<p>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 24) declined to halt&nbsp;the execution of convicted criminal&nbsp;Kenneth Eugene Smith, paving the way for the state of Alabama to use nitrogen gas to carry out the death penalty for the first time in the country.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Smith, currently holed up at the&nbsp;Holman Correctional Facility, survived the state's attempt to put him to death by lethal injection&nbsp;nearly 14 months ago. However, the apex court denied Smith's request to stay the second execution attempt, scheduled for Thursday (Jan 25).&nbsp;</p>

<p>Apart from refusing to halt the proceedings, the court also declined to hear his legal challenge contending that the second execution attempt&nbsp;violated the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Last week, in an interview, Smith claimed he had severe trauma due to the botched execution attempt.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“I dream that they’re coming to get me. They haven’t given me a chance to heal. I’m still suffering from the first execution and now we’re doing this again. They won’t let me even have post-traumatic stress disorder – you know, this is ongoing stress disorder,” Smith told <em>The Guardian</em>.</p>

<p>“I am not ready for that [execution]. Not in no kind of way. I’m just not ready, brother,” he added.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Smith's attorneys&nbsp;have argued that in 2020, the American Veterinary Medical Association in its euthanasia guidelines cleared nitrogen hypoxia only for pigs. For other mammals, it said, nitrogen hypoxia could create an "anoxic environment that is distressing for some species".&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-botched-35-of-execution-attempts-this-year-543848"><strong>Watch | Gravitas: US botched 35% of execution attempts this year</strong></a></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" data-gtm-yt-inspected-20="true" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-botched-35-of-execution-attempts-this-year-543848/embed" width="560"></iframe></p>

<h2><strong>How will Smith be executed?</strong></h2>

<p>Smith will be taken to an execution chamber on Thursday where he will be strapped to the gurney. According to court documents, the state will place a mask on him to deliver nitrogen.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The "Type-C full facepiece respirator-type face mask" will cut off Smith's oxygen supply and replace it with nitrogen. This will cause him to die due to lack of oxygen. Notably, the gas will be delivered for at least 15 minutes or "five minutes following a flatline indication on the Electrocardiogram (EKG)".</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/federal-judge-gives-green-light-to-us-first-execution-by-nitrogen-gas-hypoxia-678799"><strong>Also read |&nbsp;Federal judge gives green light to first US execution by nitrogen gas&nbsp;</strong></a></p>

<h2><strong>Who is Kenneth Smith?&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Smith, 58,&nbsp;is a murderer-for-hire who was&nbsp;sentenced to death for the 1988 killing of a preacher's wife. In 1996, he was convicted of capital murder with the jury recommending he be given life in prison without the possibility of parole.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Later, the judge overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death by electrocution.&nbsp;Smith's accomplice in the murder was also convicted and sentenced to death,&nbsp;with the execution carried out in 2010.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


The US Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 24) declined to halt the execution of convicted criminal Kenneth Eugene Smith, paving the way for the state of Alabama to use nitrogen gas to carry out the death penalty for the first time in the country.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 24) declined to halt the execution of convicted criminal Kenneth Eugene Smith, paving the way for the state of Alabama to use nitrogen gas to carry out the death penalty for the first time in the country. Smith, currently holed up at the Holman Correctional Facility, survived the state's attempt to put him to death by lethal injection nearly 14 months ago. However, the apex court denied Smith's request to stay the second execution attempt, scheduled for Thursday (Jan 25). Apart from refusing to halt the proceedings, the court also declined to hear his legal challenge contending that the second execution attempt violated the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, in an interview, Smith claimed he had severe trauma due to the botched execution attempt. “I dream that they’re coming to get me. They haven’t given me a chance to heal. I’m still suffering from the first execution and now we’re doing this again. They won’t let me even have post-traumatic stress disorder – you know, this is ongoing stress disorder,” Smith told The Guardian. “I am not ready for that [execution]. Not in no kind of way. I’m just not ready, brother,” he added. Smith's attorneys have argued that in 2020, the American Veterinary Medical Association in its euthanasia guidelines cleared nitrogen hypoxia only for pigs. For other mammals, it said, nitrogen hypoxia could create an "anoxic environment that is distressing for some species". Watch | Gravitas: US botched 35% of execution attempts this year How will Smith be executed? Smith will be taken to an execution chamber on Thursday where he will be strapped to the gurney. According to court documents, the state will place a mask on him to deliver nitrogen. The "Type-C full facepiece respirator-type face mask" will cut off Smith's oxygen supply and replace it with nitrogen. This will cause him to die due to lack of oxygen. Notably, the gas will be delivered for at least 15 minutes or "five minutes following a flatline indication on the Electrocardiogram (EKG)". Also read | Federal judge gives green light to first US execution by nitrogen gas Who is Kenneth Smith? Smith, 58, is a murderer-for-hire who was sentenced to death for the 1988 killing of a preacher's wife. In 1996, he was convicted of capital murder with the jury recommending he be given life in prison without the possibility of parole. Later, the judge overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death by electrocution. Smith's accomplice in the murder was also convicted and sentenced to death, with the execution carried out in 2010. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court refuses to halt first-ever nitrogen gas execution of Alabama inmate

Former President Donald Trump appealed to the US supreme court on Wednesday to undo the Colorado ruling that removed him from the ballot in the western state under the 14th amendment to the US constitution.

Trump asks US top court to review Colorado ruling barring him from ballot

Trump asks US Supreme Court to overturn Colorado ruling removing him from ballot

<p>The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office.</p>

<p>The ruling came as a setback for special counsel Jack Smith, who wanted the case to be heard in an expedited manner.</p>

<p>Earlier on December 1, Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This led Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a bid to delay the trial.</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado</strong></p>

<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-polls-donald-trump-barred-from-running-for-president-in-colorado-672700/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe><a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>

<p>Responding to this move, Jack Smith&nbsp;directly approached the Supreme Court to hear the case.</p>

<p>However, in a one-line order, the SCOTUS declined to intervene, without providing any reason for the same.</p>

<h2><strong>Win for Donald Trump</strong></h2>

<p>The efforts being made by Trump and his team to delay the trial, set to begin in March, for as long as possible seem to be working for now.</p>

<p>The case will now&nbsp;wind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-files-for-bankruptcy-672309"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy</strong></a></p>

<p>In August this year, Trump was indicted on election subversion charges. He is being investigated for&nbsp;alleged attempts to overturn the election leading up to the 6 January Capitol riot.</p>

<p>Trump appealed&nbsp;the decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkan&nbsp;paused the case.</p>

<h2><strong>Trump’s claims on immunity</strong></h2>

<p>Trump continues to claim that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as president before and during the riot.</p>

<p>While reacting to the SCOTUS ruling, Trump on his Truth Social platform said the Supreme Court had rejected a "desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution", adding that he was "entitled to Presidential Immunity".</p>

<h2><strong>Jack Smith’s argument</strong></h2>

<p>Jack Smith in his SCOTUS petition said that the highest court should take the matter up as it "concerned the heart of our democracy."</p>

<p>"The United States recognises that this is an extraordinary request," he said, adding "This is an extraordinary case."</p>

<p>The case presented "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune," he argued.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office.

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) on Friday (Dec 22) rejected to immediately decide whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity for crimes that he allegedly committed while being in office. The ruling came as a setback for special counsel Jack Smith, who wanted the case to be heard in an expedited manner. Earlier on December 1, Trump’s immunity claim was rejected by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan. This led Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a bid to delay the trial. Watch: US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado × Responding to this move, Jack Smith directly approached the Supreme Court to hear the case. However, in a one-line order, the SCOTUS declined to intervene, without providing any reason for the same. Win for Donald Trump The efforts being made by Trump and his team to delay the trial, set to begin in March, for as long as possible seem to be working for now. The case will now wind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial. Also read: Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy In August this year, Trump was indicted on election subversion charges. He is being investigated for alleged attempts to overturn the election leading up to the 6 January Capitol riot. Trump appealed the decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused the case. Trump’s claims on immunity Trump continues to claim that he is immune from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as president before and during the riot. While reacting to the SCOTUS ruling, Trump on his Truth Social platform said the Supreme Court had rejected a "desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution", adding that he was "entitled to Presidential Immunity". Jack Smith’s argument Jack Smith in his SCOTUS petition said that the highest court should take the matter up as it "concerned the heart of our democracy." "The United States recognises that this is an extraordinary request," he said, adding "This is an extraordinary case." The case presented "a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune," he argued. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump immunity case, delaying trial

<p>A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-more-than-110-people-have-been-killed-after-earthquake-in-gansu-province-671082">China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province</a></strong></p>

<p>Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18).&nbsp;</p>

<p>The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts.</p>

<p>“The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-to-cough-700mn-as-part-of-antitrust-settlement-week-after-defeat-against-epic-games-671324">Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games</a></strong></p>

<p>In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.”</p>

<p>Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old.</p>

<p>According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-loyalists-placed-in-pentagon-state-department-may-reshape-us-foreign-policy-report-671254">Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report</a></strong></p>

<h2><strong>Sidhwaney’s arrest</strong></h2>

<p>The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings.

A 43-year-old man from the US state of Florida pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice, last week. The man, later identified as Neal Brij Sidhwaney, had issued a threat twice against a member of the SCOTUS, according to court filings. Sidhwaney who hails from Fernandina Beach, Florida called the Supreme Court on July 31 “and left an expletive-laden, threatening voicemail message” for a member of the court, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a statement. The 43-year-old, according to court documents, was arrested in August. He entered a guilty plea, on Friday (Dec 15) in Jacksonville, Florida to one felony count of making an interstate threat to injure, court records show. ALSO READ | China: Death toll rises to at least 126 after earthquake in Gansu province Sidhwaney made the threat twice in a voicemail message left on July 31, 2023, according to the court filings. However, prosecutors did not identify the targeted justice in court papers or in the statement, on Monday (Dec 18). The name of the justice was revealed during a court-ordered psychological evaluation when Sidhwaney said he had threatened Chief Justice John Roberts. “The identified official is Chief Justice John Roberts whom he allegedly contacted by phone call and threatened to kill,” said the competency assessment of Sidhwaney filed online with a federal court in Florida. ALSO READ | Google to cough $700mn as part of antitrust settlement, week after defeat against Epic Games In the voicemail, as per Politico, the 43-year-old introduced himself and said that he had a message that he wanted the US Marshals to deliver to Roberts which included “I will fu**ing kill you.” Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on the charge, but defendants typically receive less time. It was not immediately clear what prompted the threat by the 43-year-old. According to the psychologist who evaluated him, he is competent to stand trial and of “superior” intelligence, but suffering from “delusional disorder with psychosis.” The doctor said that he is currently under treatment. ALSO READ | Trump would place loyalists in Pentagon, State Department to reshape US foreign policy: Report Sidhwaney’s arrest The 43-year-old was arrested in August and has been in custody since. The US Supreme Court Police Protective Intelligence Unit investigated the case with help from the Capitol Police Threat Assessment Section, said the DOJ in a statement. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill Supreme Court justice

<p>An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse.</p>

<p>Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The doctor advised her to have her labour induced, as her water had broken prematurely, meaning that there was no chance the baby would survive.</p>

<p>Doctors warned that if the non-viable foetus is not delivered, she would face a "significant risk" of death.</p>

<p>In the following days, Watts would go through a horrifying period, while making multiple trips to the hospital and eventually miscarrying in the toilet at home.&nbsp;</p>

<p>She reportedly flushed and plunged the foetus, which was later found stuck in pipes by police.</p>

<h2><strong>Case reaches jury</strong></h2>

<p>Watts’s case was sent to a grand jury last month. As per the testimony and autopsy reports, the foetus had died in utero before passing through the birth canal.</p>

<p>The case sparked a nationwide debate in the country&nbsp;about the treatment of pregnant women in the country after the overturning of Roe v Wade, especially Black women.</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned</strong></p>

<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/one-year-since-roe-v-wade-was-overturned-608453/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump elevated Ms Watts's plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $US100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, medical bills and trauma counselling.</p>

<h2><strong>Predicament for pregnant women</strong></h2>

<p>Experts have pointed out how even those women with no intention to get an abortion were being hounded by the system and charged with crimes against their own pregnancies.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ros-vs-wade-fallout-13-year-old-girl-gives-birth-after-she-was-raped-and-denied-abortion-in-mississippi-625601"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi</strong></a></p>

<p>"Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University.</p>

<p>"Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone."</p>

<h2><strong>What are the abortion laws in Ohio?</strong></h2>

<p>In Ohio, abortion is not illegal but restricted. Last year, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) overturned the historic Roe v Wade legal decision, leaving it up to&nbsp; the states to form their own laws.</p>

<p>A law signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019 prohibits most abortions after the first 21 weeks and six days in Ohio. When Watts first experienced the blood clots she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>


An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse. Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy.

