The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 27) issued a decision that will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now. The decision came despite the state's strict ban on the procedure, clearing the way for women experiencing medical emergencies to obtain abortions in the state.&nbsp;

The decision comes two years after the conservative-majority bench overturned the nationwide right to terminate a pregnancy, making reproductive rights a pivotal issue that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election.&nbsp;

The 6-3 decision upheld an earlier court's ruling that, in cases when two statutes conflict, Idaho's nearly complete abortion prohibition must give way to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), a 1986 US law.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/major-us-mobile-carriers-hit-by-third-party-outage-stranding-travelers-abroad-735791">Major US mobile carriers hit by third-party outage, stranding travelers abroad</a>

Notably, a copy of the decision was mistakenly uploaded on the court's website, making it a significant abortion decision that was leaked online ahead of its official publication for the second time in the last two years.&nbsp;

Medical experts have said conditions that could threaten the woman's life and health could require an abortion to stabilise her or avoid seizures, vital organ damage and failure, and more.&nbsp;

The court's decision lifted a block that the justices had placed on the lower court's ruling in January. But the Supreme Court did not resolve the underlying legal dispute.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boeing-says-missing-paperwork-reason-for-alaska-air-incident-safety-regulators-take-action-735783">Boeing says missing paperwork reason for Alaska Air incident; safety regulators take action</a>&nbsp;

Watch:&nbsp;Rules of US Presidential debate explained

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rules-of-us-presidential-debate-explained-735781/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Supreme Court&nbsp;Justice Elena Kagan said, "All of these cases are rare, but within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman is her life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place."&nbsp;

"Now, that's the category of cases in which EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) says, my gosh, of course, the abortion is necessary to assure that no material deterioration occurs. And yet Idaho says, sorry, no abortion here. And the result is that these patients are now helicoptered out of state," Kagan added.&nbsp;

President Joe Biden said, "The stakes could not be higher and the contrast could not be clearer. My administration is committed to defending reproductive freedom and maintains our long-standing position that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need."&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

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

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

US Supreme Court allows emergency abortion access in Idaho for now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in Memphis Unionisation case

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

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

A revelation of&nbsp;the contentious display of an upside-down American flag outside the house of&nbsp;Supreme Court Justice Samuel A Alito Jr in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2021 has erupted into a full-blown controversy, triggering scrutiny about judicial impartiality.

The incident, which came to light following a report by The New York Times, has put the&nbsp;spotlight light on the incident as it came amid the charged political atmosphere following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and fervent debates over the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

The display of an upside-down flag has acquired multifaceted interpretations and amid this backdrop judge&nbsp;Alito is now facing calls of recusal from Trump cases linked to the capitol attack.&nbsp;

According to a Washington Post report, Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Justice Alito, described the flag in 2021 as "an international signal of distress" during a confrontation with a reporter at their home.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gaza-war-hamas-says-it-captured-israeli-soldiers-in-jabalia-israel-denies-725455">Gaza war: Hamas says it captured Israeli soldiers in Jabalia; IDF denies claims</a>

However, at the time, it also appeared to have been described by her as a neighborhood dispute as she shouted&nbsp;“Ask them what they did!”. In a statement to The Washington Post at the time, Justice Alito affirmed his lack of involvement in the incident.&nbsp;

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, adding, “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-army-vessels-supporting-gaza-aid-pier-washed-away-in-heavy-seas-centcom-725451">US Army vessels supporting Gaza aid pier washed away in heavy seas: CENTCOM</a>

While traditionally associated with distress signals in military contexts, the upside-down flag has also been appropriated by various political factions, including supporters of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

The "Stop the Steal" movement supported the unsubstantiated claims by Trump and his supporters that the election was marred by widespread voter fraud and irregularities, ultimately leading to an illegitimate outcome favouring Biden.

<h2>Integrity of judge questioned</h2>

The episode has garnered attention not only due to its implications for the Alito household but also for its potential impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly as it prepares to issue pivotal rulings on cases related to the 2020 election.

