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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Supreme Court preserves abortion drug access amid legal battle

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

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

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (April 14) temporarily preserved full access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone, putting on hold lower court decisions placing restrictions on the drug. According to a report by the news agency AFP, the court issued an administrative stay freezing rulings until Wednesday (April 19) to allow for parties to submit their arguments

The stay, signed by Justice Samuel Alito, asked for parties to submit their briefs by Tuesday (April 18).&nbsp;

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/floridas-republican-governor-ron-desantis-signs-six-week-abortion-ban-bill-582455">Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signs six-week abortion ban bill</a>

Friday's decision comes after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to block the lower court rulings that would have banned or limited the use of mifepristone from 5 GMT on Saturday.&nbsp;

In its emergency filing, the Justice Department argued that the lower court orders would upend the status quo and scramble the complex regulatory regime governing mifepristone.

"That disruptive result would profoundly harm women, the nation's healthcare system, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and the public interest," the filing added.&nbsp;

The legal battle started last week when a conservative federal judge in Texas ordered a nationwide ban on mifepristone, in response to a lawsuit by an anti-abortion coalition challenging the FDA's approval of the pill in 2000. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk adopted language used by abortion opponents, saying mifepristone was used to kill the unborn human.&nbsp;

Apart from the Justice Department, Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, asked the Supreme Court in a separate filing to stay the lower courts' rulings pending an appeal, saying they risked creating "regulatory chaos across the country."

Danco Laboratories noted that a separate federal court in Washington ruled in response to a suit by 17 Democratic-ruled US states that access to mifepristone should be maintained, AFP reported.&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 United States Supreme Court on Friday (April 14) temporarily preserved full access to the widely-used abortion pill mifepristone, putting on hold lower court decisions placing restrictions on the drug.

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

US Supreme Court temporarily preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Supreme Court conservatives cast doubt over Biden student loan plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared to rule that a Colorado-based Christian web designer has right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages. The final decision in the matter is yet to be delivered after Monday’s fierce two and a half hour debate in the US Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act bars businesses open to the public from denying goods or services to people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and certain other characteristics.

Colorado’s Rights Vs Discrimination row:&nbsp;What is the matter all about?

The case, 303 Creative Vs. Elenis, is about a Colorado-based website designer named Lorie Smith asserting her right to deny her services to same-sex couples, citing allegiance to her Christian faith. However, Colorado’s public accommodations law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

WATCH -&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-supreme-court-debates-web-designers-anti-gay-marriage-stance-540412">US Supreme Court debates web designer's anti-gay marriage stance</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/us-supreme-court-debates-web-designers-anti-gay-marriage-stance-540412/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Lower courts in the US have ruled in the state of Colorado’s favour so far. But the concerned website designer has put her case up in front of the US top court asking for the reversal of the binding observations of the lower courts. The US Supreme Court’s final decision is expected next year.

What did the Justices say?

Justice Ketanji Brown posed a hypothetical story to assert the tricky nature of the hearing.&nbsp;

Brown said that a photographer in a mall wants to take old time photos of Christmas scenes from the 1940s and 1950s and in those scenes, he only wants to take photos of white children and not kids of colour. “Would that photographer be allowed to do that?,” Justice Brown asked.&nbsp;

The second Justice Elena Kagan said that she had a hard time picturing how a state could require hypothetically, a web designer, like Smith, to create all kinds of wedding websites.

“A gay couple walks in and says, I’d like the standard website, everything standard, but I want something in addition to that, I want the homepage, the website, to say ‘God blesses this union,’ and Ms. Smith says this is a problem,” Kagan said, according to a US Supreme Court brief. “I don’t know, I think that is kind of different.”

What is the overall tilt of the US top court's opinion?

The conservative justices indicated support for Smith's view that businesses offering creative services like web design are protected by the US&nbsp;Constitution's First Amendment guarantee against government abridgment of free speech from being forced to express messages through their work that they oppose. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Public accommodations laws exist in many states, banning discrimination in areas such as housing, hotels, retail businesses, restaurants and educational institutions.

ALSO READ -&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/roe-vs-wade-reversed-us-supreme-court-ends-constitutional-right-to-abortion-491416">Roe vs Wade reversed, US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion</a>

The case gives the Supreme Court's conservatives another chance to exert their power following major recent rulings curbing abortion rights and expanding gun and religious rights.

