the lower courts to adopt the more stringent test. In a partial dissent, leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed on how to apply a portion of this criteria.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">NLRB’s limited use of injunctions<o:p></o:p></h2>

President Joe Biden's administration justified the NLRB's move, claiming that such injunctions are rare, with only seven requests made last year out of 20,000 unfair labour allegations. Despite the NLRB's limited use of these injunctions, Starbucks claimed that a higher standard would have resulted in a different conclusion in lower courts.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Labour disputes and unionisation efforts<o:p></o:p></h2>

The decision comes amid extensive unionisation attempts at Starbucks, with over 400 stores in the United States unionized, representing more than 10,000 employees. The NLRB has received several complaints accusing Starbucks of unfair labour practices, such as terminating union activists and surveillant workers. Starbucks has continuously rejected these charges, stating that the company supports workers' right to unionise.<o:p></o:p>

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Starbucks reiterated its commitment to negotiating agreements with unionized outlets this year. "Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labour practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live," the business said.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Background and implications<o:p></o:p></h2>

Seven Starbucks employees on Poplar Avenue in Memphis were among the first to form a union in 2022. Starbucks fired the workers after they allowed a television crew into the café to discuss their union drive, sparking claims of unfair labour practices. Despite the firings, the employees decided to join the Workers United union.<o:p></o:p>

Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, criticised the Supreme Court's decision, underlining the difficulties workers confront in defending their rights. "Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law," Fox explained. This makes the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday more appalling. It demonstrates how the economy, from the Supreme Court on up, is rigged against working people.<o:p></o:p>

<h2 class="MsoNormal">Legal and Business Repercussions<o:p></o:p></h2>

The Supreme Court's ruling highlights the complexities of labour disputes, as well as the legal requirements that govern interim remedy in cases of suspected unfair labour practices. The verdict may have an impact on future NLRB actions and the judicial scrutiny used in&nbsp;comparable cases, potentially changing the landscape of labour relations and unionisation attempts in the United States.<o:p></o:p>

(With inputs from Agencies)<o:p></o:p>

Starbucks wins Supreme Court battle over rehiring fired workers On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of Starbucks in a major labour case, overturning a lower court's order to restore seven Memphis employees who were fired while attempting to unionise.

Starbucks wins Supreme Court battle over rehiring fired workers On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of Starbucks in a major labour case, overturning a lower court's order to restore seven Memphis employees who were fired while attempting to unionise. The unanimous decision may make it more difficult for courts to intervene quickly in suspected unfair labour practices under federal law. Judicial order overturned The justices unanimously overturned an injunction issued by a lower court at the request of the United States National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which had ordered Starbucks to rehire the workers awaiting an administrative proceeding against the Seattle-based coffee business. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts granted the preliminary injunction under the National Labor Relations Act based on an erroneous legal approach that Starbucks deemed unduly broad. Stringent test for injunctions The Supreme Court's ruling was based on Starbucks' claim that the lower court should have used a stringent four-factor test while examining the NLRB's request for an injunction. This test considers the risk of irreparable injury as well as the likelihood of success on the merits. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, returned the case to the lower courts to adopt the more stringent test. In a partial dissent, leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed on how to apply a portion of this criteria. NLRB’s limited use of injunctions President Joe Biden's administration justified the NLRB's move, claiming that such injunctions are rare, with only seven requests made last year out of 20,000 unfair labour allegations. Despite the NLRB's limited use of these injunctions, Starbucks claimed that a higher standard would have resulted in a different conclusion in lower courts. Labour disputes and unionisation efforts The decision comes amid extensive unionisation attempts at Starbucks, with over 400 stores in the United States unionized, representing more than 10,000 employees. The NLRB has received several complaints accusing Starbucks of unfair labour practices, such as terminating union activists and surveillant workers. Starbucks has continuously rejected these charges, stating that the company supports workers' right to unionise. Following the Supreme Court's decision, Starbucks reiterated its commitment to negotiating agreements with unionized outlets this year. "Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labour practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live," the business said. Background and implications Seven Starbucks employees on Poplar Avenue in Memphis were among the first to form a union in 2022. Starbucks fired the workers after they allowed a television crew into the café to discuss their union drive, sparking claims of unfair labour practices. Despite the firings, the employees decided to join the Workers United union. Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, criticised the Supreme Court's decision, underlining the difficulties workers confront in defending their rights. "Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law," Fox explained. This makes the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday more appalling. It demonstrates how the economy, from the Supreme Court on up, is rigged against working people. Legal and Business Repercussions The Supreme Court's ruling highlights the complexities of labour disputes, as well as the legal requirements that govern interim remedy in cases of suspected unfair labour practices. The verdict may have an impact on future NLRB actions and the judicial scrutiny used in comparable cases, potentially changing the landscape of labour relations and unionisation attempts in the United States. (With inputs from Agencies)

US Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in Memphis Unionisation case

Reproductive Rights Advocates breathed a sign of relief on Thursday after the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected an effort to restrict access to the abortion pill Mifepristone.

US top court preserves access to abortion pill; a setback for anti- abortion movement

A revelation of&nbsp;the contentious display of an upside-down American flag outside the house of&nbsp;Supreme Court Justice Samuel A Alito Jr in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2021 has erupted into a full-blown controversy, triggering scrutiny about judicial impartiality.

The incident, which came to light following a report by The New York Times, has put the&nbsp;spotlight light on the incident as it came amid the charged political atmosphere following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and fervent debates over the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

The display of an upside-down flag has acquired multifaceted interpretations and amid this backdrop judge&nbsp;Alito is now facing calls of recusal from Trump cases linked to the capitol attack.&nbsp;

According to a Washington Post report, Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Justice Alito, described the flag in 2021 as "an international signal of distress" during a confrontation with a reporter at their home.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gaza-war-hamas-says-it-captured-israeli-soldiers-in-jabalia-israel-denies-725455">Gaza war: Hamas says it captured Israeli soldiers in Jabalia; IDF denies claims</a>

However, at the time, it also appeared to have been described by her as a neighborhood dispute as she shouted&nbsp;“Ask them what they did!”. In a statement to The Washington Post at the time, Justice Alito affirmed his lack of involvement in the incident.&nbsp;

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, adding, “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-army-vessels-supporting-gaza-aid-pier-washed-away-in-heavy-seas-centcom-725451">US Army vessels supporting Gaza aid pier washed away in heavy seas: CENTCOM</a>

While traditionally associated with distress signals in military contexts, the upside-down flag has also been appropriated by various political factions, including supporters of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

The "Stop the Steal" movement supported the unsubstantiated claims by Trump and his supporters that the election was marred by widespread voter fraud and irregularities, ultimately leading to an illegitimate outcome favouring Biden.

<h2>Integrity of judge questioned</h2>

The episode has garnered attention not only due to its implications for the Alito household but also for its potential impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly as it prepares to issue pivotal rulings on cases related to the 2020 election.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-hamas-claims-it-has-captured-several-israeli-soldiers-725484">Israel-Hamas War: Hamas claims it has captured several Israeli soldiers</a>

<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/israel-hamas-war-hamas-claims-it-has-captured-several-israeli-soldiers-725484/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Calls for Justice Alito's recusal from these cases have escalated, with Democratic lawmakers and legal experts reportedly expressing concerns about perceived bias stemming from his spouse's actions.

Moreover, revelations of a similar flag controversy surrounding the Alitos' vacation home in New Jersey, where a "Appeal to Heaven" flag associated with Christian nationalists was reportedly flown, have added fuel to&nbsp;fire.

(With inputs from agencies)

A revelation of the contentious display of an upside-down American flag outside the house of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A Alito Jr in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2021 has erupted into a full-blown controversy, triggering scrutiny about judicial impartiality.