Watch |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-hamas-claims-it-has-captured-several-israeli-soldiers-725484">Israel-Hamas War: Hamas claims it has captured several Israeli soldiers</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-hamas-claims-it-has-captured-several-israeli-soldiers-725484/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Calls for Justice Alito's recusal from these cases have escalated, with Democratic lawmakers and legal experts reportedly expressing concerns about perceived bias stemming from his spouse's actions.

Moreover, revelations of a similar flag controversy surrounding the Alitos' vacation home in New Jersey, where a "Appeal to Heaven" flag associated with Christian nationalists was reportedly flown, have added fuel to&nbsp;fire.

(With inputs from agencies)

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Supreme Court appears sceptical about limiting access to abortion pills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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;

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;

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;

Last week, in an interview, Smith claimed he had severe trauma due to the botched execution attempt.&nbsp;

“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.&nbsp;

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;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-botched-35-of-execution-attempts-this-year-543848">Watch | Gravitas: US botched 35% of execution attempts this year</a>

<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>

<h2>How will Smith be executed?</h2>

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;

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)".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/federal-judge-gives-green-light-to-us-first-execution-by-nitrogen-gas-hypoxia-678799">Also read |&nbsp;Federal judge gives green light to first US execution by nitrogen gas&nbsp;</a>

<h2>Who is Kenneth Smith?&nbsp;</h2>

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;

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.

(With inputs from agencies)

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

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:&nbsp;US polls: Donald Trump barred from running for President in Colorado

<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>

&nbsp;
</div>
</div>

Responding to this move, Jack Smith&nbsp;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.

<h2>Win for Donald Trump</h2>

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&nbsp;wind through the appeals process, potentially delaying the trial.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-ally-rudy-giuliani-files-for-bankruptcy-672309">Also read:&nbsp;Trump ally Rudy Giuliani files for bankruptcy</a>

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.

Trump appealed&nbsp;the decision, but US District Judge Tanya Chutkan&nbsp;paused the case.

<h2>Trump’s claims on immunity</h2>

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".

<h2>Jack Smith’s argument</h2>

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)

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

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;

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;

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 |&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>

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;

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 |&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>

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.&nbsp;

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>

<h2>Sidhwaney’s arrest</h2>

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;

(With inputs from agencies)

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

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.&nbsp;

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.&nbsp;

She reportedly flushed and plunged the foetus, which was later found stuck in pipes by police.

<h2>Case reaches jury</h2>

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&nbsp;about the treatment of pregnant women in the country after the overturning of Roe v Wade, especially Black women.

Watch:&nbsp;One year since Roe v. Wade was overturned

<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>

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.

<h2>Predicament for pregnant women</h2>

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.

<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">Also read:&nbsp;Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi</a>

"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."

<h2>What are the abortion laws in Ohio?</h2>

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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;

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.&nbsp;

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;

<h2>What are the arguments?</h2>

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;

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>

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.&nbsp;

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.

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 |&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>

<h2>‘Long shot’</h2>

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;

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. &nbsp;

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>

The former president also faces similar lawsuits brought by advocacy groups in the US states of Michigan and Minnesota.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<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>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

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

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.

<h2>A divided court</h2>

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.&nbsp;

The other two — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are Republican appointees, designated by Republican presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush.&nbsp;

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>

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.&nbsp;

"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?"

<h2>Items on docket</h2>

<h3>Who controls the House of Representatives?</h3>

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 |&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>

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.

<h3>Trump's presidential dreams</h3>

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.

<h3>Gun rights</h3>

In November, the court will address a challenge to a law that prohibits people with a domestic violence order from possessing a firearm.

<h3>Free speech</h3>

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&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.

<h3>Abortion Pill and Transgender Rights</h3>

Other cases that may make the docket are the review of restrictions on a widely used abortion pill and transgender rights.

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

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;

<h2>What did the SCOTUS say?</h2>

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;

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;

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.&nbsp;

<h2>Purdue settlement</h2>

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;

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;

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;

<h2>Purdue responds to court order</h2>

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;

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;

<h2>Plaintiffs respond to the settlement</h2>

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.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<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>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

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

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