An Ohio woman who miscarried during her second trimester could face a year in prison after being charged with abuse of a corpse. Brittany Watts, a 33-year-old black woman, started passing thick blood clots during the 21st week of pregnancy. The doctor advised her to have her labour induced, as her water had broken prematurely, meaning that there was no chance the baby would survive. Doctors warned that if the non-viable foetus is not delivered, she would face a "significant risk" of death. In the following days, Watts would go through a horrifying period, while making multiple trips to the hospital and eventually miscarrying in the toilet at home. She reportedly flushed and plunged the foetus, which was later found stuck in pipes by police. Case reaches jury Watts’s case was sent to a grand jury last month. As per the testimony and autopsy reports, the foetus had died in utero before passing through the birth canal. The case sparked a nationwide debate in the country about the treatment of pregnant women in the country after the overturning of Roe v Wade, especially Black women. Watch: One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned × Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump elevated Ms Watts's plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $US100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defence, medical bills and trauma counselling. Predicament for pregnant women Experts have pointed out how even those women with no intention to get an abortion were being hounded by the system and charged with crimes against their own pregnancies. Also read: Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi "Roe was a clear legal roadblock to charging felonies for unintentionally harming pregnancies, when women were legally allowed to end their pregnancies through abortion," said Grace Howard, assistant justice studies professor at San José State University. "Now that Roe is gone, that roadblock is entirely gone." What are the abortion laws in Ohio? In Ohio, abortion is not illegal but restricted. Last year, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) overturned the historic Roe v Wade legal decision, leaving it up to the states to form their own laws. A law signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in April 2019 prohibits most abortions after the first 21 weeks and six days in Ohio. When Watts first experienced the blood clots she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant. (With inputs from agencies)

US: Ohio woman charged with abuse of corpse after losing foetus in toilet

<p>The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States.</p>

<p>The lower court ruling has been on hold pending a decision by the nation's top court on whether it would hear the case.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the closely watched case next year and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.</p>

<p>A conservative-dominated federal appeals court imposed restrictions in August on the use of mifepristone, which accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States.</p>

<p>The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would limit use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10, and block it from being distributed by mail.</p>

<p>It would also require the abortion pill to be prescribed by a doctor.</p>

<p>Anti-abortion groups are seeking to have mifepristone banned, claiming despite its long track record that it is unsafe.</p>

<p>At a hearing in May, the three judges pushed back against government arguments that the decision on whether to allow the use of mifepristone should be left to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the drug more than 20 years ago.</p>

<p>The case stems from a ruling by a conservative US District Court judge in Texas that would have banned mifepristone.</p>

<p>The 5th Circuit Court blocked a ban on the abortion pill, but imposed restrictions on access, after which the baton was handed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives wield a 6-3 majority.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court temporarily preserved access to mifepristone, freezing the rulings by the lower courts, and the drug remains on the market for the time being.</p>

<p>It is the most significant abortion case to reach the nine-member Supreme Court since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure in June of last year.</p>

<p>Mifepristone is one component of a two-drug regimen that can be used through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.</p>

<p>It has a long safety record, and the FDA estimates 5.6 million Americans have used it to terminate pregnancies since it was approved in 2000.</p>


The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States.

The US Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to rule on restrictions imposed by a lower court on a widely used abortion pill in the latest skirmish in the battle over reproductive rights in the United States. The lower court ruling has been on hold pending a decision by the nation's top court on whether it would hear the case. The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the closely watched case next year and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June. A conservative-dominated federal appeals court imposed restrictions in August on the use of mifepristone, which accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States. The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would limit use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of 10, and block it from being distributed by mail. It would also require the abortion pill to be prescribed by a doctor. Anti-abortion groups are seeking to have mifepristone banned, claiming despite its long track record that it is unsafe. At a hearing in May, the three judges pushed back against government arguments that the decision on whether to allow the use of mifepristone should be left to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved the drug more than 20 years ago. The case stems from a ruling by a conservative US District Court judge in Texas that would have banned mifepristone. The 5th Circuit Court blocked a ban on the abortion pill, but imposed restrictions on access, after which the baton was handed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives wield a 6-3 majority. The Supreme Court temporarily preserved access to mifepristone, freezing the rulings by the lower courts, and the drug remains on the market for the time being. It is the most significant abortion case to reach the nine-member Supreme Court since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure in June of last year. Mifepristone is one component of a two-drug regimen that can be used through the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. It has a long safety record, and the FDA estimates 5.6 million Americans have used it to terminate pregnancies since it was approved in 2000.

US Supreme Court agrees to rule on abortion pill restrictions

The Supreme Court will comment on Donald Trump's historic prosecution for the first time on Monday, when special counsel Jack Smith asked the court to determine whether the former president is immune from prosecution for crimes he is accused of committing while in office.

Special counsel Jack Smith challenges 'Presidential Immunity' of Donald Trump

<p>The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30).&nbsp;</p>

<p>Amid Trump’s many legal woes, a Colorado court began hearing yet another lawsuit which has sought to bar the Republican from the 2024 presidential election on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by engaging in an insurrection.</p>

<p>The week-long trial began on Monday in a Colorado district court. The lawsuit seeks to bar the state’s top election official from putting Trump on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The rarely-used, Civil War-era provision ratified in 1868 of the US Constitution bars people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office after once pledging to support and defend the Constitution.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What are the arguments?</strong></h2>

<p>During the opening arguments in the lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Eric Olson, an attorney representing voters and the advocacy group said, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol, to stop the peaceful transition of power.”&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-abandons-500-mln-lawsuit-against-former-attorney-michael-cohen-643165">Trump abandons $500 mln lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen</a></strong></p>

<p>He added, “We are here because Trump claims that after all that, he has the right to be president again…but our Constitution, our shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”</p>

<p>The then-President Trump reportedly spent weeks ahead of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud following his defeat in the 2020 election against Democrat Joe Biden.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The former president then encouraged his supporters to rally in Washington and march on the US Capitol where lawmakers were certifying Biden’s win. On the day, Trump only hours&nbsp;later, urged rioters to go home.</p>

<p>Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gesler, has denied that Trump incited supporters and said it would set a dangerous precedent to disqualify him based on “legal theories that have never been embraced by a state or federal court.”</p>

<p>“People should be able to run for office and shouldn’t be punished for their speech.” Gesler also called the lawsuit “anti-democratic” and urged the judge to throw it out.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fraud-case-temporary-respite-for-ex-us-prez-as-judge-orders-hold-on-cancelling-his-business-licences-643511">Trump fraud case: Temporary respite for ex-US prez as judge orders hold on cancelling his business licences</a></strong></p>

<h2><strong>‘Long shot’</strong></h2>

<p>The case, as per Reuters citing several legal experts, raises largely untested legal questions and even if the advocacy group manages to win the final decision, it may be taken up by the Supreme Court. The apex court is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees.&nbsp;</p>

<p>US Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, testified for the Colorado lawsuit and said Trump’s attempts to decrease tensions hours after the violence began did very little to calm the lawmakers who were placed under lockdown and later certified the elections.</p>

<p>“I feared that if Republicans were going to continue to challenge the outcome, the mob would return and the scene on the floor could become combustible,” said Swalwell, as quoted by Reuters. &nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fined-10000-for-breaking-gag-order-amid-ongoing-new-york-civil-fraud-trial-651320">Trump fined $10,000 for violating gag order amid ongoing New York civil fraud trial</a></strong></p>

<p>The former president also faces similar lawsuits brought by advocacy groups in the US states of Michigan and Minnesota.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30).

The former United States president and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be disqualified from the upcoming presidential election because he “incited a violent mob” in Washington on January 6, 2021, argued a lawyer from the advocacy group during the opening of a trial on Monday (Oct 30). Amid Trump’s many legal woes, a Colorado court began hearing yet another lawsuit which has sought to bar the Republican from the 2024 presidential election on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by engaging in an insurrection. The week-long trial began on Monday in a Colorado district court. The lawsuit seeks to bar the state’s top election official from putting Trump on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The rarely-used, Civil War-era provision ratified in 1868 of the US Constitution bars people who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding public office after once pledging to support and defend the Constitution. What are the arguments? During the opening arguments in the lawsuit brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Eric Olson, an attorney representing voters and the advocacy group said, “Trump incited a violent mob to attack our Capitol, to stop the peaceful transition of power.” ALSO READ | Trump abandons $500 mln lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen He added, “We are here because Trump claims that after all that, he has the right to be president again…but our Constitution, our shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.” The then-President Trump reportedly spent weeks ahead of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud following his defeat in the 2020 election against Democrat Joe Biden. The former president then encouraged his supporters to rally in Washington and march on the US Capitol where lawmakers were certifying Biden’s win. On the day, Trump only hours later, urged rioters to go home. Trump’s lawyer, Scott Gesler, has denied that Trump incited supporters and said it would set a dangerous precedent to disqualify him based on “legal theories that have never been embraced by a state or federal court.” “People should be able to run for office and shouldn’t be punished for their speech.” Gesler also called the lawsuit “anti-democratic” and urged the judge to throw it out. ALSO READ | Trump fraud case: Temporary respite for ex-US prez as judge orders hold on cancelling his business licences ‘Long shot’ The case, as per Reuters citing several legal experts, raises largely untested legal questions and even if the advocacy group manages to win the final decision, it may be taken up by the Supreme Court. The apex court is dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees. US Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, testified for the Colorado lawsuit and said Trump’s attempts to decrease tensions hours after the violence began did very little to calm the lawmakers who were placed under lockdown and later certified the elections. “I feared that if Republicans were going to continue to challenge the outcome, the mob would return and the scene on the floor could become combustible,” said Swalwell, as quoted by Reuters. ALSO READ | Trump fined $10,000 for violating gag order amid ongoing New York civil fraud trial The former president also faces similar lawsuits brought by advocacy groups in the US states of Michigan and Minnesota. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Trump should be disqualified from 2024 presidential race for ‘insurrection’ on Jan 6, say lawyers

<p>The United States Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, with many hot-button cases on the docket — Gun rights, free speech, Donald Trump's presidential dreams, and more.</p>

<h2><strong>A divided court</strong></h2>

<p>The top court, as per AFP, is divided one of two ways, 6-3 or 3-3.</p>

<p>It has a conservative majority with three justices appointed by former president Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The other two — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are Republican appointees, designated by Republican presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kevin-mccarthys-speakership-teeters-on-brink-gop-hardliners-uproar-over-stopgap-funding-bill-641518">Kevin McCarthy's Speakership teeters on brink, GOP hardliners furious over stopgap funding bill</a></strong></p>

<p>Chief Justice John Roberts usually aligns with the right wing.</p>

<p>The remaining three — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are liberals appointed by Democratic presidents.</p>

<p>Speaking to AFP, David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the upcoming US Supreme Court session may reveal just how much further to the right the top court will tilt.</p>

<p>"This term will give us more evidence to try to assess what kind of court this is," he said.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Is it a six-to-three divided court?"</p>

<p>"Or is it, as many have suggested, a three-three-three court with the three Democratic appointees, three very extreme conservatives in Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, and three sort of in the middle who determine results -- Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett?"</p>

<h2><strong>Items on docket</strong></h2>

<h3><strong>Who controls the House of Representatives?</strong></h3>

<p>One of the first cases, as per AFP, may affect the control of the US House of Representatives. Currently, Republicans hold a slim majority of 221-212.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chipotle-manager-rips-off-employees-hijab-sparks-legal-firestorm-641500">US: Chipotle manager rips off employee's Hijab, sparks legal firestorm</a></strong></p>

<p>The case concerns a congressional map drawn up in South Carolina. Critics claim that the map unconstitutionally discriminates against African American voters, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.</p>

<h3>Trump's presidential dreams</h3>

<p>A high-stakes political battle may decide if Trump will once again reside in the White House. Several states have initiated legal efforts to keep him off the presidential ballot&nbsp;on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by provoking the January 6, 2021 attack on Congress.</p>

<h3>Gun rights</h3>

<p>In November, the court will address a challenge to a law that prohibits people with a domestic violence order from possessing a firearm.</p>

<h3>Free speech</h3>

<p>A high-profile online free speech case concerning popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others is also on the agenda.</p>

<p>The case will hear challenges against Republican-led states, Texas and Florida laws that would restrict the freedom of these social media websites to moderate content.</p>

<p>Another free speech case concerns California lawyer&nbsp;Steve Elster's attempt to trademark the phrase "Trump too small". A trademark of the phrase that was to be used to mock the former president was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office over concerns that Elster doesn't have Trump's written consent to use his name.</p>

<h3>Abortion Pill and Transgender Rights</h3>

<p>Other cases that may make the docket are the review of restrictions on a widely used abortion pill and transgender rights.</p>


The United States Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, with many hot-button cases on the docket — Gun rights, free speech, Donald Trump's presidential dreams, and more.

