In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad. In a fit of anger, she lashed out on the social networking app Snapchat. She uploaded a picture of her showing the middle finger.

Never did she think that a moment of expression of frustration on the app would land her in the US Supreme Court. Soon after the pic was uploaded on Snapchat, it reached the coaches, who then banned her from the field for over a year.

Now, the US Supreme Court will review this decision of the school. Many critics are seeing the case as imperative to understanding freedom of speech for youngsters in the country, clubbed with the need to curb online harassment.

Nine US Supreme Court justices will now decide whether schools can punish students for making comments outside of the establishment. The message was posted in 2017 in Mahonay City, Pennsylvania.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/sports/watch-fan-shows-middle-finger-to-rafael-nadal-gets-thrown-out-by-security-362950" hreflang="en">WATCH: Fan shows middle finger to Rafael Nadal; gets thrown out by security</a>

"I tried out for the varsity team for cheerleading and I didn't make it, so I was pretty upset," AFP cited Levy as saying to the ACLU, a civil rights association representing her in court.

Reportedly, the girl took a picture of herself and a friend with her middle finger in the air while adding a series of expletives against the school and “everything”.

Soon after the ban, her parents took her to court under the protection for the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. She won.

Later, the school asked the Supreme Court to intervene based on a 1969 ruling allowing students to wear black armbands to show their opposition to the Vietnam War.&nbsp; Even then, the ruling states that speech which disrupts school operations could be punished.

(With inputs from agencies)

In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad.

In an uncanny series of events, a cheerleader in the United States is set to the face the Supreme Court soon. 14-year-old Brandi Levy was rejected from her high school’s cheerleading squad. In a fit of anger, she lashed out on the social networking app Snapchat. She uploaded a picture of her showing the middle finger. Never did she think that a moment of expression of frustration on the app would land her in the US Supreme Court. Soon after the pic was uploaded on Snapchat, it reached the coaches, who then banned her from the field for over a year. Now, the US Supreme Court will review this decision of the school. Many critics are seeing the case as imperative to understanding freedom of speech for youngsters in the country, clubbed with the need to curb online harassment. Nine US Supreme Court justices will now decide whether schools can punish students for making comments outside of the establishment. The message was posted in 2017 in Mahonay City, Pennsylvania. Also read: WATCH: Fan shows middle finger to Rafael Nadal; gets thrown out by security "I tried out for the varsity team for cheerleading and I didn't make it, so I was pretty upset," AFP cited Levy as saying to the ACLU, a civil rights association representing her in court. Reportedly, the girl took a picture of herself and a friend with her middle finger in the air while adding a series of expletives against the school and “everything”. Soon after the ban, her parents took her to court under the protection for the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. She won. Later, the school asked the Supreme Court to intervene based on a 1969 ruling allowing students to wear black armbands to show their opposition to the Vietnam War. Even then, the ruling states that speech which disrupts school operations could be punished. (With inputs from agencies)

How a teenage cheerleader's middle finger landed her in landmark US Supreme Court case

The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined former President Donald Trump's request to halt his tax record turnover.

US Supreme Court allows release of Trump tax records

The US Supreme Court has allowed prosecutors to view Former President Donald Trump's tax returns, though the documents will not be made public.

US Supreme Court allows access to Trump's tax records

The US Supreme Court put a new New York grand jury on the brink of getting eight years of Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records, ending months of delay by rejecting his bid to keep the information private.

The decision, the second time the Apex court has weighed in on the matter, was announced in an order with no noted dissents. The news further imperils the ex-president, who is facing investigations in New York and elsewhere.

The development is a brutal defeat for the former president. Trump has dismissed the Manhattan prosecutors' investigation as a political "witch hunt" and has fought all the way to the high court to keep his tax returns under wraps.

Because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the decision does not mean Trump's financial records will become public.

Trump has been waging a protracted legal battle to prevent his tax records from being handed over to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court put a new New York grand jury on the brink of getting eight years of Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records, ending months of delay by rejecting his bid to keep the information private.

The US Supreme Court put a new New York grand jury on the brink of getting eight years of Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records, ending months of delay by rejecting his bid to keep the information private. The decision, the second time the Apex court has weighed in on the matter, was announced in an order with no noted dissents. The news further imperils the ex-president, who is facing investigations in New York and elsewhere. The development is a brutal defeat for the former president. Trump has dismissed the Manhattan prosecutors' investigation as a political "witch hunt" and has fought all the way to the high court to keep his tax returns under wraps. Because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, the decision does not mean Trump's financial records will become public. Trump has been waging a protracted legal battle to prevent his tax records from being handed over to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. (With inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court denies Donald Trump’s bid to conceal financial records

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy.

Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot.

The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1.

The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office.

The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project.

Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused.

Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods.

The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed.

Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program.

In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals.

They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday canceled upcoming scheduled arguments in appeals filed by Republican former President Donald Trump`s administration defending his funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and his so-called "remain in Mexico" asylum policy. Democratic President Joe Biden`s administration, which is in the process of changing course on both issues, on Monday had asked the justices to postpone further legal filings in the two cases and to remove them from their oral argument calendar. Biden`s administration already has announced plans to discontinue wall construction and suspend the asylum program, potentially making the cases moot. The court was scheduled to hear arguments in the wall case on Feb. 22 and the asylum police case on March 1. The cases involve two contentious issues left over from Trump`s turbulent four years in office. The border wall was one of Trump`s central 2016 campaign promises, with his supporters chanting at rallies "build the wall." At issue was the legality of Trump`s decision, after Congress refused to appropriate money he sought for the wall, to shift military funds already provided by lawmakers for other purposes to pay for the project. Trump called the wall necessary to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border. Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive. Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico refused. Trump in 2019 redirected $2.5 billion from military counter-narcotics programs for border wall construction in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Biden issued a proclamation on Jan. 20, his first day in office, ordering a freeze on border wall projects and directing a review of the legality of its funding and contracting methods. The "remain in Mexico" policy, which took effect in 2019, has forced tens of thousands of migrants along the southern border to wait in Mexico, rather than entering the United States, while their asylum claims are processed. Trump said the policy reduced the flow of migrants from Central America into the United States. Migrants in the program, many of them children, faced violence and homelessness in Mexico while awaiting court dates. Human rights groups have documented cases of kidnappings, rapes and assaults. Biden`s Department of Homeland Security has said it will suspend new enrollments in the asylum program, pending further review. On Tuesday, Biden announced a formal review of the asylum program. In both cases, lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the Trump administration`s appeals. They are among several cases pending at the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, that Biden`s administration may seek to change course on after earlier action by Trump`s administration.