A revelation of the contentious display of an upside-down American flag outside the house of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A Alito Jr in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2021 has erupted into a full-blown controversy, triggering scrutiny about judicial impartiality. The incident, which came to light following a report by The New York Times, has put the spotlight light on the incident as it came amid the charged political atmosphere following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and fervent debates over the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. The display of an upside-down flag has acquired multifaceted interpretations and amid this backdrop judge Alito is now facing calls of recusal from Trump cases linked to the capitol attack. According to a Washington Post report, Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Justice Alito, described the flag in 2021 as "an international signal of distress" during a confrontation with a reporter at their home. Also Read | Gaza war: Hamas says it captured Israeli soldiers in Jabalia; IDF denies claims However, at the time, it also appeared to have been described by her as a neighborhood dispute as she shouted “Ask them what they did!”. In a statement to The Washington Post at the time, Justice Alito affirmed his lack of involvement in the incident. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, adding, “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Also Read | US Army vessels supporting Gaza aid pier washed away in heavy seas: CENTCOM While traditionally associated with distress signals in military contexts, the upside-down flag has also been appropriated by various political factions, including supporters of the "Stop the Steal" movement. The "Stop the Steal" movement supported the unsubstantiated claims by Trump and his supporters that the election was marred by widespread voter fraud and irregularities, ultimately leading to an illegitimate outcome favouring Biden. Integrity of judge questioned The episode has garnered attention not only due to its implications for the Alito household but also for its potential impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly as it prepares to issue pivotal rulings on cases related to the 2020 election. Watch | Israel-Hamas War: Hamas claims it has captured several Israeli soldiers × Calls for Justice Alito's recusal from these cases have escalated, with Democratic lawmakers and legal experts reportedly expressing concerns about perceived bias stemming from his spouse's actions. Moreover, revelations of a similar flag controversy surrounding the Alitos' vacation home in New Jersey, where a "Appeal to Heaven" flag associated with Christian nationalists was reportedly flown, have added fuel to fire. (With inputs from agencies)

Upside-down US flag row: Why SC Judge Alito is facing recusal calls from Trump cases?

The US Supreme Court appeared sceptical about limiting access to the abortion drug mifepristone during a hearing on Tuesday (Mar 26). As per reports, the top court signalled that it was unlikely to go through with such a limitation and questioned the appropriateness of challenging the drug's federal approval.

<h2>What is the case all about?</h2>

The case revolves around decisions made by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ease restrictions on mifepristone's use since 2016. Several anti-abortion groups and doctors, including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, are challenging the drug and how safe it is.

In November 2022, they filed a lawsuit alleging that mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000, is unsafe and that the FDA inappropriately expanded its access.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a data-ctorig="https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-v-wade-overturned-how-safe-are-abortion-pills-491822" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-v-wade-overturned-how-safe-are-abortion-pills-491822&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjmhqiTmJOFAxU_RWwGHfaABaEQFnoECAkQAg&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ict21UoL-H_UhC-OMYc0f&amp;arm=e" dir="ltr" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-v-wade-overturned-how-safe-are-abortion-pills-491822" target="_blank">Roe v. Wade overturned: How safe are&nbsp;abortion pills?&nbsp;</a>

Despite numerous studies demonstrating mifepristone's safety, the group argued that its members could be harmed by treating patients who used the drug. As per BBC, they also argued that doing so would be against their religious beliefs.

<h2>The arguments</h2>

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the doctors failed to show direct harm from the FDA's decisions. She cautioned that ruling in favour of the anti-abortion group would "severely disrupt the federal system for developing and approving drugs" and "inflict grave harm on women across the nation."

Interestingly, several justices, including conservative ones who have previously supported anti-abortion individuals, were seen questioning the validity of the case.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-enshrines-abortion-as-constitutional-right-on-international-womens-day-698126">France enshrines abortion as constitutional right on International Women's Day</a>

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee, as per the report pressed the group's attorneys on whether doctors cited in the case had been forced to terminate pregnancies against their will.&nbsp;

Another conservative judge, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern whether the case&nbsp;could lead to "a handful of individuals" turning a "small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action".

The liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned why doctors were not protected by their right to lodge conscience objections.

<h2>Why is this case important?</h2>

This case marks a significant abortion case since the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgment and the end of the national right to abortion in June 2022. It has potential implications for millions of women.&nbsp;The top American court had previously declined to consider a challenge to the FDA's approval of the drug.

Furthermore, the case comes just ahead of the US Presidential elections in 2024&nbsp;where abortion, a contentious political issue, will likely be a major factor.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-governor-bans-trans-medical-care-for-minors-vetoes-abortion-restrictions-703387">US: Governor bans trans medical care for minors, vetoes abortion restrictions</a>

Mifepristone is used in combination with misoprostol for medical abortions, which accounted for 63 per cent of all abortions in 2023 in the US.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court appeared sceptical about limiting access to the abortion drug mifepristone during a hearing on Tuesday (Mar 26). As per reports, the top court signalled that it was unlikely to go through with such a limitation and questioned the appropriateness of challenging the drug's federal approval.