The United States Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, with many hot-button cases on the docket — Gun rights, free speech, Donald Trump's presidential dreams, and more. A divided court The top court, as per AFP, is divided one of two ways, 6-3 or 3-3. It has a conservative majority with three justices appointed by former president Trump — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The other two — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are Republican appointees, designated by Republican presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush. Also read | Kevin McCarthy's Speakership teeters on brink, GOP hardliners furious over stopgap funding bill Chief Justice John Roberts usually aligns with the right wing. The remaining three — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are liberals appointed by Democratic presidents. Speaking to AFP, David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the upcoming US Supreme Court session may reveal just how much further to the right the top court will tilt. "This term will give us more evidence to try to assess what kind of court this is," he said. "Is it a six-to-three divided court?" "Or is it, as many have suggested, a three-three-three court with the three Democratic appointees, three very extreme conservatives in Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, and three sort of in the middle who determine results -- Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett?" Items on docket Who controls the House of Representatives? One of the first cases, as per AFP, may affect the control of the US House of Representatives. Currently, Republicans hold a slim majority of 221-212. Also read | US: Chipotle manager rips off employee's Hijab, sparks legal firestorm The case concerns a congressional map drawn up in South Carolina. Critics claim that the map unconstitutionally discriminates against African American voters, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Trump's presidential dreams A high-stakes political battle may decide if Trump will once again reside in the White House. Several states have initiated legal efforts to keep him off the presidential ballot on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by provoking the January 6, 2021 attack on Congress. Gun rights In November, the court will address a challenge to a law that prohibits people with a domestic violence order from possessing a firearm. Free speech A high-profile online free speech case concerning popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others is also on the agenda. The case will hear challenges against Republican-led states, Texas and Florida laws that would restrict the freedom of these social media websites to moderate content. Another free speech case concerns California lawyer Steve Elster's attempt to trademark the phrase "Trump too small". A trademark of the phrase that was to be used to mock the former president was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office over concerns that Elster doesn't have Trump's written consent to use his name. Abortion Pill and Transgender Rights Other cases that may make the docket are the review of restrictions on a widely used abortion pill and transgender rights.

US' divided Supreme Court starts new session with gun rights, Trump's prez dreams and more on docket

<p>The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. This comes after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy settlement.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>What did the SCOTUS say?</strong></h2>

<p>The US Supreme Court has paused the bankruptcy proceedings about Purdue and its affiliates, saying that they will hold oral arguments in December in the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The order would possibly delay any payments to the thousands of plaintiffs who have sued the Sacklers and Purdue, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin which has been widely blamed for the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-charges-for-opioid-sales-337138">opioid crisis</a> in the US.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The order by the SCOTUS, whose new term begins in October, comes in response to an objection filed by the Department of Justice, which said that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers.</p>

<p>Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Purdue settlement</strong></h2>

<p>Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The top court justices said they will hear arguments about whether the agreement is authorised by the US bankruptcy code. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. However, the Biden administration and eight states challenged the settlement, but the states later <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-states-drop-opposition-to-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan-396799">dropped the opposition</a>. &nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Purdue responds to court order</strong></h2>

<p>In a statement, Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee, the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog, filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>It added that the company is confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and that the SCOTUS will agree with it.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>Plaintiffs respond to the settlement</strong></h2>

<p>A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the supreme court that they support the settlement, including <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/purdue-pharmas-sackler-family-to-receive-full-immunity-from-opioid-lawsuits-court-rules-598848">legal immunity</a> for the Sackler family.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic.

The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday (August 10) temporarily blocked a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the billionaire Sackler family from lawsuits over their role in the country’s opioid epidemic. This comes after the top court agreed to hear US President Joe Biden’s administration regarding the legality of OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy settlement. What did the SCOTUS say? The US Supreme Court has paused the bankruptcy proceedings about Purdue and its affiliates, saying that they will hold oral arguments in December in the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling upholding the settlement. The order would possibly delay any payments to the thousands of plaintiffs who have sued the Sacklers and Purdue, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin which has been widely blamed for the opioid crisis in the US. The order by the SCOTUS, whose new term begins in October, comes in response to an objection filed by the Department of Justice, which said that Purdue’s plans allowed the members of the Sackler family to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress,” not for billionaires like the Sacklers. Sackler family members withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement, said the Biden administration. Purdue settlement Purdue’s plan involves paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the Connecticut-based company over its misleading marketing of OxyContin in exchange for full immunity from all civil legal disputes. The top court justices said they will hear arguments about whether the agreement is authorised by the US bankruptcy code. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its debts, nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits. Purdue’s bankruptcy settlement, approved by a US bankruptcy judge in 2021, would provide around $10 billion in value to its creditors, said the company. However, the Biden administration and eight states challenged the settlement, but the states later dropped the opposition. Purdue responds to court order In a statement, Purdue said it was disappointed that the US Trustee, the DOJ’s bankruptcy watchdog, filed a challenge that has “single-handedly” delayed “billions of dollars in value that should be put to use for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement for communities across the country and overdose rescue medicines.” It added that the company is confident about the legality of its “universally supported plan of reorganization” and that the SCOTUS will agree with it. Plaintiffs respond to the settlement A group comprising more than 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims due to Purdue’s opioid products told the supreme court that they support the settlement, including legal immunity for the Sackler family. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court halts Purdue’s $6 billion opioid settlement pending review

Supreme Court has struck one blow after another first it was women now even students and lgbtq groups have not been spared democratic congresswoman Alexandria ocasio-cortez came out all guns blazing against the Apex body she has accused the quotes of adopting an authoritarian approach her comments come days after the Supreme Court went on a rampage striking down a myriad of rulings this is not the first time the Court's rulings have sent shockwaves across the United States in June 2022

US top court clamps down on LGBTQ groups' right to equality

<p>After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden.</p>

<p>"I know there are millions of Americans in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry," Biden said. "I must admit I do too."</p>

<p>He announced measures to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible."</p>

<p>One of the measures is a 12-month pause on penalties for missing debt repayments on federal loans used by many students to finance their time in the expensive US higher education system.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This will "protect the most vulnerable borrowers," the White House said.</p>

<p>Another measure announced is a change to the repayment plans by the Department of Education, with a cut in the percentage of borrower's available income that must be paid each month toward loans from 10 to five per cent.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-junks-bidens-student-debt-cancellation-plan-610639">US Supreme Court junks Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan</a></p>

<p>In addition, the borrowers would now see more of their income safeguarded from having to be made available for repayments.</p>

<h2><strong>Supreme court rejects Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan</strong></h2>

<p>US President Joe Biden on Friday suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans.</p>

<p>The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies.</p>

<p>The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan.</p>

<p>Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 Act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation.</p>

<p>"We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.</p>

<p>"The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said.</p>

<p>Biden said his administration would pursue a different way to achieve his goal.</p>

<p>"Today’s decision has closed one path. Now we’re going to start another," Biden told reporters. "I believe the court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong. I'm not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale."</p>

<p>Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups.</p>

<p>The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden.

After millions of Americans expressed anger over Supreme Court bringing down the student loan relief programme, United States President Joe Biden announced new measures to ease the financial burden. "I know there are millions of Americans in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry," Biden said. "I must admit I do too." He announced measures to "provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible." One of the measures is a 12-month pause on penalties for missing debt repayments on federal loans used by many students to finance their time in the expensive US higher education system. This will "protect the most vulnerable borrowers," the White House said. Another measure announced is a change to the repayment plans by the Department of Education, with a cut in the percentage of borrower's available income that must be paid each month toward loans from 10 to five per cent. Also read: US Supreme Court junks Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan In addition, the borrowers would now see more of their income safeguarded from having to be made available for repayments. Supreme court rejects Biden's $400bn student debt cancellation plan US President Joe Biden on Friday suffered a significant political setback as US Supreme Court overruled his key programme to cancel the student loans of millions of Americans. The court said Biden had overstepped his powers in cancelling more than $400 billion in debt, in an effort to alleviate the financial burden of education that hangs over many Americans decades after they finished their studies. The court said Biden was mistaken in using a 2003 law, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, to justify the debt relief plan. Six Republican-led states sued saying the 2003 Act, which aimed to help former students who joined the military after the September 11, 2001 attacks, does not authorise Biden's loan cancellation. "We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it," he said. Biden said his administration would pursue a different way to achieve his goal. "Today’s decision has closed one path. Now we’re going to start another," Biden told reporters. "I believe the court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong. I'm not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale." Biden announced the student loan cancellation plan in August 2022. He said that up to USD 20,000 per borrower would be forgiven, given that the borrower comes from low or middle-income groups. The plan came on the back of a student loan payment freeze instituted by his predecessor Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US President Joe Biden announces new measures for student loan relief after Supreme Court setback

<p>The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions. The decision left the bench divided with&nbsp;two ideologically opposed Black justices taking swipe at each other,&nbsp;in unusually sharp language.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Justice Clarence Thomas tore into the arguments posited by liberal&nbsp;Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to join the court, who penned her own fiery dissent in the case.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today,” wrote Thomas.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims,” he wrote, before adding, “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.”</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">Justice Thomas did not appreciate Justice Jackson's continued assessment that Black people were the victims.&nbsp;Justice Jackson’s viewpoint, he said, would keep Black people locked into “a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.”&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color," he added.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action</strong></a></p>

<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/new-era-in-the-us-education-system-top-court-bans-affirmative-action-610263/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>In response, Justice Jackson denounced the remarks of her colleague as a “prolonged attack”, full of strawmen.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">“Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here. The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential," she wrote.&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">"Justice Thomas is somehow persuaded that these realities have no bearing on a fair assessment of ‘individual achievement'," she continued the criticism,</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/us-verdict-on-race-quotas-in-education-raises-serious-questions-on-affirmative-action-610444"><strong>Also read |&nbsp;US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action</strong></a></p>

<h2 data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">What happens after the ruling?</h2>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_8A95DABA-4B34-1123-79E8-07C0698906A6@published">After the court ruling, colleges and universities across the US may have to alter their admission process. Apart from making the uptake process 'merit-based', the institutions will have to find new ways to ensure diversity on the campus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. &nbsp;He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms.</p>

<p>"The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live.</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published">&nbsp;</p>

<p data-analytics-observe="off" data-component-name="paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/paragraph_D39C54D4-EAC6-6038-2195-081245BAFFE5@published"><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a monumental decision, struck down affirmative action that took race/ethnicity into consideration before granting students admission to premier educational institutions. The decision left the bench divided with two ideologically opposed Black justices taking swipe at each other, in unusually sharp language. Justice Clarence Thomas tore into the arguments posited by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to join the court, who penned her own fiery dissent in the case. “As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of Black Americans still determining our lives today,” wrote Thomas. “Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims,” he wrote, before adding, “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.” Justice Thomas did not appreciate Justice Jackson's continued assessment that Black people were the victims. Justice Jackson’s viewpoint, he said, would keep Black people locked into “a seemingly perpetual inferior caste.” “Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color," he added. WATCH | New era in the US education system: Top court bans affirmative action × In response, Justice Jackson denounced the remarks of her colleague as a “prolonged attack”, full of strawmen. “Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here. The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential," she wrote. "Justice Thomas is somehow persuaded that these realities have no bearing on a fair assessment of ‘individual achievement'," she continued the criticism, Also read | US verdict on race quotas in education raises serious questions on affirmative action What happens after the ruling? After the court ruling, colleges and universities across the US may have to alter their admission process. Apart from making the uptake process 'merit-based', the institutions will have to find new ways to ensure diversity on the campus. US President has expressed his displeasure at the decision to end affirmative action. He said USA's powerful top court was no longer in step with American norms. "The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions and I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision," he said in remarks broadcast live. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US: Black justices take swipe at each other in affirmative action case

<p>This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India. It makes sense to examine occasionally if not frequently the pros and cons of quotas and affirmative action to support underprivileged sections and communities to see what works and doesn't -- and test it against the underlying principles for which they were brought into force.<br />
<br />
The US verdict came in a week during which I have been engaged in an online debate of sorts on affirmative action after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the US that triggered questions on the state of minority Muslims in India. I had remarked that it is perhaps more appropriate to compare India's Muslims with America's blacks though one is a religious minority and the other a racial one.<br />
<br />
But that can only apply in terms of numerical minority and how much they are integrated in mainstream society based on current ideas of discrimination and equality. If one is to look at affirmative action to make up for historical injustice then it is more appropriate to compare the African Americans of the US with the Dalits of India. Dalits have been victims of untouchability as well as restrictions that confined them to menial work in a caste system that resembles America's slave system.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-race-conscious-admissions-programs-at-harvard-unc-610243"><strong>ALSO READ| 'I strongly disagree', says Biden after US Supreme Court strikes down race-based admissions programmes</strong></a><br />
<br />
The problem is that the current political movement for affirmative action (wokeism, if you will) often demands quotas and access not as corrective aids but as some sort of entitlement. That gets trickier when you ask if a government job is a means to an income, a position of power or a public service responsibility.<br />
<br />
When it comes to education it gets murky. We can think of scholarships, fellowships or freeships to boost education but isn't it asking for too much if the highest centres of learning such as Harvard University are dictated by political criteria that reek of what one might call ‘revenge entitlement’? More important, what is the ethical content in affirmative action and how do you measure it?<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Imagine America's whites demanding quotas in NBA basketball teams or jazz bands that make blacks look so good. I am saying all this only to emphasise that there are no easy answers to some questions in a world in which merit and recognition can be of various types and aptitudes. (Er, why are female supermodels larger in number than men and why do they tend to get paid more?)<br />
<br />
This is why we need judicial intervention to assess concepts in which political overkill can upset some common ideas of justice. But jurisprudence itself is a political idea based on ethics and values and tends to vary with time and space. You can go around in circles on this.<br />
<br />
India's constitution is more progressive than that of the US as it promises social justice. In the US, affirmative action is a current fashion driven by recent political awakening whereas India has baked it into the Constitution. When India’s equality-prone Constitution was alive and kicking in the 1950s, America’s blacks were still fighting for civil rights like sitting in a bus next to a white man.</p>