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=&quot;100%&quot;"></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 US Supreme Court on Monday appeared to rule that a Colorado-based Christian web designer has right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages. The final decision in the matter is yet to be delivered after Monday’s fierce two and a half hour debate in the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared to rule that a Colorado-based Christian web designer has right to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages. The final decision in the matter is yet to be delivered after Monday’s fierce two and a half hour debate in the US Supreme Court. Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act bars businesses open to the public from denying goods or services to people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and certain other characteristics. Colorado’s Rights Vs Discrimination row: What is the matter all about? The case, 303 Creative Vs. Elenis, is about a Colorado-based website designer named Lorie Smith asserting her right to deny her services to same-sex couples, citing allegiance to her Christian faith. However, Colorado’s public accommodations law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. WATCH - US Supreme Court debates web designer's anti-gay marriage stance × Lower courts in the US have ruled in the state of Colorado’s favour so far. But the concerned website designer has put her case up in front of the US top court asking for the reversal of the binding observations of the lower courts. The US Supreme Court’s final decision is expected next year. What did the Justices say? Justice Ketanji Brown posed a hypothetical story to assert the tricky nature of the hearing. Brown said that a photographer in a mall wants to take old time photos of Christmas scenes from the 1940s and 1950s and in those scenes, he only wants to take photos of white children and not kids of colour. “Would that photographer be allowed to do that?,” Justice Brown asked. The second Justice Elena Kagan said that she had a hard time picturing how a state could require hypothetically, a web designer, like Smith, to create all kinds of wedding websites. “A gay couple walks in and says, I’d like the standard website, everything standard, but I want something in addition to that, I want the homepage, the website, to say ‘God blesses this union,’ and Ms. Smith says this is a problem,” Kagan said, according to a US Supreme Court brief. “I don’t know, I think that is kind of different.” What is the overall tilt of the US top court's opinion? The conservative justices indicated support for Smith's view that businesses offering creative services like web design are protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee against government abridgment of free speech from being forced to express messages through their work that they oppose. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Public accommodations laws exist in many states, banning discrimination in areas such as housing, hotels, retail businesses, restaurants and educational institutions. ALSO READ - Roe vs Wade reversed, US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion The case gives the Supreme Court's conservatives another chance to exert their power following major recent rulings curbing abortion rights and expanding gun and religious rights. 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 looks to favour web designer's anti-gay marriage stance

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs.

NBC News reported that the prison staff kept trying to connect the two required intravenous lines connected to Kenneth Eugene Smith, but failed. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told they got one line established but were not able to get the second after trying several locations on Smith’s body. “We went to our protocol of a central line. We were not able to have time to complete that, so we called off the execution,” Hamm said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm comments on the case of Kenneth Smith, who was scheduled to be executed by the state this evening. <a href="https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO">https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO</a>
— Lee Hedgepeth (@lee_hedgepeth) <a href="https://twitter.com/lee_hedgepeth/status/1593481943726817280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Read More:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/alabama-journalist-stopped-from-attending-execution-because-her-skirt-was-too-short-502861">Alabama: Journalist stopped from attending execution because her skirt was ‘too short’</a>

Earlier, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a stay on Smith’s execution, after he filed an appeal before the court. However, the stay was later dismissed by the US Supreme Court at about 10:20 p.m. The state reached the conclusion an hour later that the lethal drug won’t be injected that evening, due to difficulties with establishing an IV.

Now, the state will have to seek a new execution date from the court as the death warrant has expired at Thursday midnight. &nbsp;Idaho Press reported that Smith was one of the two persons convicted of killing Elizabeth Sennett in return for a $1000 prize proffered to him by Elizabeth’s husband. Reportedly, Elizabeth’s spouse was buried in deep debt and wanted to bag the hefty insurance money.

Alabama governor Kay Ivey expressed his disappointment by suggesting that Smith’s last-minute appeals had helped him avert the execution process.

In September too, the state had to call off the execution of Alan Miller because of the same issue. Earlier, the execution of Joe Nathan James had taken several hours to get completed because of problems faced while establishing an IV line.

(With inputs from agencies)

<o:p></o:p>

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>

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs.