The US Supreme Court appeared sceptical about limiting access to the abortion drug mifepristone during a hearing on Tuesday (Mar 26). As per reports, the top court signalled that it was unlikely to go through with such a limitation and questioned the appropriateness of challenging the drug's federal approval. What is the case all about? The case revolves around decisions made by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ease restrictions on mifepristone's use since 2016. Several anti-abortion groups and doctors, including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists, are challenging the drug and how safe it is. In November 2022, they filed a lawsuit alleging that mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000, is unsafe and that the FDA inappropriately expanded its access. Also read | Roe v. Wade overturned: How safe are abortion pills? Despite numerous studies demonstrating mifepristone's safety, the group argued that its members could be harmed by treating patients who used the drug. As per BBC, they also argued that doing so would be against their religious beliefs. The arguments US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the doctors failed to show direct harm from the FDA's decisions. She cautioned that ruling in favour of the anti-abortion group would "severely disrupt the federal system for developing and approving drugs" and "inflict grave harm on women across the nation." Interestingly, several justices, including conservative ones who have previously supported anti-abortion individuals, were seen questioning the validity of the case. Also read | France enshrines abortion as constitutional right on International Women's Day Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee, as per the report pressed the group's attorneys on whether doctors cited in the case had been forced to terminate pregnancies against their will. Another conservative judge, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern whether the case could lead to "a handful of individuals" turning a "small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action". The liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned why doctors were not protected by their right to lodge conscience objections. Why is this case important? This case marks a significant abortion case since the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgment and the end of the national right to abortion in June 2022. It has potential implications for millions of women. The top American court had previously declined to consider a challenge to the FDA's approval of the drug. Furthermore, the case comes just ahead of the US Presidential elections in 2024 where abortion, a contentious political issue, will likely be a major factor. Also read | US: Governor bans trans medical care for minors, vetoes abortion restrictions Mifepristone is used in combination with misoprostol for medical abortions, which accounted for 63 per cent of all abortions in 2023 in the US. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court appears sceptical about limiting access to abortion pills

A US federal appeals court late Tuesday (Mar 19) put back on hold a controversial&nbsp;law in Texas that would have allowed the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border.

The Republican-backed law was frozen just hours after&nbsp;the US Supreme Court lifted the pause.

Texas ‘controversial’ law back on hold

Earlier in the day,&nbsp;the SCOTUS had decided to lift the pause on Texas' controversial immigration law.

But a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to overturn a previous ruling from a different panel which had&nbsp;put the law into effect.&nbsp;

The appeals court has also&nbsp;scheduled oral arguments over whether to block the law for Wednesday (Mar 20) morning, as the justices consider&nbsp;the legal challenges to it.

WATCH |&nbsp;US: Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-immigration-law-702119/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The apex court, with a six-to-three conservative majority, had rejected President Joe Biden administration’s bid to block the law.

The lift of the pause on the Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) would have immediately taken effect.&nbsp;

The conservative judges voting in favour of the bill did not immediately explain their arguments, but two of the three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who opposed the decision said their rightwing colleagues had invited “further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement”.

A report by the Associated Press, hours after the pause was lifted, reported no immediate effect as sheriffs and police chiefs who would put the law into effect were unsure about when, where and how migrants may be arrested.

<h2>White House, Mexico respond</h2>

Mexico’s foreign ministry in a sharply worded statement said that it would not “under any circumstances” accept anyone back who is ordered to leave the country under the state law and “categorically rejects” any state or local government enforcement of immigration laws.

The Mexican government also called the law “anti migrant” and said that it would lead to “family separation, discrimination and racial profiling.”&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/netanyahu-told-us-not-trying-to-push-him-out-amid-tensions-over-rafah-assault-plan-702081">Netanyahu told US not trying to push him out amid tensions over Rafah assault plan</a>

The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre said that the Texas law will cause chaos and confusion at the border.&nbsp;

“We fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s order allowing Texas’s harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect,” said Jean-Pierre.&nbsp;

She added, “SB4 will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.”

<h2>Texas border enforcement law</h2>

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called the SCOTUS&nbsp;decision “a positive development".