<p>India's definition of 'other backward classes (OBCs) includes both non-Dalit Hindu communities (castes) as well as socially and educationally laggard Muslim communities. India's Supreme Court has already ruled in favour of OBC quotas but cautioned against its "creamy layer" usurping it.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
How does one measure creamy layers? That is where the executive administration needs to strike a balance between the principles of the legislature (political) and the judiciary. In simple terms, we need to revisit the idea of affirmative action time and again to calibrate policies and measure outcomes.<br />
<br />
Former US president Barack Obama has come out against the Supreme Court verdict but was candid about the limits of affirmative action when he said in an interview that the political problems with turning the argument for reparations into reality were manifold.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;“If you look at countries like South Africa, where you had a black majority, there have been efforts to tax and help that black majority, but it hasn’t come in the form of a formal reparations program. You have countries like India that have tried to help untouchables, with essentially affirmative-action programs, but it hasn’t fundamentally changed the structure of their societies. So the bottom line is that it’s hard to find a model...'<br />
<br />
Personally, I believe in what I call the Staircase Principle: One step at a time. If a larger number of blacks or Dalits are given free and compulsory state-funded junior school education with incentives to study, it helps more people move up in society as a whole. Individual spirit, excellence and hard work always play a role in upward mobility. Broader interventions at the bottom of the social and economic pyramids work better than top-level quotas that reek of entitlement while touching the lives of fewer people. When a whole community needs affirmative action, why should only a few from it benefit?&nbsp;<br />
<br />
A broader intervention at the lower levels also works better to gain votes in a democracy. The wider the field of action, the more the number of people that benefit from affirmative action and the higher the electoral endorsement for the party or group that does it.<br />
<br />
Freeships, scholarships and special education programmes seem a better choice if you regard administration and management jobs as a responsibility when it comes to work.<br />
<br />
However, caste discrimination in India and racial discrimination in the US also involve the denial of opportunities by prejudiced incumbents in positions of responsibility – and are cited as the reason for diversity-based inclusion at the top level. That also requires separate treatment and social reform involving elements of empathy and fair access to resources and ethically strong administration. That's another story.</p>

<p><strong>Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.</strong><br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>


This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India.

This week’s US Supreme Court verdict that has ruled against race/ethnicity-linked admission quotas in elite institutions like Harvard University has come at the right moment for both US and India. It makes sense to examine occasionally if not frequently the pros and cons of quotas and affirmative action to support underprivileged sections and communities to see what works and doesn't -- and test it against the underlying principles for which they were brought into force. The US verdict came in a week during which I have been engaged in an online debate of sorts on affirmative action after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the US that triggered questions on the state of minority Muslims in India. I had remarked that it is perhaps more appropriate to compare India's Muslims with America's blacks though one is a religious minority and the other a racial one. But that can only apply in terms of numerical minority and how much they are integrated in mainstream society based on current ideas of discrimination and equality. If one is to look at affirmative action to make up for historical injustice then it is more appropriate to compare the African Americans of the US with the Dalits of India. Dalits have been victims of untouchability as well as restrictions that confined them to menial work in a caste system that resembles America's slave system. ALSO READ| 'I strongly disagree', says Biden after US Supreme Court strikes down race-based admissions programmes The problem is that the current political movement for affirmative action (wokeism, if you will) often demands quotas and access not as corrective aids but as some sort of entitlement. That gets trickier when you ask if a government job is a means to an income, a position of power or a public service responsibility. When it comes to education it gets murky. We can think of scholarships, fellowships or freeships to boost education but isn't it asking for too much if the highest centres of learning such as Harvard University are dictated by political criteria that reek of what one might call ‘revenge entitlement’? More important, what is the ethical content in affirmative action and how do you measure it? Imagine America's whites demanding quotas in NBA basketball teams or jazz bands that make blacks look so good. I am saying all this only to emphasise that there are no easy answers to some questions in a world in which merit and recognition can be of various types and aptitudes. (Er, why are female supermodels larger in number than men and why do they tend to get paid more?) This is why we need judicial intervention to assess concepts in which political overkill can upset some common ideas of justice. But jurisprudence itself is a political idea based on ethics and values and tends to vary with time and space. You can go around in circles on this. India's constitution is more progressive than that of the US as it promises social justice. In the US, affirmative action is a current fashion driven by recent political awakening whereas India has baked it into the Constitution. When India’s equality-prone Constitution was alive and kicking in the 1950s, America’s blacks were still fighting for civil rights like sitting in a bus next to a white man. India's definition of 'other backward classes (OBCs) includes both non-Dalit Hindu communities (castes) as well as socially and educationally laggard Muslim communities. India's Supreme Court has already ruled in favour of OBC quotas but cautioned against its "creamy layer" usurping it. How does one measure creamy layers? That is where the executive administration needs to strike a balance between the principles of the legislature (political) and the judiciary. In simple terms, we need to revisit the idea of affirmative action time and again to calibrate policies and measure outcomes. Former US president Barack Obama has come out against the Supreme Court verdict but was candid about the limits of affirmative action when he said in an interview that the political problems with turning the argument for reparations into reality were manifold. “If you look at countries like South Africa, where you had a black majority, there have been efforts to tax and help that black majority, but it hasn’t come in the form of a formal reparations program. You have countries like India that have tried to help untouchables, with essentially affirmative-action programs, but it hasn’t fundamentally changed the structure of their societies. So the bottom line is that it’s hard to find a model...' Personally, I believe in what I call the Staircase Principle: One step at a time. If a larger number of blacks or Dalits are given free and compulsory state-funded junior school education with incentives to study, it helps more people move up in society as a whole. Individual spirit, excellence and hard work always play a role in upward mobility. Broader interventions at the bottom of the social and economic pyramids work better than top-level quotas that reek of entitlement while touching the lives of fewer people. When a whole community needs affirmative action, why should only a few from it benefit? A broader intervention at the lower levels also works better to gain votes in a democracy. The wider the field of action, the more the number of people that benefit from affirmative action and the higher the electoral endorsement for the party or group that does it. Freeships, scholarships and special education programmes seem a better choice if you regard administration and management jobs as a responsibility when it comes to work. However, caste discrimination in India and racial discrimination in the US also involve the denial of opportunities by prejudiced incumbents in positions of responsibility – and are cited as the reason for diversity-based inclusion at the top level. That also requires separate treatment and social reform involving elements of empathy and fair access to resources and ethically strong administration. That's another story. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Race, caste and affirmative action: US verdict raises the right questions

<p>The US Supreme Court just made it more difficult to convict a man of making a violent threat or engaging in stalking on online bullying. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the prosecutors must prove that the defendant was aware of the threatening nature of his statement. “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” the justice wrote.</p>

<p>The ruling came in a case where a man in Colorado was sentenced to four years in prison for sending threatening messages on Facebook. His lawyers said that the man suffered from mental illness and he never meant to inflict harm on the victim. The man reportedly became obsessed with a singer he never met in the real world, and sent her hundreds of threatening messages.</p>

<h2><strong>Online harassment—covered under freedom of speech?</strong></h2>

<p>The biggest question before the court was whether to give priority to anti-stalking laws or to uphold the country’s free speech rights. In a 7-2 decision, Justice Kagan mentioned that it was important “not to create unintended consequences for street protesters or political activists who might say intemperate things in the heat of the moment but mean no real harm.” Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, disagreed with the judgement.</p>

<h2><strong>The ruling creates massive uproar</strong></h2>

<p>The ruling has sparked a massive uproar among activists, lawyers and victims of stalking and online abuse, who believe it fails to take into account the unique threat that the stalkers pose even if they are not aware of the ensuing consequences of their actions. University of Miami law professor and anti-cyberbullying campaigner Mary Anne Franks wrote in a statement, “The more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking.”</p>

<p>Lenora Claire, a television producer turned advocate, was quoted by The Guardian as saying that her phone was blowing up with victims who were “absolutely terrified”.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Australia says Twitter is top platform for online hate</strong></p>

<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/australia-says-twitter-is-top-platform-for-online-hate-demands-explanation-607193/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>“If you even get as far as prosecution, you’ve already been through the gauntlet, navigating the restraining order process, convincing law enforcement to take you seriously … Now I’m told that with this new ruling my stalker could have said his intent was not to scare me and the case against him would have been thrown out,” she said.</p>

<h2><strong>‘Situation not as bleak as it seems'</strong></h2>

<p>According to legal professionals, the situation may not be as bleak as it seems, as the evidence presented in the Colorado case suggests that the defendant, Billy Counterman, would probably be found guilty in a retrial even with the new standard set by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australian-watchdog-gives-twitter-28-days-to-tackle-online-hate-607292"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;Australian watchdog gives Twitter 28 days to tackle online hate</strong></a></p>

<p>Rhonda Saunders, a prosecutor who played a significant role in advocating for a pioneering anti-stalking law in California during the 1990s, stated that a number of states, including California, already had provisions in their laws that aligned with the Supreme Court's decision.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The US Supreme Court just made it more difficult to convict a man of making a violent threat or engaging in stalking on online bullying. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the prosecutors must prove that the defendant was aware of the threatening nature of his statement.

The US Supreme Court just made it more difficult to convict a man of making a violent threat or engaging in stalking on online bullying. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the prosecutors must prove that the defendant was aware of the threatening nature of his statement. “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” the justice wrote. The ruling came in a case where a man in Colorado was sentenced to four years in prison for sending threatening messages on Facebook. His lawyers said that the man suffered from mental illness and he never meant to inflict harm on the victim. The man reportedly became obsessed with a singer he never met in the real world, and sent her hundreds of threatening messages. Online harassment—covered under freedom of speech? The biggest question before the court was whether to give priority to anti-stalking laws or to uphold the country’s free speech rights. In a 7-2 decision, Justice Kagan mentioned that it was important “not to create unintended consequences for street protesters or political activists who might say intemperate things in the heat of the moment but mean no real harm.” Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, disagreed with the judgement. The ruling creates massive uproar The ruling has sparked a massive uproar among activists, lawyers and victims of stalking and online abuse, who believe it fails to take into account the unique threat that the stalkers pose even if they are not aware of the ensuing consequences of their actions. University of Miami law professor and anti-cyberbullying campaigner Mary Anne Franks wrote in a statement, “The more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking.” Lenora Claire, a television producer turned advocate, was quoted by The Guardian as saying that her phone was blowing up with victims who were “absolutely terrified”. Watch: Australia says Twitter is top platform for online hate × “If you even get as far as prosecution, you’ve already been through the gauntlet, navigating the restraining order process, convincing law enforcement to take you seriously … Now I’m told that with this new ruling my stalker could have said his intent was not to scare me and the case against him would have been thrown out,” she said. ‘Situation not as bleak as it seems' According to legal professionals, the situation may not be as bleak as it seems, as the evidence presented in the Colorado case suggests that the defendant, Billy Counterman, would probably be found guilty in a retrial even with the new standard set by the Supreme Court. Also read: Australian watchdog gives Twitter 28 days to tackle online hate Rhonda Saunders, a prosecutor who played a significant role in advocating for a pioneering anti-stalking law in California during the 1990s, stated that a number of states, including California, already had provisions in their laws that aligned with the Supreme Court's decision. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

‘Stalkers protected,’ US Supreme Court makes it more difficult to prosecute someone making threats

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidbZ0zBjFoVMPf" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control.</p>

<p>According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices ruled against Republican state legislators in a case arising from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina's 14 US House of Representative districts. Last year, North Carolina's top court had blocked the map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On Tuesday, the Republican legislators asked the Supreme Court justices to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The doctrine</strong></h2>

<p>The independent state legislature doctrine is based in part on the US Constitution's statement that the time, place and manner of federal elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," US Chief Justice Roberts wrote of that constitutional provision. Reuters reported.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>The criticism of doctrine&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>Critics of the independent state legislature doctrine, including legal scholars and democrats, called it a threat to American democratic norms. The critics have said that the doctrine's application would let legislatures easily pass further voting restrictions or pursue extreme partisan gerrymandering- which is a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to marginalize certain voters and increase the influence of others.&nbsp;</p>