US Supreme Court scraps arguments in Trump-era immigration and wall cases

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to exempt religious schools in Kentucky from an order from Gov. Andy Beshear that temporarily shut down all elementary, middle and high schools, whether public or private, in an effort to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

The court’s brief, unsigned ruling stressed that the order from Beshear, a Democrat, would not be in place much longer. “The governor’s school-closing order effectively expires this week or shortly thereafter, and there is no indication that it will be renewed,” the court’s opinion said.

It added that the challengers had not squarely confronted an important distinction. “The order applies equally to secular schools and religious schools, but the applicants argue that the order treats schools (including religious schools) worse than restaurants, bars and gyms, for example, which remain open,” the opinion said.

“Under all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of the order,” the opinion said, “we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch each filed a dissent that was joined by the other. Alito said the Supreme Court should have acted sooner to address the challengers’ application and said the courts could still address it.

“As things now stand,” Alito wrote, “this action remains on the docket of the district court. If the governor does not allow classes to begin after the turn of the year, the applicants can file a new request for a preliminary injunction, and if the lower courts do not provide relief, the applicants may of course return to this court.”

Gorsuch said the majority had invited political gamesmanship. The governor, he wrote, should not “be able to evade judicial review by issuing short-term edicts and then urging us to overlook their problems only because one edict is about to expire while the next has yet to arrive.”

The preferable approach, he said, would have been to require the appeals court to resolve the case now under the correct legal standards. That, he wrote, would “be better for everyone — from the parents who might have to miss work and stay home should decrees like these be upheld, to the state public health officials who might have to plan for school if they are not.”

The decision in the Kentucky case followed a series of rulings from the Supreme Court on state restrictions on religious services at churches and synagogues. The court had sustained such limits while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive but changed course after she was succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The Kentucky case presented a related but distinct issue. In ordering the temporary closure of all K-12 schools, Beshear did not single out religious ones.

In a lawsuit challenging the order, Danville Christian Academy and Daniel Cameron, the state’s attorney general, a Republican, said that it did not matter that all schools were treated the same, as religious education was still subject to stricter restrictions than comparable secular activities. That violated constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion, they said.

Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court in Frankfort, Kentucky, agreed. “In an effort to do the right thing to fight the virus,” Van Tatenhove wrote, “the governor cannot do the wrong thing by infringing protected values.”

“This court wonders why, under this executive order, one would be free to attend a lecture, go to work or attend a concert, but not attend socially distanced chapel in school or pray together in a classroom that is following strict safety procedures and social distancing,” the judge wrote. He issued an injunction overriding Beshear’s order and opening religious schools.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati stayed Van Tatenhove’s ruling, lifting his injunction while an appeal moved forward. In an unsigned opinion, the panel said that a recent Supreme Court ruling striking down limits on attendance at religious services in New York “does not compel a contrary result.”

“The contours of the order at issue here,” the panel wrote, “in no way correlate to religion, and cannot be plausibly read to contain even a hint of hostility toward religion.”

In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, the challengers urged the justices to take account of how secular activities in the state have been treated.

“In Kentucky,” the brief said, “one can catch a matinee at the movie theater, tour a distillery, work out at the gym, bet at a gambling parlor, shop, go to work, cheer on the Wildcats or the Cardinals and attend a wedding. A parent can send his or her child to day care or preschool. And college students can attend classes. But all of Kentucky’s religious schools are shuttered.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and 37 other senators filed a brief supporting the challengers. “COVID-19 is undoubtedly a serious health threat, but the Constitution applies even in difficult times,” the brief said. “This court should again remind governors across the country that shutdown orders cannot trample constitutional rights.

Lawyers for Beshear responded that in-person K-12 education “presents a perfect storm of factors that combine to generate a singular public health risk.”

Students spend long days indoors, the brief said; school-age children struggle to keep their masks on and must remove them to eat; and teachers, administrators, janitorial workers, cafeteria staff and parents are often present.

Kentucky has an unusually high percentage of children cared for by their grandparents and other older people, the brief said, and the Thanksgiving and year-end holidays are an especially dangerous time, particularly as a significant percentage of pediatric COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic.