SB4, signed by Abbott in December, makes illegal entry or re-entry into Texas a state crime, the violation of which can lead to penalties ranging from 180 days to 20 years in prison.&nbsp;

The law requires Texas magistrate judges to order migrants to return to Mexico who can be sentenced to 20 years in prison if they refuse to comply.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texas-sued-by-us-justice-department-over-immigration-law-to-deport-illegal-immigrants-676519">Texas sued by US Justice Department over immigration law to deport illegal immigrants</a>

State officials thereby have the power&nbsp;to arrest, process and imprison people, a role which had long been reserved for federal authorities.

The Justice Department, back in January, sued the state of Texas and its governor&nbsp;to block the law which was supposed to take effect on March 5.&nbsp;

The DOJ argued that the law not only violates the Constitution and federal law which gives the government the power to regulate immigration, but also goes against the precedent set by a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

A US federal appeals court late Tuesday (Mar 19) put back on hold a controversial law in Texas that would have allowed the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border.

A US federal appeals court late Tuesday (Mar 19) put back on hold a controversial law in Texas that would have allowed the state’s law enforcement officials to detain and deport migrants on charges of illegally entering the country from the US-Mexico border. The Republican-backed law was frozen just hours after the US Supreme Court lifted the pause. Texas ‘controversial’ law back on hold Earlier in the day, the SCOTUS had decided to lift the pause on Texas' controversial immigration law. But a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to overturn a previous ruling from a different panel which had put the law into effect. The appeals court has also scheduled oral arguments over whether to block the law for Wednesday (Mar 20) morning, as the justices consider the legal challenges to it. WATCH | US: Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law The apex court, with a six-to-three conservative majority, had rejected President Joe Biden administration’s bid to block the law. The lift of the pause on the Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) would have immediately taken effect. The conservative judges voting in favour of the bill did not immediately explain their arguments, but two of the three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who opposed the decision said their rightwing colleagues had invited “further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement”. A report by the Associated Press, hours after the pause was lifted, reported no immediate effect as sheriffs and police chiefs who would put the law into effect were unsure about when, where and how migrants may be arrested. White House, Mexico respond Mexico’s foreign ministry in a sharply worded statement said that it would not “under any circumstances” accept anyone back who is ordered to leave the country under the state law and “categorically rejects” any state or local government enforcement of immigration laws. The Mexican government also called the law “anti migrant” and said that it would lead to “family separation, discrimination and racial profiling.” Also Read | Netanyahu told US not trying to push him out amid tensions over Rafah assault plan The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre said that the Texas law will cause chaos and confusion at the border. “We fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s order allowing Texas’s harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect,” said Jean-Pierre. She added, “SB4 will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border.” Texas border enforcement law Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called the SCOTUS decision “a positive development". SB4, signed by Abbott in December, makes illegal entry or re-entry into Texas a state crime, the violation of which can lead to penalties ranging from 180 days to 20 years in prison. The law requires Texas magistrate judges to order migrants to return to Mexico who can be sentenced to 20 years in prison if they refuse to comply. Also Read | Texas sued by US Justice Department over immigration law to deport illegal immigrants State officials thereby have the power to arrest, process and imprison people, a role which had long been reserved for federal authorities. The Justice Department, back in January, sued the state of Texas and its governor to block the law which was supposed to take effect on March 5. The DOJ argued that the law not only violates the Constitution and federal law which gives the government the power to regulate immigration, but also goes against the precedent set by a 2012 Supreme Court ruling. (With inputs from agencies)

Texas immigration law back on hold after a federal appeals court pauses SC decision

In a major victory for former United States (US) president and current presidential hopeful Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday (Mar 4) overturned a judicial decision that had excluded him from Colorado's ballot under a constitutional provision involving insurrection for inciting and supporting the 2021 Capitol Hill riots.&nbsp;

According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices unanimously reversed a December 19 decision by Colorado's top court to kick Trump off the state's Republican primary ballot on Tuesday after finding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment disqualified him from again holding public office.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-presidential-elections-2024-poll-shows-trump-more-favoured-over-biden-696087">US presidential elections 2024: Poll shows Trump more favoured over Biden</a>

The top court's&nbsp;justices found that only Congress can enforce the provision against federal officeholders and candidates.

The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency," the unsigned opinion for the court stated.

Following the court's ruling, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social, "Big win for America."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-presidential-hopeful-donald-trump-wins-caucuses-in-missouri-and-idaho-696025">US presidential hopeful Trump wins caucuses in Missouri, Michigan, and Idaho</a>

Reuters reported that the 77-year-old Republican was also barred from the ballot in Maine and Illinois based on the 14th Amendment, but those decisions were put on hold pending the top court's ruling in the Colorado ballot disqualification case.