<h2><strong>White House welcomes Supreme Court ruling</strong></h2>

<p>The White House on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by saying the bid would have let politicians undermine the will of the people.</p>

<p>"As you know, this has been an enormous priority for the president and the vice president since the day that they entered office, to strengthen and shore up voting rights in this country. And so we're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people, and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton said.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 27) rejected the bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over elections. The bid, which was favoured by many conservatives, could hand sweeping power to state legislatures to establish rules for presidential and congressional elections and draft electoral maps giving huge advantages to the political party already in control. According to a report by the news agency Reuters, the justices ruled against Republican state legislators in a case arising from a legal fight over their map of North Carolina's 14 US House of Representative districts. Last year, North Carolina's top court had blocked the map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. On Tuesday, the Republican legislators asked the Supreme Court justices to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating federal elections. The doctrine The independent state legislature doctrine is based in part on the US Constitution's statement that the time, place and manner of federal elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. "The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review," US Chief Justice Roberts wrote of that constitutional provision. Reuters reported. The criticism of doctrine Critics of the independent state legislature doctrine, including legal scholars and democrats, called it a threat to American democratic norms. The critics have said that the doctrine's application would let legislatures easily pass further voting restrictions or pursue extreme partisan gerrymandering- which is a practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to marginalize certain voters and increase the influence of others. White House welcomes Supreme Court ruling The White House on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by saying the bid would have let politicians undermine the will of the people. "As you know, this has been an enormous priority for the president and the vice president since the day that they entered office, to strengthen and shore up voting rights in this country. And so we're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the extreme legal theory presented in this case, which would have interfered with state governments, which would have opened the door for politicians to undermine the will of the people, and would have threatened the freedom of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton said. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US SC rejects bid to give lawmakers unchecked power over polls; White House praises ruling

<p>US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.&nbsp;The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not&nbsp;unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. &nbsp;</p>

<p>ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation.</p>

<p>The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections.</p>

<h2><strong>Why was the Act challenged?&nbsp;</strong></h2>

<p>The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy.</p>

<p>In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes.</p>

<p>The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also Read | </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ex-harvard-medical-school-morgue-manager-indicted-for-stealing-selling-human-remains-604855">Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains</a></p>

<p>In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing."</p>

<p>Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority.</p>

<p><strong>Also Read |</strong> <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-zealands-biggest-meth-bust-with-drug-hidden-in-maple-syrup-bottles-six-arrested-604782">New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested</a></p>

<h2>Native Americans — political not racial group</h2>

<p>The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities.</p>

<h2><strong>ICWA background</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

<p>The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families.</p>

<p>These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA.</p>

<p><strong>Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report&nbsp;</strong></p>

<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/uk-mps-publish-partygate-report-english-latest-news-604768/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family.</p>

<h2>Biden administration's take&nbsp;</h2>

<p>The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families.

US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in a 7-2 decision and kept intact a law that seeks to keep Native American children with tribal families. The court ruled that the law in cases of adoption involving American Indian children does not unlawfully impose federal mandates on areas traditionally regulated by states. ICWA established federal standards for the removal of Native children from their families and required state courts to inform tribes when an American Indian child is removed from their home outside of a reservation. The Act has been a significant law for over 45 years, enacted after a congressional investigation revealed that a significant number of Native children had been taken from their tribal homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions without tribal connections. Why was the Act challenged? The law was challenged by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, along with other non-Native prospective adoptive couples, who argued that ICWA violated the Constitution by racially discriminating and compelling the state to enforce federal mandates. However, in the case before the court, the state of Texas and several families adopting American Indian children challenged the law, arguing that it encroached on state autonomy. In its Thursday ruling, the court did not decide whether the law unconstitutionally discriminates based on race when it comes to placing children in Native foster and adoptive homes. The court determined that the challengers, including prospective adoptive parents and the state of Texas, lacked standing to sue as they had not suffered concrete harm, reported NPR media portal. Also Read | Ex-Harvard Medical School morgue manager indicted for stealing, selling human remains In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "The bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners' challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticising the court for disregarding the best interests of the vulnerable children involved and undermining the division of federal and state authority. Also Read | New Zealand's biggest meth bust with drug hidden in maple syrup bottles, six arrested Native Americans — political not racial group The Supreme Court rejected the arguments by the challengers, citing longstanding precedent that classifies Native Americans as a political rather than racial group. This decision is seen as a victory for Native American tribal leaders and advocates who argued that ICWA protects Native children and tribal communities. ICWA background The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted by Congress after extensive hearings revealed that public and private agencies had forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of American Indian children from their families. These children were then placed in institutions or with families unrelated to their tribes. The tribes considered these actions a threat to their existence, prompting Congress to pass ICWA. Watch | UK MPs publish Partygate report × The law also implemented a framework for foster and adoption placements and prioritises placement with extended family members, followed by other tribal members, and if neither is available, placement with a different tribal family. Biden administration's take The Biden administration, like previous ones, defended the law, citing historical precedents that define ICWA's classifications based on tribal connections rather than race. The court agreed with the tribes, leaving the law intact. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

US Supreme Court upholds law ensuring protections to Native American children in adoption

<p>The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case regarding the use of the phrase “Trump too small” by a California man as a trademark. The man, named Steve Elster, wants to trademark the phrase, generally used to mock former US president Donald Trump, to put it on T-shirts. However, US Justice Department is of the opinion that the use of the phrase without Trump’s consent will amount to a breach of his privacy rights.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Elster applied for the trademark back in 2018. However, his application was then rejected by the trademark office. Later, the agency’s in-house tribunal also upheld the decision made by the trademark office.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit repealed the ruling last year, paving the way for the trademark to be issued. Now, the Justice Department has taken the matter to the Supreme Court. It must be noted that Trump is not personally involved in the case.</p>

<h2><strong>What did the Federal Circuit court say on “Trump too small” controversy?</strong></h2>

<p>Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk last year wrote in his judgement that Elster’s right to free speech outweighed Trump’s right to privacy. The judge added that the rights that restrict the usage of someone’s name for commercial purposes “cannot shield public figures from criticism."&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Will Trump be indicted and arrested?</strong></p>

<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/will-trump-be-indicted-and-arrested-574443/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"The government's attempt to burden political speech - by granting public figures a monopoly over speech about them in the marketplace - is indefensible," an attorney for Elster was quoted as saying by Reuters.</p>

<h2><strong>How did the phrase “Trump too small” originate?</strong></h2>

<p>The phrase refers to a well-known incident during the 2016 presidential campaign involving Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential rival in 2016 and a Senator from Florida.</p>

<p>Rubio initiated the exchange by mocking Trump at a rally, claiming that Trump always referred to him as "little Marco" but pointed out that despite Trump's claim of being 6 feet 3 inches tall, he had unusually small hands. Rubio hinted at the stereotype that men with small hands may have other inadequacies.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-lawyers-visit-justice-department-over-secret-documents-probe-reports-601029"><strong>Also read:&nbsp;Trump lawyers visit Justice Department over secret documents probe: Reports&nbsp;</strong></a></p>

<p>Trump later responded to Rubio's comments during a televised debate on March 3, 2016. He defended the size of his hands and indirectly addressed the insinuation made by Rubio, stating, "Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands — if they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee you."</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case regarding the use of the phrase “Trump too small” by a California man as a trademark. The man, named Steve Elster, wants to trademark the phrase, generally used to mock former US president Donald Trump, to put it on T-shirts.

The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case regarding the use of the phrase “Trump too small” by a California man as a trademark. The man, named Steve Elster, wants to trademark the phrase, generally used to mock former US president Donald Trump, to put it on T-shirts. However, US Justice Department is of the opinion that the use of the phrase without Trump’s consent will amount to a breach of his privacy rights. Elster applied for the trademark back in 2018. However, his application was then rejected by the trademark office. Later, the agency’s in-house tribunal also upheld the decision made by the trademark office. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit repealed the ruling last year, paving the way for the trademark to be issued. Now, the Justice Department has taken the matter to the Supreme Court. It must be noted that Trump is not personally involved in the case. What did the Federal Circuit court say on “Trump too small” controversy? Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk last year wrote in his judgement that Elster’s right to free speech outweighed Trump’s right to privacy. The judge added that the rights that restrict the usage of someone’s name for commercial purposes “cannot shield public figures from criticism." Watch: Will Trump be indicted and arrested? × "The government's attempt to burden political speech - by granting public figures a monopoly over speech about them in the marketplace - is indefensible," an attorney for Elster was quoted as saying by Reuters. How did the phrase “Trump too small” originate? The phrase refers to a well-known incident during the 2016 presidential campaign involving Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential rival in 2016 and a Senator from Florida. Rubio initiated the exchange by mocking Trump at a rally, claiming that Trump always referred to him as "little Marco" but pointed out that despite Trump's claim of being 6 feet 3 inches tall, he had unusually small hands. Rubio hinted at the stereotype that men with small hands may have other inadequacies. Also read: Trump lawyers visit Justice Department over secret documents probe: Reports Trump later responded to Rubio's comments during a televised debate on March 3, 2016. He defended the size of his hands and indirectly addressed the insinuation made by Rubio, stating, "Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands — if they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee you." WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

US Supreme Court to decide whether 'Trump too small' phrase can be trademarked

<p>US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of Google, Meta and Twitter, stating that the social media giants cannot be held responsible for posts carrying content supportive of terrorist groups such as Islamic State (ISIS). Two cases were filed by a US victim of the 2015 Paris attacks while the third case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 attack by ISIS group on an Istanbul nightclub. The justices noted that the cases against social media companies did not amount to a liable infraction.</p>

<h2><strong>Court refused to recommend changes to Section 230</strong></h2>

<p>The victims of the terrorist attacks who filed cases against social media companies were seeking changes to a law called Section 230, which gives online platforms blanket immunity from liabilities arising from third-party content on their sites. The immunity prevails even if the platform recommends offensive content to its users.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Section 230 became law in 1996 and was meant to uphold the freedom of speech in the United States. However, experts are increasingly crediting the law for the increase in hateful content on social media platforms.</p>

<h2><strong>Big relief to social media companies</strong></h2>

<p>The judgment on Thursday came as a big relief to social media companies. They believe that without the protective immunity from Section 230, the websites will be open to lawsuits for content posted by users. An association representing US tech companies said the decision was good news.</p>

<p>"The court correctly recognised the narrow posture of these cases and declined to rewrite a key tenet of US Internet law, preserving free expression online and a thriving digital economy,” said Matt Schruers, head of the Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association.</p>

<h2><strong>What’s the US Congress doing?</strong></h2>

<p>Congress is heavily divided on the issue, and it has failed to update the rules to combat advanced challenges. However, different US states have passed laws to hold TikTok, Meta, Twitter and YouTube liable for content that appears on their site.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/openai-ceo-testifies-before-us-congress-calls-regulation-of-artificial-intelligence-critical-593057"><strong>Also Read |&nbsp;OpenAI CEO testifies before US Congress, calls regulation of artificial intelligence ‘critical’</strong></a></p>

<p>The Biden administration last year urged the US Supreme Court to hold social media companies accountable for promoting harmful content and sided with a family seeking to sue Alphabet Inc.’s Google over a terrorist attack. However, over the past three years, the administration has failed to enact any such law that would allow victims of terrorism to pursue legal battles against the social media giants.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of Google, Meta and Twitter, stating that the social media giants cannot be held responsible for posts carrying content supportive of terrorist groups such as Islamic State (ISIS).