Day care and preschool do not give rise to “anything approaching the high-volume mixing that unavoidably results from in-person K-12 schooling,” the brief said. And colleges and universities in the state, the brief said, will overwhelmingly be closed in the coming weeks and had mostly moved to remote learning in any event.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to exempt religious schools in Kentucky from an order from Gov. Andy Beshear that temporarily shut down all elementary, middle and high schools, whether public or private, in an effort to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to exempt religious schools in Kentucky from an order from Gov. Andy Beshear that temporarily shut down all elementary, middle and high schools, whether public or private, in an effort to combat the coronavirus pandemic. The court’s brief, unsigned ruling stressed that the order from Beshear, a Democrat, would not be in place much longer. “The governor’s school-closing order effectively expires this week or shortly thereafter, and there is no indication that it will be renewed,” the court’s opinion said. It added that the challengers had not squarely confronted an important distinction. “The order applies equally to secular schools and religious schools, but the applicants argue that the order treats schools (including religious schools) worse than restaurants, bars and gyms, for example, which remain open,” the opinion said. “Under all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of the order,” the opinion said, “we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch each filed a dissent that was joined by the other. Alito said the Supreme Court should have acted sooner to address the challengers’ application and said the courts could still address it. “As things now stand,” Alito wrote, “this action remains on the docket of the district court. If the governor does not allow classes to begin after the turn of the year, the applicants can file a new request for a preliminary injunction, and if the lower courts do not provide relief, the applicants may of course return to this court.” Gorsuch said the majority had invited political gamesmanship. The governor, he wrote, should not “be able to evade judicial review by issuing short-term edicts and then urging us to overlook their problems only because one edict is about to expire while the next has yet to arrive.” The preferable approach, he said, would have been to require the appeals court to resolve the case now under the correct legal standards. That, he wrote, would “be better for everyone — from the parents who might have to miss work and stay home should decrees like these be upheld, to the state public health officials who might have to plan for school if they are not.” The decision in the Kentucky case followed a series of rulings from the Supreme Court on state restrictions on religious services at churches and synagogues. The court had sustained such limits while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive but changed course after she was succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Kentucky case presented a related but distinct issue. In ordering the temporary closure of all K-12 schools, Beshear did not single out religious ones. In a lawsuit challenging the order, Danville Christian Academy and Daniel Cameron, the state’s attorney general, a Republican, said that it did not matter that all schools were treated the same, as religious education was still subject to stricter restrictions than comparable secular activities. That violated constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion, they said. Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court in Frankfort, Kentucky, agreed. “In an effort to do the right thing to fight the virus,” Van Tatenhove wrote, “the governor cannot do the wrong thing by infringing protected values.” “This court wonders why, under this executive order, one would be free to attend a lecture, go to work or attend a concert, but not attend socially distanced chapel in school or pray together in a classroom that is following strict safety procedures and social distancing,” the judge wrote. He issued an injunction overriding Beshear’s order and opening religious schools. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati stayed Van Tatenhove’s ruling, lifting his injunction while an appeal moved forward. In an unsigned opinion, the panel said that a recent Supreme Court ruling striking down limits on attendance at religious services in New York “does not compel a contrary result.” “The contours of the order at issue here,” the panel wrote, “in no way correlate to religion, and cannot be plausibly read to contain even a hint of hostility toward religion.” In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, the challengers urged the justices to take account of how secular activities in the state have been treated. “In Kentucky,” the brief said, “one can catch a matinee at the movie theater, tour a distillery, work out at the gym, bet at a gambling parlor, shop, go to work, cheer on the Wildcats or the Cardinals and attend a wedding. A parent can send his or her child to day care or preschool. And college students can attend classes. But all of Kentucky’s religious schools are shuttered.” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and 37 other senators filed a brief supporting the challengers. “COVID-19 is undoubtedly a serious health threat, but the Constitution applies even in difficult times,” the brief said. “This court should again remind governors across the country that shutdown orders cannot trample constitutional rights. Lawyers for Beshear responded that in-person K-12 education “presents a perfect storm of factors that combine to generate a singular public health risk.” Students spend long days indoors, the brief said; school-age children struggle to keep their masks on and must remove them to eat; and teachers, administrators, janitorial workers, cafeteria staff and parents are often present. Kentucky has an unusually high percentage of children cared for by their grandparents and other older people, the brief said, and the Thanksgiving and year-end holidays are an especially dangerous time, particularly as a significant percentage of pediatric COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic. Day care and preschool do not give rise to “anything approaching the high-volume mixing that unavoidably results from in-person K-12 schooling,” the brief said. And colleges and universities in the state, the brief said, will overwhelmingly be closed in the coming weeks and had mostly moved to remote learning in any event.

US Supreme Court rejects religious school’s challenge to Kentucky virus order

The Supreme Court repudiation of President Donald Trump’s desperate bid for a second term not only shredded his effort to overturn the will of voters: It also was a blunt rebuke to Republican leaders in Congress and the states that were willing to damage American democracy by embracing a partisan power grab over a free and fair election.

The court’s decision on Friday night, an inflection point after weeks of legal flailing by Trump and ahead of the Electoral College vote for President-elect Joe Biden on Monday, leaves the president’s party in an extraordinary position. Through their explicit endorsements or complicity of silence, much of the GOP leadership now shares responsibility for the quixotic attempt to ignore the nation’s founding principles and engineer a different verdict from the one voters cast in November.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-dismisses-trumps-bid-to-overturn-election-result-349183" hreflang="en">US Supreme Court dismisses Trump's bid to overturn election result</a>

Many regular Republicans supported this effort, too — a sign that Trump has not just bent the party to his will, but pressed a mainstay of American politics for nearly two centuries into the service of overturning an election outcome and assaulting public faith in the electoral system. The GOP sought to undo the vote by such spurious means that the Supreme Court quickly rejected the argument.

Even some Republican leaders delivered a withering assessment of the 126 GOP House members and 18 attorneys general who chose to side with Trump over the democratic process, by backing a lawsuit that asked the Supreme Court to throw out some 20 million votes in four key states that cemented the president’s loss.

“The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country,” said Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.”

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/five-reasons-why-donald-trump-should-not-be-considered-as-a-useless-president-349181" hreflang="en">Five reasons why Donald Trump should not be considered as a useless president</a>

Speaking on CNN on Friday, Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican, said, “What happened with the Supreme Court, that’s kind of it, where they’ve kind of exhausted all the legal challenges; we’ve got to move on.” It was time, he said, for Congress to “actually do something for the American people, surrounding the vaccines, surrounding COVID.”