Alabama called off a scheduled execution of a man convicted in the 1998 murder-for-hire murder of a preacher’s wife on Thursday after the state authorities faced trouble finding a suitable vein to inject the lethal drugs. NBC News reported that the prison staff kept trying to connect the two required intravenous lines connected to Kenneth Eugene Smith, but failed. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told they got one line established but were not able to get the second after trying several locations on Smith’s body. “We went to our protocol of a central line. We were not able to have time to complete that, so we called off the execution,” Hamm said. Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm comments on the case of Kenneth Smith, who was scheduled to be executed by the state this evening. https://t.co/fy1Q6rgZxO — Lee Hedgepeth (@lee_hedgepeth) November 18, 2022 × Read More: Alabama: Journalist stopped from attending execution because her skirt was ‘too short’ Earlier, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a stay on Smith’s execution, after he filed an appeal before the court. However, the stay was later dismissed by the US Supreme Court at about 10:20 p.m. The state reached the conclusion an hour later that the lethal drug won’t be injected that evening, due to difficulties with establishing an IV. Now, the state will have to seek a new execution date from the court as the death warrant has expired at Thursday midnight. Idaho Press reported that Smith was one of the two persons convicted of killing Elizabeth Sennett in return for a $1000 prize proffered to him by Elizabeth’s husband. Reportedly, Elizabeth’s spouse was buried in deep debt and wanted to bag the hefty insurance money. Alabama governor Kay Ivey expressed his disappointment by suggesting that Smith’s last-minute appeals had helped him avert the execution process. In September too, the state had to call off the execution of Alan Miller because of the same issue. Earlier, the execution of Joe Nathan James had taken several hours to get completed because of problems faced while establishing an IV line. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Alabama calls off murderer's execution after staff fails to find a suitable vein to inject lethal drugs

Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy.&nbsp;

There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court. Other countries have term limits – 10 or 15 years – or compulsory retirement ages.&nbsp;

In the United States, when a vacancy comes up through death or retirement, the president nominates a successor whose confirmation depends on a Senate hearing where nominees are quizzed on their judicial philosophies and world views. &nbsp;

Then, nine non-elected judges have immense power to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, as they did this year when they overruled a constitutional right to abortion granted by a Supreme Court decision dating back almost half a century.&nbsp;

Public confidence in the court plunged to its lowest level ever. Only 25 per cent of adults, according to a Gallup poll, said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court. A sizeable majority of Americans (61 per cent) disagreed with the decision. Does it matter?&nbsp;

The ruling of the court, six of whose judges are conservative, three liberal, triggered demonstrations for and against abortion across the country and features prominently in the heated campaign for next month’s elections which will decide the balance of power in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats hold majorities in both.&nbsp;

Critics of the court saw the decision as more evidence that the United States is deep into an era of distrust and volatility in the legal system of at a time it needs stability in its institutions rather than more venom and tumult.&nbsp;

But Chief Justice John Roberts has shrugged off public anger and diminishing confidence in what was once dubbed the “crown jewel” of America’s justice system. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticising the legitimacy of the court,” he told a judicial conference last month.&nbsp;

A few months earlier, when it became clear that the six Republican-appointed judges on the court were leaning towards abolishing the right to abortion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, one of the three liberals, wondered aloud, “will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its readings are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.”&nbsp;

Those who share such doubts include the Editorial Board of the New York Times which noted that “over the past several years, the court has been transformed into a judicial arm of the Republican Party.” While the court’s rulings had remained largely in line with the views of the average voter for decades, the editorial said, they were now in line with the views of the average Republican voter.&nbsp;

This is far from the role the court is supposed to play – neutral final arbiter of political disagreements. Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts eloquently put it in his 2005 confirmation hearing, the role of "an umpire calling balls and strikes and ensuring a fair playing field for all."&nbsp;

At the time, the balance of judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents was 5-4 and Roberts acted as a moderate swing voter on controversial decisions. The balance now is 6-3 which basically means he lost control of the court.&nbsp;

The “chief” in his title means little apart from a slightly higher salary. His is $280,500; his colleagues' $268,300.&nbsp;

The nine black-robed judges of the court are aware of the public’s diminishing trust in their neutrality, so much so that its newest addition, Amy Coney Barrett, felt compelled to reassure an academic audience that “this court is not comprised of partisan hacks.”&nbsp;

The venue and occasion of her speech inspired doubts about her distance from partisan politics. She appeared at the University of Louisville at an event honouring the US Senate’s Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who played a leading role in her ascent to the court in the final stretch of the presidency of Donald Trump.&nbsp;

Then leader of the Republican Senate majority, McConnell had blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland in 2016, arguing that no Supreme Court judge should be appointed in an election year. There was no precedent for such action and four years later, also an election year, McConnell helped rush the appointment of Coney Barrett.&nbsp;