US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of Google, Meta and Twitter, stating that the social media giants cannot be held responsible for posts carrying content supportive of terrorist groups such as Islamic State (ISIS). Two cases were filed by a US victim of the 2015 Paris attacks while the third case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 attack by ISIS group on an Istanbul nightclub. The justices noted that the cases against social media companies did not amount to a liable infraction. Court refused to recommend changes to Section 230 The victims of the terrorist attacks who filed cases against social media companies were seeking changes to a law called Section 230, which gives online platforms blanket immunity from liabilities arising from third-party content on their sites. The immunity prevails even if the platform recommends offensive content to its users. Section 230 became law in 1996 and was meant to uphold the freedom of speech in the United States. However, experts are increasingly crediting the law for the increase in hateful content on social media platforms. Big relief to social media companies The judgment on Thursday came as a big relief to social media companies. They believe that without the protective immunity from Section 230, the websites will be open to lawsuits for content posted by users. An association representing US tech companies said the decision was good news. "The court correctly recognised the narrow posture of these cases and declined to rewrite a key tenet of US Internet law, preserving free expression online and a thriving digital economy,” said Matt Schruers, head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. What’s the US Congress doing? Congress is heavily divided on the issue, and it has failed to update the rules to combat advanced challenges. However, different US states have passed laws to hold TikTok, Meta, Twitter and YouTube liable for content that appears on their site. Also Read | OpenAI CEO testifies before US Congress, calls regulation of artificial intelligence ‘critical’ The Biden administration last year urged the US Supreme Court to hold social media companies accountable for promoting harmful content and sided with a family seeking to sue Alphabet Inc.’s Google over a terrorist attack. However, over the past three years, the administration has failed to enact any such law that would allow victims of terrorism to pursue legal battles against the social media giants. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Social media companies not liable for promoting pro-ISIS content, rules US Supreme Court

<p>An activist with interests in the court judgements to be delivered by US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas's wife, Washington Post reported. Thomas is now under renewed scrutiny for the alleged instructions dispelled to ensure his wife was not named.</p>

<p>The report published on Thursday outlines instances in which activist Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-clarence-thomas-accepted-luxury-travel-trips-from-billionaire-republican-report-579998">US judge Clarence Thomas accepted luxury travel trips from billionaire Republican: Report</a></strong></p>

<p>Citing documents it had obtained, the Washington Post reported that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas. At one point, the paperwork associated with the transaction stated "no mention of Ginni, of course."</p>

<p><strong>ALSO WATCH |&nbsp;US democrats preparing bill to limit SC judges' term</strong></p>

<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-democrats-preparing-bill-to-limit-sc-judges-term-330089/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The report is the latest in a stream of similar stories that have scrutinised the ethics of US Supreme Court justices.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Last month, ProPublica revealed entanglements between Clarence Thomas and the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel from Crow and at one point participated in a real estate deal with the billionaire, without fully disclosing these associations, ProPublica reported.</p>

<p>Prior to that, Politico reported that Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by former US President Donald Trump, profited from the sale of a home to the executive of a law firm involved in cases the panel was considering.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Reports in the US media have claimed that the Supreme Court swung firmly to the right after Trump elevated Gorsuch and two other judges widely perceived to be conservatives to the Supreme Court.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Last year, that group together with Thomas and fellow conservative justice Samuel Alito voted to overturn Roe vs Wade and allow states to ban abortion entirely.</p>

<p>Democrats have cried foul over the recent reports about justice’s ethics. The senate judiciary committee this week held a hearing to examine whether Congress should impose a code of conduct on the nation’s highest court. The committee’s chair, Dick Durbin, invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify, but he declined. Roberts instead sent along a statement signed by all nine justices to "reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe."</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


An activist with interests in the court judgements to be delivered by US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas's wife, Washington Post reported.

An activist with interests in the court judgements to be delivered by US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas's wife, Washington Post reported. Thomas is now under renewed scrutiny for the alleged instructions dispelled to ensure his wife was not named. The report published on Thursday outlines instances in which activist Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. ALSO READ | US judge Clarence Thomas accepted luxury travel trips from billionaire Republican: Report Citing documents it had obtained, the Washington Post reported that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas. At one point, the paperwork associated with the transaction stated "no mention of Ginni, of course." ALSO WATCH | US democrats preparing bill to limit SC judges' term × The report is the latest in a stream of similar stories that have scrutinised the ethics of US Supreme Court justices. Last month, ProPublica revealed entanglements between Clarence Thomas and the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel from Crow and at one point participated in a real estate deal with the billionaire, without fully disclosing these associations, ProPublica reported. Prior to that, Politico reported that Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by former US President Donald Trump, profited from the sale of a home to the executive of a law firm involved in cases the panel was considering. Reports in the US media have claimed that the Supreme Court swung firmly to the right after Trump elevated Gorsuch and two other judges widely perceived to be conservatives to the Supreme Court. Last year, that group together with Thomas and fellow conservative justice Samuel Alito voted to overturn Roe vs Wade and allow states to ban abortion entirely. Democrats have cried foul over the recent reports about justice’s ethics. The senate judiciary committee this week held a hearing to examine whether Congress should impose a code of conduct on the nation’s highest court. The committee’s chair, Dick Durbin, invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify, but he declined. Roberts instead sent along a statement signed by all nine justices to "reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

'No mention of Ginny': US Supreme Court judge accused of corruption

<p>The US Supreme Court on April 21, preserved the access to a commonly used abortion pill, marking a significant moment of respite for abortion rights in the country. The court has ruled that the drug can remain available until a different&nbsp;appealed case in the matter reaches its conclusion.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court blocked the restrictions on drug's use set by a&nbsp;judge in Texas in the latest fierce legal battle over abortion rights in the United States.</p>

<p>The justices, in a brief order, granted emergency requests by the Justice Department and the pill's manufacturer Danco Laboratories to put on hold an April 7 preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;Abortion rights supporters protest in two US states</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/abortion-rights-supporters-protest-in-two-us-states-582993/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The judge's order would greatly limit the availability of mifepristone while litigation proceeds in a challenge by anti-abortion groups to its federal regulatory approval.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-temporarily-preserves-full-access-to-abortion-pill-582593">US Supreme Court temporarily preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone</a></strong></p>

<p>Biden said in a statement issued by the White House, "As a result of the Supreme Court's stay, mifepristone remains available and approved for safe and effective use while we continue this fight in the courts."</p>

<p>"The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically driven attacks on women's health," Biden added.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, two Justices Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the decision.</p>

<p>Alito, in a brief opinion, wrote that the administration and Danco "are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim."</p>

<p>The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. agency that signs off on the safety of food products, drugs and medical devices, approved mifepristone in 2000. The current case could undercut federal regulatory authority over drug safety.</p>

<p>Biden's administration is seeking to defend mifepristone in the face of mounting abortion bans and restrictions enacted by Republican-led states since the Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalised the procedure nationwide.</p>

<p>"I continue to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and my administration will continue to defend FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs," Biden said.</p>

<p>Mifepristone is taken with another drug called misoprostol to perform medication abortion, which accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States. The drug also has other uses, such as the management of miscarriages.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The US Supreme Court on April 21, preserved the access to a commonly used abortion pill, marking a significant moment of respite for abortion rights in the country.

The US Supreme Court on April 21, preserved the access to a commonly used abortion pill, marking a significant moment of respite for abortion rights in the country. The court has ruled that the drug can remain available until a different appealed case in the matter reaches its conclusion. The Supreme Court blocked the restrictions on drug's use set by a judge in Texas in the latest fierce legal battle over abortion rights in the United States. The justices, in a brief order, granted emergency requests by the Justice Department and the pill's manufacturer Danco Laboratories to put on hold an April 7 preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas. ALSO READ | Abortion rights supporters protest in two US states × The judge's order would greatly limit the availability of mifepristone while litigation proceeds in a challenge by anti-abortion groups to its federal regulatory approval. ALSO READ | US Supreme Court temporarily preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone Biden said in a statement issued by the White House, "As a result of the Supreme Court's stay, mifepristone remains available and approved for safe and effective use while we continue this fight in the courts." "The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically driven attacks on women's health," Biden added. Meanwhile, two Justices Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the decision. Alito, in a brief opinion, wrote that the administration and Danco "are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim." The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. agency that signs off on the safety of food products, drugs and medical devices, approved mifepristone in 2000. The current case could undercut federal regulatory authority over drug safety. Biden's administration is seeking to defend mifepristone in the face of mounting abortion bans and restrictions enacted by Republican-led states since the Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalised the procedure nationwide. "I continue to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and my administration will continue to defend FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs," Biden said. Mifepristone is taken with another drug called misoprostol to perform medication abortion, which accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States. The drug also has other uses, such as the management of miscarriages. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court preserves abortion drug access amid legal battle

A Christian worker has sued his employer in the U.S. supreme court for being asked to work on Sunday. He accuses the postal service company of religious discrimination. Do your religious beliefs make you more deserving of leaves at work? Molly Gambhir tells you more.

Gravitas: Christian worker refuses to work on Sunday | Religion makes you entitled of leaves?

<p>The United States Supreme Court on Friday (April 14) temporarily preserved full access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone, putting on hold lower court decisions placing restrictions on the drug. According to a report by the news agency AFP, the court issued an administrative stay freezing rulings until Wednesday (April 19) to allow for parties to submit their arguments</p>

<p>The stay, signed by Justice Samuel Alito, asked for parties to submit their briefs by Tuesday (April 18).&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/floridas-republican-governor-ron-desantis-signs-six-week-abortion-ban-bill-582455">Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signs six-week abortion ban bill</a></strong></p>

<p>Friday's decision comes after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to block the lower court rulings that would have banned or limited the use of mifepristone from 5 GMT on Saturday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In its emergency filing, the Justice Department argued that the lower court orders would upend the status quo and scramble the complex regulatory regime governing mifepristone.</p>

<p>"That disruptive result would profoundly harm women, the nation's healthcare system, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and the public interest," the filing added.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The legal battle started last week when a conservative federal judge in Texas ordered a nationwide ban on mifepristone, in response to a lawsuit by an anti-abortion coalition challenging the FDA's approval of the pill in 2000. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk adopted language used by abortion opponents, saying mifepristone was used to kill the unborn human.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Apart from the Justice Department, Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, asked the Supreme Court in a separate filing to stay the lower courts' rulings pending an appeal, saying they risked creating "regulatory chaos across the country."</p>

<p>Danco Laboratories noted that a separate federal court in Washington ruled in response to a suit by 17 Democratic-ruled US states that access to mifepristone should be maintained, AFP reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><br />
<strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong><br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


The United States Supreme Court on Friday (April 14) temporarily preserved full access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone, putting on hold lower court decisions placing restrictions on the drug.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (April 14) temporarily preserved full access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone, putting on hold lower court decisions placing restrictions on the drug. According to a report by the news agency AFP, the court issued an administrative stay freezing rulings until Wednesday (April 19) to allow for parties to submit their arguments The stay, signed by Justice Samuel Alito, asked for parties to submit their briefs by Tuesday (April 18). ALSO READ | Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signs six-week abortion ban bill Friday's decision comes after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to block the lower court rulings that would have banned or limited the use of mifepristone from 5 GMT on Saturday. In its emergency filing, the Justice Department argued that the lower court orders would upend the status quo and scramble the complex regulatory regime governing mifepristone. "That disruptive result would profoundly harm women, the nation's healthcare system, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and the public interest," the filing added. The legal battle started last week when a conservative federal judge in Texas ordered a nationwide ban on mifepristone, in response to a lawsuit by an anti-abortion coalition challenging the FDA's approval of the pill in 2000. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk adopted language used by abortion opponents, saying mifepristone was used to kill the unborn human. Apart from the Justice Department, Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, asked the Supreme Court in a separate filing to stay the lower courts' rulings pending an appeal, saying they risked creating "regulatory chaos across the country." Danco Laboratories noted that a separate federal court in Washington ruled in response to a suit by 17 Democratic-ruled US states that access to mifepristone should be maintained, AFP reported. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court temporarily preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidB5KugeqWNNUE" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidB5KugeqWNNUE" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>In what comes as a first, the southern US state of Arkansas will be building a monument to mark the abortions performed in the state before Roe vs Wade was overturned last year. Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved Senate Bill 307, allowing for the construction of a “monument to the unborn” near the state’s Capitol grounds.</p>

<p>The said structure will be built using donations received by the "Monument to Unborn Children Display Fund". Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission, in collaboration with several anti-abortion groups, will choose the artists and oversee the design of the monument.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bill sponsored by GOP Senator Kim Hammer claimed that the state of Arkansas failed to protect the lives of unborn children from 1973 until last year when the US Supreme Court took the historical reversal.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“As a memorial to the lives lost from 1973 to 2022 due to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and as a constant reminder of our duty to protect the life of every innocent human person, no matter how young or old, or how helpless and vulnerable that person may be, it is the intent of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas to enact the Monument to Unborn Children Display Act...and the Monument to Unborn Children Display Fund,” read the transcript of the bill, now signed into law.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-a-first-five-pregnant-women-sue-the-state-of-texas-over-abortion-ban-569481" target="_blank"><strong>Read more: In a first, five pregnant women sue the state of Texas over abortion ban</strong></a></p>

<p>The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court in June last year declared that individual states can now legalise or restrict the procedure on their own, overturning the historic "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that established a woman's right to an abortion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Since then, Arkansas, a historically Red state has banned abortions, unless the procedure is extremely necessary to save the pregnant women's life. It does not provide exceptions for those impregnated in an act of rape or incest.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-rights-491507"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Gravitas: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights</strong></a></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-rights-491507/embed" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Though most GOP leaders have shown support for the monument, some anti-abortion Republicans like Steve Unger argued that building the monument will only polarise both sides.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“Public memorials to our nation’s wars where we face an external threat are right and proper. A memorial to an ongoing culture war where we seem to be shooting at each other is not," he was quoted as saying by ABC.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In what comes as a first, the southern US state of Arkansas will be building a monument to mark the abortions performed in the state before Roe vs Wade was overturned last year.