With direct buy-in from senior officials like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the president’s effort required the party to promote false theory upon unsubstantiated claim upon outright lie about unproved, widespread fraud — in an election that Republican and Democratic election officials agreed was notably smooth given the challenges of the pandemic.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-17-states-back-texas-bid-to-overturn-us-election-result-at-supreme-court-348692" hreflang="en">Trump, 17 states back Texas bid to overturn US election result at Supreme Court</a>

And it meant that Republican leaders now stand for a new notion: that the final decisions of voters can be challenged without a basis in fact if the results are not to the liking of the losing side, running counter to decades of work by the United States to convince developing nations that peaceful transfers of power are key to any freely elected government’s credibility.

“From a global perspective this certainly looks like many of the cases we’ve seen around the world where an incumbent tries to hold onto power," said Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy abroad with support from both parties.

Following the court decision, one of the 126 House Republicans who backed the lawsuit, Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, said that the court’s decision meant the end of Trump’s efforts and “closed the books on challenges to the 2020 election results.”

Democrats took heart in the court’s decision in the case filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas, one of several dozen that judges have soundly rejected on legal or factual bases, even if more lawsuits are certain to come ahead of Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

“Our democracy has withstood Donald Trump for four years,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees election law. “It can withstand these baseless lawsuits for four more weeks.”

But civil rights attorneys saw the potential for long-lasting damage outside of the legal realm where the Republican efforts — and the lie that Biden’s win was the result of widespread fraud — have so definitively failed.

Republican state legislators across the country are already contemplating new laws to make voting harder, as they continue to falsely portray the expansion and ease of mail-in voting during the pandemic as nefarious. Many of them view this year’s expanded voting ranks as bad for their party, despite Republican successes further down the ballot. Their consideration of new voting restrictions amounts to an ongoing attack on the integrity of the voting system, involving still more false and debunked claims.

“There is an anti-democratic virus that has spread in mainstream Republicanism, among mainstream Republican elected officials,” said Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU. “And that loss of faith in the machinery of democracy is a much bigger problem than any individual lawsuit.”

Indeed, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Texas Republican Party effectively called for secession by red states whose attorneys general joined in the Texas suit.

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution,” a statement from its chairman, Allen West, read. It followed an observation Rush Limbaugh made earlier in the week, when he said, “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession.”

The talk of secession came during a week in which election officials across the country, from both political parties, said they had become the subjects of menacing threats of violence, including to family members, for standing by Biden’s victory.

A website of unknown provenance that caught the attention of law enforcement appeared to promote a hit list of mostly Republican officials who had resisted Trump’s demands to overturn an election he lost, listing their personal information and imposing red cross hairs over their pictures.

Trump made it clear that the Supreme Court decision would not slow a post-campaign campaign, the futility of which has dampened neither its ferocity nor its pertinacity. On Twitter, Trump on Saturday called it a “disgraceful miscarriage of justice” and wrote “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!”

Hours before the court made its decision public the Trump campaign released two ads repeating debunked allegations, indicating it would continue to pressure elected Republican officials to somehow reverse Trump’s political fate. “Demand an honest election and an honest count, contact your legislators today,” one ad exhorted. (The campaign claimed that the ads would begin airing on cable television on Saturday morning, but at least one ad tracking firm said they had not seen any reservations made as of Friday night.)

The Supreme Court repudiation of President Donald Trump’s desperate bid for a second term not only shredded his effort to overturn the will of voters: It also was a blunt rebuke to Republican leaders in Congress and the states that were willing to damage American democracy by embracing a partisan power grab over a free and fair election.