In Colorado, Trump's eligibility was challenged by six voters who portrayed him as a threat to American democracy and sought to hold him accountable for the Capitol Hill riots. This group of voters included four Republicans and two independents.

In its ruling against Trump, Colorado's Supreme Court cited the general atmosphere of political violence that he created as president, and that he aided "the insurrectionists' common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country."

(With inputs from agencies)

In a major victory for former United States (US) president and current presidential hopeful Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday (Mar 4) overturned a judicial decision that had excluded him from Colorado's ballot under a constitutional provision involving insurrection for inciting and supporting the 2021 Capitol Hill riots.

In a major victory for former United States (US) president and current presidential hopeful Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday (Mar 4) overturned a judicial decision that had excluded him from Colorado's ballot under a constitutional provision involving insurrection for inciting and supporting the 2021 Capitol Hill riots. According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices unanimously reversed a December 19 decision by Colorado's top court to kick Trump off the state's Republican primary ballot on Tuesday after finding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment disqualified him from again holding public office. Also read | US presidential elections 2024: Poll shows Trump more favoured over Biden The top court's justices found that only Congress can enforce the provision against federal officeholders and candidates. The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." "We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency," the unsigned opinion for the court stated. Following the court's ruling, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social, "Big win for America." Also read | US presidential hopeful Trump wins caucuses in Missouri, Michigan, and Idaho Reuters reported that the 77-year-old Republican was also barred from the ballot in Maine and Illinois based on the 14th Amendment, but those decisions were put on hold pending the top court's ruling in the Colorado ballot disqualification case. In Colorado, Trump's eligibility was challenged by six voters who portrayed him as a threat to American democracy and sought to hold him accountable for the Capitol Hill riots. This group of voters included four Republicans and two independents. In its ruling against Trump, Colorado's Supreme Court cited the general atmosphere of political violence that he created as president, and that he aided "the insurrectionists' common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this country." (With inputs from agencies)

US presidential polls 2024: Supreme Court allows Trump to remain on Colorado ballot

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear former President Donald Trump claim of immunity from criminal prosecution as the Republican front runner facing allegations of overturning the 2020 Presidential elections.

US Supreme Court hold Trump's Federal Election trial, Supreme Court to hear arguments in April

The US Supreme Court on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. WION's Susan Tehrani brings you more insights.

US Supreme Court hears landmark case on Trump's re-election eligibility

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

US Supreme Court temporarily prevents Trump admin to expel migrants under Alien Enemies Act

US Supreme Court rejects 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana’s last-ditch plea to stay extradition

US Supreme Court upholds Biden's untraceable 'ghost guns' regulation, aims to defeat powerful gun lobby

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire watchdog chief for no reason in major test of executive power

US Supreme court to examine California's vehicle emissions regulations

US Supreme court to examine California's vehicle emissions regulations

Trump returns to White House shielded with presidential immunity by US Supreme Court

Trump 2.0: What will his 'revenge cabinet' do to the US and world? Who can stop him?

At 78, Trump claims ‘only stupid people’ appoint older justices to Supreme Court

US Supreme Court rejects Biden's bid to enforce emergency abortions in Texas

Kamala Harris says 'won't stop fighting' for student debt relief after Supreme Court blocks Biden's SAVE plan

US: Joe Biden slams 'extremism' in Supreme Court, accuses SC of 'undermining public confidence'

Biden announces plan on Supreme Court reform | Trending on WION

Biden unveils Supreme Court reform plans ahead of presidential elections

US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal against law used in Hunter Biden’s conviction

US Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity from prosecution

Donald Trump has immunity for official acts, US Supreme Court rules

US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump has immunity for official acts

BREAKING: US Supreme Court rules Donald Trump's immunity only for official actions

US Supreme Court allows emergency abortion access in Idaho for now

US Supreme Court to weigh landmark case on gender-affirming healthcare amid nationwide restrictions

US Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax on foreign assets; handing Biden potential win

US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks'

US Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in Memphis Unionisation case

US top court preserves access to abortion pill; a setback for anti- abortion movement

Upside-down US flag row: Why SC Judge Alito is facing recusal calls from Trump cases?