In what comes as a first, the southern US state of Arkansas will be building a monument to mark the abortions performed in the state before Roe vs Wade was overturned last year. Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved Senate Bill 307, allowing for the construction of a “monument to the unborn” near the state’s Capitol grounds. The said structure will be built using donations received by the "Monument to Unborn Children Display Fund". Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission, in collaboration with several anti-abortion groups, will choose the artists and oversee the design of the monument. The bill sponsored by GOP Senator Kim Hammer claimed that the state of Arkansas failed to protect the lives of unborn children from 1973 until last year when the US Supreme Court took the historical reversal. “As a memorial to the lives lost from 1973 to 2022 due to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and as a constant reminder of our duty to protect the life of every innocent human person, no matter how young or old, or how helpless and vulnerable that person may be, it is the intent of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas to enact the Monument to Unborn Children Display Act...and the Monument to Unborn Children Display Fund,” read the transcript of the bill, now signed into law. Read more: In a first, five pregnant women sue the state of Texas over abortion ban The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court in June last year declared that individual states can now legalise or restrict the procedure on their own, overturning the historic "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that established a woman's right to an abortion. Since then, Arkansas, a historically Red state has banned abortions, unless the procedure is extremely necessary to save the pregnant women's life. It does not provide exceptions for those impregnated in an act of rape or incest. WATCH | Gravitas: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights Though most GOP leaders have shown support for the monument, some anti-abortion Republicans like Steve Unger argued that building the monument will only polarise both sides. “Public memorials to our nation’s wars where we face an external threat are right and proper. A memorial to an ongoing culture war where we seem to be shooting at each other is not," he was quoted as saying by ABC. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

This US state has approved construction of monument dedicated to aborted fetuses

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidxTftoouoL92I" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>In what comes as a first, five pregnant women who were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives have sued the state of Texas in the US. Center for Reproductive Rights has backed the lawsuit filed and it is the first time that pregnant women have decided to take legal action themselves against the restrictive abortion practices, according to a New York Times report.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court in June last year declared that individual states can now legalise or restrict the procedure on their own, overturning the historic "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that established a woman's right to an abortion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Since then, Texas, a historically Red state has banned abortions, barring a few exceptions which a physician determines on his sole authority. In the suit, the women have asked the court to clearly clarify what are the exceptions and under what conditions abortion can be granted to one.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/louisiana-woman-carrying-skull-less-foetus-travels-over-2000-km-to-new-york-to-get-abortion-516256"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;</strong></a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/louisiana-woman-carrying-skull-less-foetus-travels-over-2000-km-to-new-york-to-get-abortion-516256" target="_blank"><strong>Louisiana woman carrying skull-less foetus travels over 2,000 km to New York for abortion</strong></a></p>

<p>Two of the women who sought abortion had fetuses with no skull and yet they were not granted abortion despite scurrying across state borders to seek treatment. Amanda Zurawski, one of the plaintiffs added that the back-and-forth caused tremendous damage to her body. She became septic twice and her fallopian tubes have been permanently closed due to scar tissue.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“You don’t think you’re somebody who’s going to need an abortion, let alone an abortion to save my life. If anybody reads my story, I don’t care where they are on the political spectrum, very few people would agree there is anything pro-life about this," Zurawski was quoted as saying by the publication.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-rights-491507"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Gravitas: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights</strong></a></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-rights-491507/embed" width="560"></iframe></p>

<p>Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, named as a defendant in the suit has been&nbsp;a staunch advocate of no&nbsp;abortion practices in the state.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“We’re not going to allow left-wing bureaucrats in Washington to transform our hospitals and emergency rooms into walk-in abortion clinics," he said last year when the court passed its decision.&nbsp;</p>

<p>After the five women filed the lawsuit, Paxton's office released a statement and reiterated the same position,&nbsp;“Now that the Supreme Court has finally overturned Roe, I will do everything in my power to protect mothers, families, and unborn children, and to uphold the state laws duly enacted by the Texas Legislature.”</p>

<p>The women are not challenging to overturn state ban on abortion, albeit they simply want transparency on the conditions when a physician can deem the woman fit for an abortion - when it is clear the pregnancy poses a danger to her body.&nbsp;</p>

<p>According to experts, the US Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade goes against a global trend that has seen abortion restrictions loosen up, particularly in nations like India, Ireland, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia where the Catholic Church continues to have significant sway.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In what comes as a first, five pregnant women who were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives have sued the state of Texas in the US. Center for Reproductive Rights has backed the lawsuit filed and it is the first time that pregnant women have decided to take legal action themselves against the restrictive abortion practices, according to a New York Times report.

In what comes as a first, five pregnant women who were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives have sued the state of Texas in the US. Center for Reproductive Rights has backed the lawsuit filed and it is the first time that pregnant women have decided to take legal action themselves against the restrictive abortion practices, according to a New York Times report. The conservative-dominated US Supreme Court in June last year declared that individual states can now legalise or restrict the procedure on their own, overturning the historic "Roe v. Wade" ruling from 1973 that established a woman's right to an abortion. Since then, Texas, a historically Red state has banned abortions, barring a few exceptions which a physician determines on his sole authority. In the suit, the women have asked the court to clearly clarify what are the exceptions and under what conditions abortion can be granted to one. Read more: Louisiana woman carrying skull-less foetus travels over 2,000 km to New York for abortion Two of the women who sought abortion had fetuses with no skull and yet they were not granted abortion despite scurrying across state borders to seek treatment. Amanda Zurawski, one of the plaintiffs added that the back-and-forth caused tremendous damage to her body. She became septic twice and her fallopian tubes have been permanently closed due to scar tissue. “You don’t think you’re somebody who’s going to need an abortion, let alone an abortion to save my life. If anybody reads my story, I don’t care where they are on the political spectrum, very few people would agree there is anything pro-life about this," Zurawski was quoted as saying by the publication. WATCH | Gravitas: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, named as a defendant in the suit has been a staunch advocate of no abortion practices in the state. “We’re not going to allow left-wing bureaucrats in Washington to transform our hospitals and emergency rooms into walk-in abortion clinics," he said last year when the court passed its decision. After the five women filed the lawsuit, Paxton's office released a statement and reiterated the same position, “Now that the Supreme Court has finally overturned Roe, I will do everything in my power to protect mothers, families, and unborn children, and to uphold the state laws duly enacted by the Texas Legislature.” The women are not challenging to overturn state ban on abortion, albeit they simply want transparency on the conditions when a physician can deem the woman fit for an abortion - when it is clear the pregnancy poses a danger to her body. According to experts, the US Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade goes against a global trend that has seen abortion restrictions loosen up, particularly in nations like India, Ireland, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia where the Catholic Church continues to have significant sway. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

In a first, five pregnant women sue the state of Texas over abortion ban

<p>The justices of the US Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments to decide the fate of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The nine justices are weighing the Biden administration's appeal of two lower court rulings blocking the policy that he announced last August in legal challenges brought by six conservative-leaning states and two student loan borrowers opposed to the plan's eligibility requirements.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Under the Democratic president's plan, the US government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who took out loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education. It would also write off $20,000 for each recipients of Pell grants awarded to students from lower-income families.</p>

<p>About 26 million people have applied for debt forgiveness, and 16 million applications have been approved. However, because of court rulings, all the relief is on hold. The Education Department stopped taking applications in November because of legal challenges to the plan.</p>

<p>According to a report in Reuters, hundreds of demonstrators jammed the sidewalk in front of the court building, rallying in favor of Biden's relief plan. In a message posted on Twitter, Biden wrote, "The relief is critical to over 40 million Americans as they recover from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. We're confident it's legal."&nbsp;</p>

<p>The policy, intended to ease the financial burden on debt-saddled borrowers, could face scrutiny by the court under the so-called major questions doctrine.</p>

<p><strong>ALSO READ:</strong> |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-on-way-to-become-the-most-evasive-president-in-us-history-report-566880">Joe Biden on his way to becoming the most evasive president in US history: Report</a></p>

<p>Biden's administration has said the plan is authorised under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, that allows student loan debt relief during wartime or national emergencies.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Many borrowers experienced financial strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, a declared public health emergency. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the legal challenge brought by individual borrowers Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, Texas-based US District Judge Mark Pittman ruled the student loan forgiveness program lacked "clear congressional authorisation." The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Pittman's decision on hold pending appeal.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The justices of the US Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments to decide the fate of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers.

The justices of the US Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments to decide the fate of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers. The nine justices are weighing the Biden administration's appeal of two lower court rulings blocking the policy that he announced last August in legal challenges brought by six conservative-leaning states and two student loan borrowers opposed to the plan's eligibility requirements. Under the Democratic president's plan, the US government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who took out loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education. It would also write off $20,000 for each recipients of Pell grants awarded to students from lower-income families. About 26 million people have applied for debt forgiveness, and 16 million applications have been approved. However, because of court rulings, all the relief is on hold. The Education Department stopped taking applications in November because of legal challenges to the plan. According to a report in Reuters, hundreds of demonstrators jammed the sidewalk in front of the court building, rallying in favor of Biden's relief plan. In a message posted on Twitter, Biden wrote, "The relief is critical to over 40 million Americans as they recover from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. We're confident it's legal." The policy, intended to ease the financial burden on debt-saddled borrowers, could face scrutiny by the court under the so-called major questions doctrine. ALSO READ: | Joe Biden on his way to becoming the most evasive president in US history: Report Biden's administration has said the plan is authorised under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, that allows student loan debt relief during wartime or national emergencies. Many borrowers experienced financial strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, a declared public health emergency. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act. In the legal challenge brought by individual borrowers Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, Texas-based US District Judge Mark Pittman ruled the student loan forgiveness program lacked "clear congressional authorisation." The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Pittman's decision on hold pending appeal. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

US Supreme Court hears arguments on Biden's student debt relief plan

<p>Conservative US&nbsp;Supreme Court justices on Tuesday (February 28) signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers, with the fate of his policy that fulfilled a campaign promise hanging in the balance.</p>

<p>The nine justices heard arguments in appeals by Biden's administration of two lower court rulings blocking the policy that he unveiled last August in legal challenges by six conservative-leaning states and two individual student loan borrowers opposed to the plan's eligibility requirements.</p>

<p>Under the plan, the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who took out loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants awarded to students from lower-income families.</p>

<p>U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of Biden's administration, faced skeptical questions from conservative justices including John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh about the legal underpinning of the policy and its fairness.</p>

<p>Roberts, the chief justice, questioned whether the scale of the relief could be considered a mere modification of an existing student loan program, as allowed under the law the administration cited as authorizing it.</p>

<p>"We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of 'modify'?" Roberts asked.</p>

<p>The policy, intended to ease the financial burden on debt-saddled borrowers, faced scrutiny by the court under the so-called major questions doctrine. Its 6-3 conservative majority has employed this muscular judicial approach to invalidate major Biden policies deemed lacking clear congressional authorization.</p>

<p>Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted the high-dollar amount at issue.</p>

<p>"How do you deal with that?" Sotomayor asked Prelogar. "That seems to favor the argument that this is a major question."</p>

<p>Questioned by Alito about whether a member of Congress would consider this policy a major question, Prelogar said, "Of course, we acknowledge that this is an economically significant action. But I think that can't possibly be the sole measure for triggering application of the major questions doctrine."</p>

<p>Prelogar said that "national policies these days frequently do involve more substantial costs or trigger political controversy." Prelogar added that Biden's plan "is not an assertion of regulatory authority at all. This is the administration of a benefits program."</p>

<p>A 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, authorizes the U.S. education secretary to "waive or modify" student financial assistance during war or national emergencies."</p>

<p>Many borrowers experienced financial strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, a declared public health emergency. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act.</p>

<p>The program fulfilled Biden's 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Republicans called it an overreach of his authority.</p>

<p>The states that challenged it were Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina. The individual borrowers were Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor.</p>

<p><strong>Also watch| Biden administration extends student loan payment pause till June amid a legal battle</strong></p>

<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/economists-say-bidens-student-loan-waiver-can-worsen-already-high-inflation-511249/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Roberts told Prelogar the case reminded him of Trump's effort - blocked by the Supreme Court - to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often called "Dreamers," who entered the United States illegally as children.</p>

<p>"This is a case that presents extraordinarily serious, important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that - significant enough that the major questions doctrine ought to be considered implicated?" Roberts asked.</p>

<p>Kavanaugh said Congress, in the HEROES Act, did not specifically authorize loan cancellation or forgiveness and that Biden's administration pursued a "massive new program."</p>

<p>"That seems problematic," Kavanaugh said.</p>

<p>Hundreds of demonstrators including borrowers rallied in favor of Biden's relief plan outside the court. Biden wrote on Twitter, "The relief is critical to over 40 million Americans as they recover from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. We're confident it's legal."</p>

<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-administration-extends-student-loan-payment-pause-till-june-amid-a-legal-battle-536609">Biden administration extends student loan payment pause till June amid a legal battle</a></strong></p>

<p>Some Republicans have attacked Biden's plan as unfair because it benefits certain Americans - college-educated borrowers - and not other people.</p>

<p>“Why was it fair to the people who didn't get arguably comparable relief? Now it may be that their interests were outweighed by the interests of those who were benefited or they were somehow less deserve deserving of solicitude. But what is your answer to that question?” Justice Alito asked.</p>

<p>Prelogar responded to such "fairness" concerns raised by conservative justices by saying that "you can make that critique of every prior" government relief to various Americans under the HEROES Act.</p>

<p>The liberal justices raised doubts that the state challengers had the proper legal standing to bring their lawsuit based on the claim that Biden's plan would harm Missouri-based student loan servicer known as the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA). They noted MOHELA did not itself bring the lawsuit.</p>

<p>The court's rulings on the matter are due by the end of June.</p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


Conservative US Supreme Court justices on Tuesday (February 28) signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers, with the fate of his policy that fulfilled a campaign promise hanging in the balance.