The Supreme Court repudiation of President Donald Trump’s desperate bid for a second term not only shredded his effort to overturn the will of voters: It also was a blunt rebuke to Republican leaders in Congress and the states that were willing to damage American democracy by embracing a partisan power grab over a free and fair election. The court’s decision on Friday night, an inflection point after weeks of legal flailing by Trump and ahead of the Electoral College vote for President-elect Joe Biden on Monday, leaves the president’s party in an extraordinary position. Through their explicit endorsements or complicity of silence, much of the GOP leadership now shares responsibility for the quixotic attempt to ignore the nation’s founding principles and engineer a different verdict from the one voters cast in November. Also read| US Supreme Court dismisses Trump's bid to overturn election result Many regular Republicans supported this effort, too — a sign that Trump has not just bent the party to his will, but pressed a mainstay of American politics for nearly two centuries into the service of overturning an election outcome and assaulting public faith in the electoral system. The GOP sought to undo the vote by such spurious means that the Supreme Court quickly rejected the argument. Even some Republican leaders delivered a withering assessment of the 126 GOP House members and 18 attorneys general who chose to side with Trump over the democratic process, by backing a lawsuit that asked the Supreme Court to throw out some 20 million votes in four key states that cemented the president’s loss. “The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country,” said Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.” Also read| Five reasons why Donald Trump should not be considered as a useless president Speaking on CNN on Friday, Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, a Republican, said, “What happened with the Supreme Court, that’s kind of it, where they’ve kind of exhausted all the legal challenges; we’ve got to move on.” It was time, he said, for Congress to “actually do something for the American people, surrounding the vaccines, surrounding COVID.” With direct buy-in from senior officials like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the president’s effort required the party to promote false theory upon unsubstantiated claim upon outright lie about unproved, widespread fraud — in an election that Republican and Democratic election officials agreed was notably smooth given the challenges of the pandemic. Also read| Trump, 17 states back Texas bid to overturn US election result at Supreme Court And it meant that Republican leaders now stand for a new notion: that the final decisions of voters can be challenged without a basis in fact if the results are not to the liking of the losing side, running counter to decades of work by the United States to convince developing nations that peaceful transfers of power are key to any freely elected government’s credibility. “From a global perspective this certainly looks like many of the cases we’ve seen around the world where an incumbent tries to hold onto power," said Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy abroad with support from both parties. Following the court decision, one of the 126 House Republicans who backed the lawsuit, Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, said that the court’s decision meant the end of Trump’s efforts and “closed the books on challenges to the 2020 election results.” Democrats took heart in the court’s decision in the case filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas, one of several dozen that judges have soundly rejected on legal or factual bases, even if more lawsuits are certain to come ahead of Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. “Our democracy has withstood Donald Trump for four years,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees election law. “It can withstand these baseless lawsuits for four more weeks.” But civil rights attorneys saw the potential for long-lasting damage outside of the legal realm where the Republican efforts — and the lie that Biden’s win was the result of widespread fraud — have so definitively failed. Republican state legislators across the country are already contemplating new laws to make voting harder, as they continue to falsely portray the expansion and ease of mail-in voting during the pandemic as nefarious. Many of them view this year’s expanded voting ranks as bad for their party, despite Republican successes further down the ballot. Their consideration of new voting restrictions amounts to an ongoing attack on the integrity of the voting system, involving still more false and debunked claims. “There is an anti-democratic virus that has spread in mainstream Republicanism, among mainstream Republican elected officials,” said Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU. “And that loss of faith in the machinery of democracy is a much bigger problem than any individual lawsuit.” Indeed, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Texas Republican Party effectively called for secession by red states whose attorneys general joined in the Texas suit. “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution,” a statement from its chairman, Allen West, read. It followed an observation Rush Limbaugh made earlier in the week, when he said, “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession.” The talk of secession came during a week in which election officials across the country, from both political parties, said they had become the subjects of menacing threats of violence, including to family members, for standing by Biden’s victory. A website of unknown provenance that caught the attention of law enforcement appeared to promote a hit list of mostly Republican officials who had resisted Trump’s demands to overturn an election he lost, listing their personal information and imposing red cross hairs over their pictures. Trump made it clear that the Supreme Court decision would not slow a post-campaign campaign, the futility of which has dampened neither its ferocity nor its pertinacity. On Twitter, Trump on Saturday called it a “disgraceful miscarriage of justice” and wrote “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!” Hours before the court made its decision public the Trump campaign released two ads repeating debunked allegations, indicating it would continue to pressure elected Republican officials to somehow reverse Trump’s political fate. “Demand an honest election and an honest count, contact your legislators today,” one ad exhorted. (The campaign claimed that the ads would begin airing on cable television on Saturday morning, but at least one ad tracking firm said they had not seen any reservations made as of Friday night.)

‘An indelible stain’: How the GOP tried to topple a pillar of democracy

The US Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a bid by Texas to overturn the results of the presidential election, which Republican Donald Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, in a fresh setback for the outgoing president.

The longshot suit lodged late Tuesday against four states key in the November 3 vote -- Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- challenged Biden's victory in each jurisdiction.&nbsp;

The justices in a brief order rejected the bid by Texas to file the extraordinary challenge targetting Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly with the Supreme Court, as is allowed in some instances of litigation between states under a legal doctrine called "original jurisdiction."

The order said Texas did not have a legal standing to bring the claim.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in the unsigned order.

The case was filed on Tuesday by the Republican attorney general of Texas, a Trump ally, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Republican president on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene and become a plaintiff.

It was backed by 106 Republican lawmakers and 17 state attorneys general.

Texas had asked the justices to throw out the election results in the four states. Biden won all four states. Trump had won them in the 2016 election.

Biden spokesman Mike Gwin said the ruling was "no surprise."

"Dozens of judges, election officials from both parties, and Trump's own Attorney General have dismissed his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election," he said.

Texas alleged that the results in the other four states were "unconstitutional" because of their heavy use of "fraud-prone" mail-in votes during the coronavirus pandemic. It offered no proof of significant fraud, and didn't challenge the use of mailed ballots in states Trump won.

The suit cited numerous alleged examples of potential fraud already rejected by lower courts.

Trump's campaign and his allies already had lost in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the election results. Trump has falsely claimed he won the November 3 election and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud and a system "rigged" against him.&nbsp;

State election officials have said they have found no evidence of such fraud. Lawyers for Trump and his allies have failed to present evidence in court of the type of fraud he has alleged.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court also refused his bid to overturn his loss in Pennsylvania.&nbsp;

Trump had hoped that the high court, whose bench he has tipped solidly to the right, would intervene in his favour.

In 2000, the Supreme Court halted a recount in Florida, where George W Bush was only 537 votes ahead of Democrat Al Gore, allowing the Republican to win the election.

The lawsuit came as all 50 states plus Washington, DC have formally certified their vote tallies, opening the way to convene the Electoral College.

Biden, in the November 3 vote, snagged 51.3 percent of the ballots compared to Trump's 46.9 percent, a seven million vote margin.&nbsp;

The Electoral College is set to affirm Biden's win on December 14, and he will be sworn in on January 20.

(with inputs from agencies)

The US Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a bid by Texas to overturn the results of the presidential election, which Republican Donald Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, in a fresh setback for the outgoing president.