Garland, now Attorney General, was widely considered moderate and apolitical; Coney Barrett has been an ardent opponent of abortion, her judicial philosophies deeply influenced by her religious beliefs.&nbsp;

Americans uncomfortable with the present structure of their highest court recently found another reason to doubt the theory that members of the institution are above politics: family relationships.&nbsp;

That aspect became an issue of public discussion when the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump began looking into the activities of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas who is the court’s longest-serving member.&nbsp;

Throughout US history, the spouses of sitting Supreme Court judges have kept low profiles to avoid suggestions of conflicts of interest and political entanglements. Ms Thomas, in contrast, has been a long-time vocal activist for right-wing causes. In a closed-door hearing of the January 6 committee, she repeated her belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump in a Democratic conspiracy.&nbsp;

According to emails published by watchdog groups, she asked legislators in Wisconsin and Arizona to take measures to reverse the election results. But, she told the January 6 committee, she never discussed her activities to overturn the elections with her husband.&nbsp;

Their pro-Trump leanings, it appears, just coincided without communication. As it turned out, Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favour of a Trump request to block the release of presidential records demanded by the committee.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&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=&quot;100%&quot;"></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>.

Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy. There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court.

Here's a challenge to readers of this column – name the most undemocratic institution in a country that calls itself a democracy. There may be other contenders but my vote goes to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only country in the developed world that grants lifetime tenure to members of its highest court. Other countries have term limits – 10 or 15 years – or compulsory retirement ages. In the United States, when a vacancy comes up through death or retirement, the president nominates a successor whose confirmation depends on a Senate hearing where nominees are quizzed on their judicial philosophies and world views. Then, nine non-elected judges have immense power to make decisions that affect the lives of millions, as they did this year when they overruled a constitutional right to abortion granted by a Supreme Court decision dating back almost half a century. Public confidence in the court plunged to its lowest level ever. Only 25 per cent of adults, according to a Gallup poll, said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the court. A sizeable majority of Americans (61 per cent) disagreed with the decision. Does it matter? The ruling of the court, six of whose judges are conservative, three liberal, triggered demonstrations for and against abortion across the country and features prominently in the heated campaign for next month’s elections which will decide the balance of power in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats hold majorities in both. Critics of the court saw the decision as more evidence that the United States is deep into an era of distrust and volatility in the legal system of at a time it needs stability in its institutions rather than more venom and tumult. But Chief Justice John Roberts has shrugged off public anger and diminishing confidence in what was once dubbed the “crown jewel” of America’s justice system. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticising the legitimacy of the court,” he told a judicial conference last month. A few months earlier, when it became clear that the six Republican-appointed judges on the court were leaning towards abolishing the right to abortion, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, one of the three liberals, wondered aloud, “will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its readings are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.” Those who share such doubts include the Editorial Board of the New York Times which noted that “over the past several years, the court has been transformed into a judicial arm of the Republican Party.” While the court’s rulings had remained largely in line with the views of the average voter for decades, the editorial said, they were now in line with the views of the average Republican voter. This is far from the role the court is supposed to play – neutral final arbiter of political disagreements. Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts eloquently put it in his 2005 confirmation hearing, the role of "an umpire calling balls and strikes and ensuring a fair playing field for all." At the time, the balance of judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents was 5-4 and Roberts acted as a moderate swing voter on controversial decisions. The balance now is 6-3 which basically means he lost control of the court. The “chief” in his title means little apart from a slightly higher salary. His is $280,500; his colleagues' $268,300. The nine black-robed judges of the court are aware of the public’s diminishing trust in their neutrality, so much so that its newest addition, Amy Coney Barrett, felt compelled to reassure an academic audience that “this court is not comprised of partisan hacks.” The venue and occasion of her speech inspired doubts about her distance from partisan politics. She appeared at the University of Louisville at an event honouring the US Senate’s Republican minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who played a leading role in her ascent to the court in the final stretch of the presidency of Donald Trump. Then leader of the Republican Senate majority, McConnell had blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland in 2016, arguing that no Supreme Court judge should be appointed in an election year. There was no precedent for such action and four years later, also an election year, McConnell helped rush the appointment of Coney Barrett. Garland, now Attorney General, was widely considered moderate and apolitical; Coney Barrett has been an ardent opponent of abortion, her judicial philosophies deeply influenced by her religious beliefs. Americans uncomfortable with the present structure of their highest court recently found another reason to doubt the theory that members of the institution are above politics: family relationships. That aspect became an issue of public discussion when the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol by a mob of supporters of Donald Trump began looking into the activities of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas who is the court’s longest-serving member. Throughout US history, the spouses of sitting Supreme Court judges have kept low profiles to avoid suggestions of conflicts of interest and political entanglements. Ms Thomas, in contrast, has been a long-time vocal activist for right-wing causes. In a closed-door hearing of the January 6 committee, she repeated her belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump in a Democratic conspiracy. According to emails published by watchdog groups, she asked legislators in Wisconsin and Arizona to take measures to reverse the election results. But, she told the January 6 committee, she never discussed her activities to overturn the elections with her husband. Their pro-Trump leanings, it appears, just coincided without communication. As it turned out, Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to vote in favour of a Trump request to block the release of presidential records demanded by the committee. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) 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.