Conservative US Supreme Court justices on Tuesday (February 28) signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers, with the fate of his policy that fulfilled a campaign promise hanging in the balance. The nine justices heard arguments in appeals by Biden's administration of two lower court rulings blocking the policy that he unveiled last August in legal challenges by six conservative-leaning states and two individual student loan borrowers opposed to the plan's eligibility requirements. Under the plan, the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who took out loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants awarded to students from lower-income families. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of Biden's administration, faced skeptical questions from conservative justices including John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh about the legal underpinning of the policy and its fairness. Roberts, the chief justice, questioned whether the scale of the relief could be considered a mere modification of an existing student loan program, as allowed under the law the administration cited as authorizing it. "We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of 'modify'?" Roberts asked. The policy, intended to ease the financial burden on debt-saddled borrowers, faced scrutiny by the court under the so-called major questions doctrine. Its 6-3 conservative majority has employed this muscular judicial approach to invalidate major Biden policies deemed lacking clear congressional authorization. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor also noted the high-dollar amount at issue. "How do you deal with that?" Sotomayor asked Prelogar. "That seems to favor the argument that this is a major question." Questioned by Alito about whether a member of Congress would consider this policy a major question, Prelogar said, "Of course, we acknowledge that this is an economically significant action. But I think that can't possibly be the sole measure for triggering application of the major questions doctrine." Prelogar said that "national policies these days frequently do involve more substantial costs or trigger political controversy." Prelogar added that Biden's plan "is not an assertion of regulatory authority at all. This is the administration of a benefits program." A 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, authorizes the U.S. education secretary to "waive or modify" student financial assistance during war or national emergencies." Many borrowers experienced financial strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, a declared public health emergency. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act. The program fulfilled Biden's 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Republicans called it an overreach of his authority. The states that challenged it were Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina. The individual borrowers were Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor. Also watch| Biden administration extends student loan payment pause till June amid a legal battle × Roberts told Prelogar the case reminded him of Trump's effort - blocked by the Supreme Court - to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often called "Dreamers," who entered the United States illegally as children. "This is a case that presents extraordinarily serious, important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that - significant enough that the major questions doctrine ought to be considered implicated?" Roberts asked. Kavanaugh said Congress, in the HEROES Act, did not specifically authorize loan cancellation or forgiveness and that Biden's administration pursued a "massive new program." "That seems problematic," Kavanaugh said. Hundreds of demonstrators including borrowers rallied in favor of Biden's relief plan outside the court. Biden wrote on Twitter, "The relief is critical to over 40 million Americans as they recover from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. We're confident it's legal." Also read: Biden administration extends student loan payment pause till June amid a legal battle Some Republicans have attacked Biden's plan as unfair because it benefits certain Americans - college-educated borrowers - and not other people. “Why was it fair to the people who didn't get arguably comparable relief? Now it may be that their interests were outweighed by the interests of those who were benefited or they were somehow less deserve deserving of solicitude. But what is your answer to that question?” Justice Alito asked. Prelogar responded to such "fairness" concerns raised by conservative justices by saying that "you can make that critique of every prior" government relief to various Americans under the HEROES Act. The liberal justices raised doubts that the state challengers had the proper legal standing to bring their lawsuit based on the claim that Biden's plan would harm Missouri-based student loan servicer known as the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA). They noted MOHELA did not itself bring the lawsuit. The court's rulings on the matter are due by the end of June. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court conservatives cast doubt over Biden student loan plan

<p>A law that has protected big tech companies in the United States since 1996 from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms is under scrutiny in the US. The country's Supreme Court on Tuesday started with the hearing, debating the law but sounded wary of tinkering with the legal shield.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The particular hearing is related to&nbsp;November 2015 Paris attacks and has been filed&nbsp;by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student at California State University who was in France when the attacks took place. She was one of the 130 victims of the terror attack in the French capital.</p>

<p>The SC heard arguments from US officials, Google and Gonzalez's family during the three-hour-long hearing. The court admitted that the landscape of the internet had changed vastly since the law first came into being, 27 years ago.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The justices also expressed concerns that granting a judgement in favour of&nbsp;Gonzalez's family may open the floodgates for similar litigations against the tech companies.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"You are creating a world of lawsuits.&nbsp;Really anytime you have content, you also have these presentational and prioritisation choices that can be subject to suit," observed&nbsp;Justice Elena Kagan.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A lower court earlier dismissed the plea against Google LLC-owned YouTube. Her family has accused YouTube of recommending videos by extremist groups to users, blaming the tech giant for supporting the radicals in their call for violence. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet Inc. "By recommend[ing] ISIS videos to users, Google assists ISIS in spreading its message and thus provides material support to the ISIS," reads the legal brief.</p>

<p><strong>Section 230 - the law in question</strong></p>

<p>Legal immunity to tech giants under Section 230 has been questioned in the case. This is the first time that the US Supreme Court is hearing a case related to the scope of the law. Under Section 230, internet firms in the US can't be considered as the publishers of the content posted by users. It was passed more than two decades ago when the internet was in its infancy.</p>

<p><strong>Also read: <a href="http://wionews.com/world/utter-failure-us-supreme-court-fails-to-identify-abortion-ruling-leak-culprit-554325">'Utter failure': US Supreme Court fails to identify abortion ruling leak culprit</a></strong></p>

<p>In the appeal, the family of the student has argued that highly complex recommendation systems - that have been perfected by internet giants over time - fall out of the scope of Section 230. The lawsuit has been filed under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that lets Americans recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism," news agency Reuters reported.</p>

<p><strong>Also watch:US Supreme Court probe fails to find Roe V Wade draft leak culprit</strong></p>

<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://wionews.com/videos/us-supreme-court-probe-fails-to-find-roe-v-wade-draft-leak-culprit-554569/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Google and its supporters have opposed the case, as expected, calling it a threat to free speech.</p>

<p><strong>(With inputs from agencies)</strong></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


A law that has protected big tech companies in the United States since 1996 from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms is under scrutiny in the US. The country's Supreme Court on Tuesday started with the hearing, debating the law but sounded wary of tinkering with the legal shield.

A law that has protected big tech companies in the United States since 1996 from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms is under scrutiny in the US. The country's Supreme Court on Tuesday started with the hearing, debating the law but sounded wary of tinkering with the legal shield. The particular hearing is related to November 2015 Paris attacks and has been filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student at California State University who was in France when the attacks took place. She was one of the 130 victims of the terror attack in the French capital. The SC heard arguments from US officials, Google and Gonzalez's family during the three-hour-long hearing. The court admitted that the landscape of the internet had changed vastly since the law first came into being, 27 years ago. The justices also expressed concerns that granting a judgement in favour of Gonzalez's family may open the floodgates for similar litigations against the tech companies. "You are creating a world of lawsuits. Really anytime you have content, you also have these presentational and prioritisation choices that can be subject to suit," observed Justice Elena Kagan. A lower court earlier dismissed the plea against Google LLC-owned YouTube. Her family has accused YouTube of recommending videos by extremist groups to users, blaming the tech giant for supporting the radicals in their call for violence. Google and YouTube are part of Alphabet Inc. "By recommend[ing] ISIS videos to users, Google assists ISIS in spreading its message and thus provides material support to the ISIS," reads the legal brief. Section 230 - the law in question Legal immunity to tech giants under Section 230 has been questioned in the case. This is the first time that the US Supreme Court is hearing a case related to the scope of the law. Under Section 230, internet firms in the US can't be considered as the publishers of the content posted by users. It was passed more than two decades ago when the internet was in its infancy. Also read: 'Utter failure': US Supreme Court fails to identify abortion ruling leak culprit In the appeal, the family of the student has argued that highly complex recommendation systems - that have been perfected by internet giants over time - fall out of the scope of Section 230. The lawsuit has been filed under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that lets Americans recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism," news agency Reuters reported. Also watch:US Supreme Court probe fails to find Roe V Wade draft leak culprit × Google and its supporters have opposed the case, as expected, calling it a threat to free speech. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US Supreme Court wary of removing legal immunity for the tech companies

<p>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the state of New York to enforce its&nbsp;Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) passed in the aftermath of the apex court delivering a&nbsp;landmark ruling expanding gun rights last year.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court rejected a petition filed by a firearms rights group named Gun Owners of America that wanted to overturn the lower court's decision allowing the&nbsp;Democratic-backed gun control law to be enforced.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Notably, in June last year, the Supreme Court in its 6-3&nbsp;judgement allowed individuals the right to carry a gun outside the home in public places. However, a week after the decision,&nbsp;Gov. Kathy Hochul signed&nbsp;CCIA.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-us-supreme-court-expands-gun-rights-as-it-strikes-down-the-new-york-gun-law-491180"><strong>WATCH | The US Supreme Court expands gun rights as it strikes down the New York gun law</strong></a></p>

<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/the-us-supreme-court-expands-gun-rights-as-it-strikes-down-the-new-york-gun-law-491180/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The new legislation modified the requirements to obtain concealed and carry permits. It also prohibited the possession of firearms in certain areas deemed 'sensitive' or restricted, referring to hospitals and schools.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, immediately after, the legislation ran into legal challenges and in October, a US district court judge issued a temporary stay on significant portions of CCIA.</p>

<p>Later, an appeals court blocked the ruling pending further litigation. Wednesday's decision by the SC allows&nbsp;CCIA to remain in force while the legal challenge against it continues to be debated in lower courts.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas in a statement released with the brief order said the decision is not "expressing any view on the merits of the case" and the challengers "should not be deterred."</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-gun-terror-why-is-owning-guns-so-important-to-americans-482074"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;US gun terror: Why is owning guns so important to Americans?</strong></a></p>

<p>Buoyed by the court's parting statement,&nbsp;&nbsp;Erich Pratt, an official from&nbsp;Gun Owners of America said,&nbsp;"We look forward to continuing the fight against New York's draconian law."</p>

<p>Meanwhile,&nbsp;New York state Attorney General Letitia James also praised the court for allowing the law to stay in effect.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Too many New Yorkers are plagued by gun violence, and we know that basic gun laws help save lives every day."</p>

<p>According to a Pew Research Center survey, about four in 10 Americans live in a home with a gun, with 67 per cent of gun owners saying self-protection is a major reason for having a firearm.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the state of New York to enforce its Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) passed in the aftermath of the apex court delivering a landmark ruling expanding gun rights last year.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the state of New York to enforce its Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) passed in the aftermath of the apex court delivering a landmark ruling expanding gun rights last year. The court rejected a petition filed by a firearms rights group named Gun Owners of America that wanted to overturn the lower court's decision allowing the Democratic-backed gun control law to be enforced. Notably, in June last year, the Supreme Court in its 6-3 judgement allowed individuals the right to carry a gun outside the home in public places. However, a week after the decision, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed CCIA. WATCH | The US Supreme Court expands gun rights as it strikes down the New York gun law × The new legislation modified the requirements to obtain concealed and carry permits. It also prohibited the possession of firearms in certain areas deemed 'sensitive' or restricted, referring to hospitals and schools. However, immediately after, the legislation ran into legal challenges and in October, a US district court judge issued a temporary stay on significant portions of CCIA. Later, an appeals court blocked the ruling pending further litigation. Wednesday's decision by the SC allows CCIA to remain in force while the legal challenge against it continues to be debated in lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas in a statement released with the brief order said the decision is not "expressing any view on the merits of the case" and the challengers "should not be deterred." Read more: US gun terror: Why is owning guns so important to Americans? Buoyed by the court's parting statement, Erich Pratt, an official from Gun Owners of America said, "We look forward to continuing the fight against New York's draconian law." Meanwhile, New York state Attorney General Letitia James also praised the court for allowing the law to stay in effect. "Too many New Yorkers are plagued by gun violence, and we know that basic gun laws help save lives every day." According to a Pew Research Center survey, about four in 10 Americans live in a home with a gun, with 67 per cent of gun owners saying self-protection is a major reason for having a firearm. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US Supreme Court allows New York state to enforce new gun control law

In a setback for migrants seeking refuge in the United States, the US Supreme Court has voted to keep Title 42 in place. The Trump-era policy blocked thousands of people from crossing the US-Mexico border. Title 42 gives the US government power automatically expel undocumented migrants seeking entry inside the country.

US: Trump-era migrant policy to stay for now; top court rules to keep Title 42 in place

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