The US Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a bid by Texas to overturn the results of the presidential election, which Republican Donald Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, in a fresh setback for the outgoing president. The longshot suit lodged late Tuesday against four states key in the November 3 vote -- Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- challenged Biden's victory in each jurisdiction. The justices in a brief order rejected the bid by Texas to file the extraordinary challenge targetting Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin directly with the Supreme Court, as is allowed in some instances of litigation between states under a legal doctrine called "original jurisdiction." The order said Texas did not have a legal standing to bring the claim. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in the unsigned order. The case was filed on Tuesday by the Republican attorney general of Texas, a Trump ally, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Republican president on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene and become a plaintiff. It was backed by 106 Republican lawmakers and 17 state attorneys general. Texas had asked the justices to throw out the election results in the four states. Biden won all four states. Trump had won them in the 2016 election. Biden spokesman Mike Gwin said the ruling was "no surprise." "Dozens of judges, election officials from both parties, and Trump's own Attorney General have dismissed his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election," he said. Texas alleged that the results in the other four states were "unconstitutional" because of their heavy use of "fraud-prone" mail-in votes during the coronavirus pandemic. It offered no proof of significant fraud, and didn't challenge the use of mailed ballots in states Trump won. The suit cited numerous alleged examples of potential fraud already rejected by lower courts. Trump's campaign and his allies already had lost in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the election results. Trump has falsely claimed he won the November 3 election and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud and a system "rigged" against him. State election officials have said they have found no evidence of such fraud. Lawyers for Trump and his allies have failed to present evidence in court of the type of fraud he has alleged. On Tuesday the Supreme Court also refused his bid to overturn his loss in Pennsylvania. Trump had hoped that the high court, whose bench he has tipped solidly to the right, would intervene in his favour. In 2000, the Supreme Court halted a recount in Florida, where George W Bush was only 537 votes ahead of Democrat Al Gore, allowing the Republican to win the election. The lawsuit came as all 50 states plus Washington, DC have formally certified their vote tallies, opening the way to convene the Electoral College. Biden, in the November 3 vote, snagged 51.3 percent of the ballots compared to Trump's 46.9 percent, a seven million vote margin. The Electoral College is set to affirm Biden's win on December 14, and he will be sworn in on January 20. (with inputs from agencies)

US Supreme Court dismisses Trump's bid to overturn election result

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a dispute between shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants, and the Treasury Department over $124 billion in payments the two lenders were required to make to the government.

The shareholders said the law creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which put the two lenders into conservatorship in 2008, violated the Constitution because it insulated the agency’s director from presidential oversight. A decision by the court in June concerning the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau suggested that it may agree that the structure of the housing agency violated the separation of powers.

But several justices seemed wary of the sweep of a second aspect of the shareholders’ arguments, which said the lack of presidential supervision of the housing agency’s director meant that a 2012 agreement between the agency and the Treasury Department must be undone, requiring the repayment of vast sums.

The two sides agreed that the law creating the housing agency was unconstitutional because it barred the president from firing its director without cause. Because there was no dispute between the parties as to that, the court appointed Aaron L. Nielson, a law professor at Brigham Young University, to defend the law.

Nielsen said the new case, Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422, differed from the one in June concerning the consumer bureau. The shareholders in the new case challenged a 2012 agreement between the housing agency and the Treasury Department, he said. But that agreement had been made by an acting director of the agency, who was subject to removal at will in any event, making academic the question of the status of the agency’s director.

The laws creating the two agencies were also different, Nielson said. Before the court’s decision in June in the case on the consumer bureau, its director could be fired only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance,” a demanding standard. By contrast, the director of the housing agency may be fired only for cause, which Nielson said “provides the weakest protection in removal law and can easily be read to allow removal based on policy disagreement with the president.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she saw “vast differences” between the agencies. The housing agency’s “most notable power, and the reason we are here today, is that they can put certain government-affiliated companies under conservatorship.”

“This is not a wide-reaching power that affects many entities,” she said. “It’s one company at a time, essentially, unlike in the CFPB.”

But Justice Samuel Alito said that the housing agency wields great power. “The way in which the agency carries out its responsibility as conservator has a profound effect on the housing market and, therefore, a profound effect on ordinary people,” he said.

Nielson said the logic of the parties’ position would undermine much of the federal government.

“The Social Security Administration, the Office of Special Counsel, the Federal Reserve, the Civil Service, will all be subject to constitutional attack,” he said, “and that’s just the beginning.”

Justice Elena Kagan elaborated on that point in an exchange with David H. Thompson, a lawyer for the shareholders. The Social Security Administration, she said, “has been led by a single commissioner since 1994 and, ever since then, it’s rendered 650,000 decisions every year, so that’s about 17 million decisions.”

“Are we really going to void all of those decisions?” she asked.

Thompson replied that the agency’s actions, unless subject to the statute of limitations, “should be void.”

He said the actions of the housing agency had crossed a line. “The companies have been nationalized,” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the assertion. Government aid during the housing crisis “was a lifeline thrown to your clients," he said, adding that he had done some recent financial research.

“I checked this morning,” the chief justice said, “and Fannie Mae was trading at $2.69 and Freddie Mac at $2.56,” he said, “and your shares are not worthless."

Hashim M. Mooppan, a lawyer for the federal government, said the housing agency, acting as a conservator, had been entitled to restructure their financial obligations. “That is what conservators do day in and day out,” he said.

Mooppan added that the parties to the 2012 agreement — the acting director and the Treasury secretary — could both be fired by the president for any reason or no reason.

“Courts cannot set aside a multibillion-dollar contract on the ground that it was unconstitutionally insulated from presidential supervision even though both of the officials who signed it were removable at will by the president,” he said.