America's Supreme Court – neutral arbiters or political hacks?

Pop music and art converge on the US Supreme Court on Wednesday as it hears whether a photographer should be compensated for a picture she took of Prince used in a work by Andy Warhol.

The case, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, could have far-reaching implications for US copyright law and the art world.

It stems from a black-and-white picture taken in 1981 by celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith of Prince, a then up-and-coming young musician from Minneapolis.

In 1984, as Prince's "Purple Rain" album was taking off, Vanity Fair asked Warhol to provide an image to accompany a story on the musician in the glossy magazine.

Warhol used one of Goldsmith's photographs to produce a silk screen print image of Prince with a purple face in the familiar brightly colored style the artist made famous with his portraits of Marilyn Monroe.

Goldsmith received credit as the photographer and was paid $400 for the rights for one-time use.

After Prince died in 2016, The Andy Warhol Foundation, set up after the artist's death in 1987, licensed another image of the musician made by Warhol from the Goldsmith photo to Vanity Fair publisher Conde Nast.

That portrait -- Warhol had actually made 16 in total -- featured Prince with an orange face rather than a purple face.

Conde Nast paid the Foundation a $10,250 licensing fee.

Goldsmith did not receive anything and is claiming that her copyright on the original photo was infringed.

"This time, no credit or payment to Goldsmith," her lawyers said in a brief. "Copyright law cannot possibly prescribe one rule for purple silkscreens and another for orange ones."

Split rulings

The Warhol Foundation countered by arguing that Warhol's "Prince Series" is "transformative" is and therefore not infringing on any copyright.

"Goldsmith is asking for something remarkable here," the Foundation said in its brief.

"She wants the Court to hold that the works of Andy Warhol -- universally recognized as a creative genius who pioneered the twentieth century Pop Art movement -- are not transformative, and therefore are illegal."

Two lower courts issued split rulings, sending the case to the Supreme Court.

In 2019, a US District Court judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of the Warhol Foundation.

"The Prince Series works can reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure," the judge said.

"The humanity Prince embodies in Goldsmith's photograph is gone," the judge said. "Moreover, each Prince series work is immediately recognizable as a 'Warhol' rather than as a photograph of Prince."

An appeals court disagreed last year, however, saying "the district judge should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain the intent behind or meaning of the works at issue."

What counts, the court said, is whether the new work "remains both recognizably deriving from, and retaining the essential elements of, its source material.

It said the Warhol series "retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements."

After hearing oral arguments on Wednesday, the nine judges on the Supreme Court will decide whether Warhol's work is transformative, and deserving of protection, or infringing.

They will issue their ruling by June 30.

Pop music and art converge on the US Supreme Court on Wednesday as it hears whether a photographer should be compensated for a picture she took of Prince used in a work by Andy Warhol.