But Thompson, the lawyer for the shareholders, said the law creating the housing agency, with its tenure protections for the agency’s director, “reduces the president to the cajoler in chief.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a dispute between shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants, and the Treasury Department over $124 billion in payments the two lenders were required to make to the government.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a dispute between shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants, and the Treasury Department over $124 billion in payments the two lenders were required to make to the government. The shareholders said the law creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which put the two lenders into conservatorship in 2008, violated the Constitution because it insulated the agency’s director from presidential oversight. A decision by the court in June concerning the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau suggested that it may agree that the structure of the housing agency violated the separation of powers. But several justices seemed wary of the sweep of a second aspect of the shareholders’ arguments, which said the lack of presidential supervision of the housing agency’s director meant that a 2012 agreement between the agency and the Treasury Department must be undone, requiring the repayment of vast sums. The two sides agreed that the law creating the housing agency was unconstitutional because it barred the president from firing its director without cause. Because there was no dispute between the parties as to that, the court appointed Aaron L. Nielson, a law professor at Brigham Young University, to defend the law. Nielsen said the new case, Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422, differed from the one in June concerning the consumer bureau. The shareholders in the new case challenged a 2012 agreement between the housing agency and the Treasury Department, he said. But that agreement had been made by an acting director of the agency, who was subject to removal at will in any event, making academic the question of the status of the agency’s director. The laws creating the two agencies were also different, Nielson said. Before the court’s decision in June in the case on the consumer bureau, its director could be fired only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance,” a demanding standard. By contrast, the director of the housing agency may be fired only for cause, which Nielson said “provides the weakest protection in removal law and can easily be read to allow removal based on policy disagreement with the president.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she saw “vast differences” between the agencies. The housing agency’s “most notable power, and the reason we are here today, is that they can put certain government-affiliated companies under conservatorship.” “This is not a wide-reaching power that affects many entities,” she said. “It’s one company at a time, essentially, unlike in the CFPB.” But Justice Samuel Alito said that the housing agency wields great power. “The way in which the agency carries out its responsibility as conservator has a profound effect on the housing market and, therefore, a profound effect on ordinary people,” he said. Nielson said the logic of the parties’ position would undermine much of the federal government. “The Social Security Administration, the Office of Special Counsel, the Federal Reserve, the Civil Service, will all be subject to constitutional attack,” he said, “and that’s just the beginning.” Justice Elena Kagan elaborated on that point in an exchange with David H. Thompson, a lawyer for the shareholders. The Social Security Administration, she said, “has been led by a single commissioner since 1994 and, ever since then, it’s rendered 650,000 decisions every year, so that’s about 17 million decisions.” “Are we really going to void all of those decisions?” she asked. Thompson replied that the agency’s actions, unless subject to the statute of limitations, “should be void.” He said the actions of the housing agency had crossed a line. “The companies have been nationalized,” he said. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the assertion. Government aid during the housing crisis “was a lifeline thrown to your clients," he said, adding that he had done some recent financial research. “I checked this morning,” the chief justice said, “and Fannie Mae was trading at $2.69 and Freddie Mac at $2.56,” he said, “and your shares are not worthless." Hashim M. Mooppan, a lawyer for the federal government, said the housing agency, acting as a conservator, had been entitled to restructure their financial obligations. “That is what conservators do day in and day out,” he said. Mooppan added that the parties to the 2012 agreement — the acting director and the Treasury secretary — could both be fired by the president for any reason or no reason. “Courts cannot set aside a multibillion-dollar contract on the ground that it was unconstitutionally insulated from presidential supervision even though both of the officials who signed it were removable at will by the president,” he said. But Thompson, the lawyer for the shareholders, said the law creating the housing agency, with its tenure protections for the agency’s director, “reduces the president to the cajoler in chief.”

US Supreme Court weighs President’s power to fire head of housing agency

Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court. In spite of ample indication of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in US Presidential election 2020, Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud.

"Hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration, a continuation -- which has led us to the highest stock markets we've ever had, the best employment numbers we've ever had, a rebuilt military," Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday (local time) during a vaccine summit.

Trump was responding to a question on why he did not invite members of the Biden transition team to the meeting, which deliberated on his plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccine in the US.

Trump said because of the "great work" he did, he was "rewarded" with a victory.

On Tuesday itself, Republican Party's attempts to invalidated election results in Pennsylvania were thwarted by US Supreme Court

The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law.

Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-throws-out-trumps-claim-of-election-fraud-in-pennsylvania-348430">US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania</a>

Pennsylvania has already certified election results in favour of US President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump's attempt to invalidate elections results via legal routes has not been successful and he or Republican Party have suffered defeat after defeats in various courts in the US.

(With agency inputs)

Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court.

Current US President Donald Trump said he was hopful that he would be the next US president on the same day Republican Party's assertion of election fraud was rejected by US Supreme Court. In spite of ample indication of President-elect Joe Biden's victory in US Presidential election 2020, Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud. "Hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration, a continuation -- which has led us to the highest stock markets we've ever had, the best employment numbers we've ever had, a rebuilt military," Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday (local time) during a vaccine summit. Trump was responding to a question on why he did not invite members of the Biden transition team to the meeting, which deliberated on his plans to distribute COVID-19 vaccine in the US. Trump said because of the "great work" he did, he was "rewarded" with a victory. On Tuesday itself, Republican Party's attempts to invalidated election results in Pennsylvania were thwarted by US Supreme Court The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law. Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes. Also Read | US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has already certified election results in favour of US President-elect Joe Biden. Trump's attempt to invalidate elections results via legal routes has not been successful and he or Republican Party have suffered defeat after defeats in various courts in the US. (With agency inputs)

Hopeful I'll remain US president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there.

The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law.

Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes.

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state`s constitution.

Trump`s campaign and his allies have lost in a stream of lawsuits in key states won by Biden, also including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. Judges have rejected sweeping assertions of voting irregularities.

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election`s outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hopeful-ill-remain-president-says-trump-on-same-day-of-legal-defeat-in-us-supreme-court-348441">Hopeful I'll remain president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court</a>

However, Trump is yet to concede and instead chosen to make baseless allegations about election fraud and has not provided any evidence.