Pop music and art converge on the US Supreme Court on Wednesday as it hears whether a photographer should be compensated for a picture she took of Prince used in a work by Andy Warhol. The case, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, could have far-reaching implications for US copyright law and the art world. It stems from a black-and-white picture taken in 1981 by celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith of Prince, a then up-and-coming young musician from Minneapolis. In 1984, as Prince's "Purple Rain" album was taking off, Vanity Fair asked Warhol to provide an image to accompany a story on the musician in the glossy magazine. Warhol used one of Goldsmith's photographs to produce a silk screen print image of Prince with a purple face in the familiar brightly colored style the artist made famous with his portraits of Marilyn Monroe. Goldsmith received credit as the photographer and was paid $400 for the rights for one-time use. After Prince died in 2016, The Andy Warhol Foundation, set up after the artist's death in 1987, licensed another image of the musician made by Warhol from the Goldsmith photo to Vanity Fair publisher Conde Nast. That portrait -- Warhol had actually made 16 in total -- featured Prince with an orange face rather than a purple face. Conde Nast paid the Foundation a $10,250 licensing fee. Goldsmith did not receive anything and is claiming that her copyright on the original photo was infringed. "This time, no credit or payment to Goldsmith," her lawyers said in a brief. "Copyright law cannot possibly prescribe one rule for purple silkscreens and another for orange ones." Split rulings The Warhol Foundation countered by arguing that Warhol's "Prince Series" is "transformative" is and therefore not infringing on any copyright. "Goldsmith is asking for something remarkable here," the Foundation said in its brief. "She wants the Court to hold that the works of Andy Warhol -- universally recognized as a creative genius who pioneered the twentieth century Pop Art movement -- are not transformative, and therefore are illegal." Two lower courts issued split rulings, sending the case to the Supreme Court. In 2019, a US District Court judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of the Warhol Foundation. "The Prince Series works can reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure," the judge said. "The humanity Prince embodies in Goldsmith's photograph is gone," the judge said. "Moreover, each Prince series work is immediately recognizable as a 'Warhol' rather than as a photograph of Prince." An appeals court disagreed last year, however, saying "the district judge should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain the intent behind or meaning of the works at issue." What counts, the court said, is whether the new work "remains both recognizably deriving from, and retaining the essential elements of, its source material. It said the Warhol series "retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements." After hearing oral arguments on Wednesday, the nine judges on the Supreme Court will decide whether Warhol's work is transformative, and deserving of protection, or infringing. They will issue their ruling by June 30.

Prince, Andy Warhol feature in Supreme Court copyright case

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to wade into a case that seeks constitutional rights for foetuses.

The apex court refused to step in and take the case without offering any comment after it overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling in June, reports Reuters news agency.

The case was earlier heard in the Rhode Island court in May where a Catholic group and two pregnant women wanted to challenge a state abortion law on behalf of their unborn foetuses.

The lower court declined to entertain their plea citing Roe v. Wade, holding that foetus lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a 2019 state law that granted the right to abortion in line with the now-defunct abortion law.

The claimants argued that they should have had the opportunity to vote against the abortion law in a referendum, saying that the legislation erased their legal rights.

But the lower court rejected the lawsuit,&nbsp;saying that there was no right to a referendum on the issue and that none of the adult plaintiffs had been harmed by the law.

The court said that the foetus had no legal standing as they were not "persons" who could bring legal claims.

The court also said that plaintiffs had no standing either because they were not harmed.

Deciding to take the case to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs in their writ petition asked,&nbsp;“This Court should grant the writ to finally determine whether prenatal life, at any gestational age, enjoys constitutional protection – considering the full and comprehensive history and tradition of our Constitution and law supporting personhood for unborn human beings.”

(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>

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to wade into a case that seeks constitutional rights for foetuses. The apex court refused to step in and take the case without offering any comment after it overturned the Roe v.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to wade into a case that seeks constitutional rights for foetuses. The apex court refused to step in and take the case without offering any comment after it overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling in June, reports Reuters news agency. The case was earlier heard in the Rhode Island court in May where a Catholic group and two pregnant women wanted to challenge a state abortion law on behalf of their unborn foetuses. The lower court declined to entertain their plea citing Roe v. Wade, holding that foetus lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a 2019 state law that granted the right to abortion in line with the now-defunct abortion law. The claimants argued that they should have had the opportunity to vote against the abortion law in a referendum, saying that the legislation erased their legal rights. But the lower court rejected the lawsuit, saying that there was no right to a referendum on the issue and that none of the adult plaintiffs had been harmed by the law. The court said that the foetus had no legal standing as they were not "persons" who could bring legal claims. The court also said that plaintiffs had no standing either because they were not harmed. Deciding to take the case to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs in their writ petition asked, “This Court should grant the writ to finally determine whether prenatal life, at any gestational age, enjoys constitutional protection – considering the full and comprehensive history and tradition of our Constitution and law supporting personhood for unborn human beings.” (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US Supreme Court refuses to take up plea seeking constitutional rights for foetus  

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