"This election is over. We must continue to stop this circus of `lawsuits` and move forward," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter.

(With Reuters inputs)

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there.

US Supreme Court gave a blow to Republicans seeking to throw out 2.5 milliion mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and undo Joe Biden's election victory. The court refused to block the state from formalising Joe Biden's victory there. The lawsuit was brought-in by US congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally and other Pennsylvania Republicans. They said that state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law. Trump had won the state in 2016 presidential elections but this time Biden clinched the state by 80,000 votes. The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state`s constitution. Trump`s campaign and his allies have lost in a stream of lawsuits in key states won by Biden, also including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. Judges have rejected sweeping assertions of voting irregularities. Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election`s outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes. Also Read | Hopeful I'll remain president, says Trump on same day of legal defeat in US Supreme Court However, Trump is yet to concede and instead chosen to make baseless allegations about election fraud and has not provided any evidence. "This election is over. We must continue to stop this circus of `lawsuits` and move forward," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter. (With Reuters inputs)

US Supreme Court throws out Trump's claim of election fraud in Pennsylvania

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state.

In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/strong-support-from-president-trump-saudi-arabia-says-final-agreement-with-qatar-within-reach-347759">'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach'</a>

Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes.

Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him.

The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-us-senate-majority-in-the-pot-parties-bring-out-big-guns-for-georgia-elections-347720">With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections</a>

On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win.

Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory.

In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency.

This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was.

The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

Allies of President Donald Trump sought an emergency order Thursday from the US Supreme Court blocking the certification of election results in Pennsylvania, a key state won by President-elect Joe Biden. The move follows the Pennsylvania state supreme court's rejection Saturday of a suit challenging expanded mail-in voting in the key northeastern state. In the motion filed Thursday the top US court is not asked to rule on the merits of the case at this point. Also read| 'Strong support from President Trump': Saudi Arabia says final agreement with Qatar 'within reach' Rather, the plaintiffs ask the court for an injunction to halt any remaining steps in the election certification, which was actually done last week, so the plaintiffs can develop their arguments. They include Mike Kelly, a Republican member of the House of Representatives. The court is expected to respond quickly in writing and is not obliged to explain whatever ruling it makes. Trump is still refusing to concede defeat in the November 3 election, alleging without providing evidence that there was widespread fraud in both voting and vote counting and that the election was stolen from him. The Trump campaign and Trump allies have filed a flurry of lawsuits in battleground states that he lost, seeking to overturn the results. In some 20-odd cases, however, the courts have rejected these suits. Also read| With US Senate majority in the pot, parties bring out big guns for Georgia elections On Tuesday Attorney General Bill Barr, a close ally of the president, broke with Trump and said there was no evidence of significant fraud to invalidate Biden's win. Trump appointed three conservatives to the nine-member court during his presidency and said right after the November election he was prepared to go all the way to that tribunal to defend what he called his re-election victory. In the 2000 presidential election, the high court halted a recount in Florida while George W. Bush held a 537-vote lead over Al Gore, handing Bush the presidency. This time is different: There is not just one but several states that Trump is disputing and the margins of victory for Biden there are much larger than Bush's was. The Supreme Court is considered unlikely to risk its reputation by getting involved in the Pennsylvania suit, which would not change the overall outcome of the election anyway.

Donald Trump allies take Pennsylvania vote complaint to US Supreme Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states?

For more than two centuries, the answer has been “yes.” Both Article 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment require that House seats be allotted according to “the whole number” of persons in each state.

That phrase has long been read to include all the nation’s residents, whether American citizens, foreigners admitted here on visas or immigrants with no documents at all. But President Donald Trump signalled in a memorandum this summer that he intends to exclude immigrants in the country illegally from the 2020 census totals that he hopes to send to the House next year for use in reapportionment.

Federal courts have ruled in three separate lawsuits that Trump lacks that authority, saying in one case that the question was not even close. But the Supreme Court will have the final say. Here’s a rundown of some of the basics behind the issue:

What’s at stake in the case?

First and foremost, the allocation of political power. No precise count of immigrants in the country illegally exists. Trump has ordered the Census Bureau to come up with an estimate, but many experts put the number at about 11 million.

Many are concentrated in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York and Texas, and in states like California and Florida where immigrants in the country illegally also are in demand for farm work. Some of those states and a few others could lose House seats if those immigrants were excluded from census totals.

Conversely, some states with few immigrants in the country illegally could pick up those seats. Alabama, for example, appears set to lose one of its seven House seats in the next reapportionment; the state is arguing in a separate lawsuit that such immigrants are illegally depriving its citizens of fair representation.

Many experts feel that restricting the count to citizens would tend to benefit states that are rural and Republican at the expense of ones that are urban and Democratic. But the Republican Party’s gains probably would be small, most say, given that big Republican states like Texas would be among those that could be affected by the change.

What is the legal argument for excluding immigrants in the country illegally from reapportionment totals?

While the Constitution required House seats to be equally apportioned among the states based on population, the Justice Department argues, federal law gives the president discretion to make policy judgments about whom the census counts. The discretion includes the definition of an “inhabitant” or “usual resident” of the United States, two terms that have historically been used to determine which people qualify to be counted in a census.

The president’s lawyers say federal law gives “virtually unfettered discretion” to the Commerce Department — the federal agency that oversees the Census Bureau — to decide what data is used in counting individual residents of states.

What is the legal argument for continuing to count immigrants in the country illegally?

History, for one: Noncitizens have been counted in every census — and used in every reapportionment of the House — since the very first census was conducted in 1790. In the nation’s early history, a substantial share of the population had migrated from other countries, and for many decades thereafter, some states actively recruited foreigners, legally or not, to provide labor and boost political representation. Both the framers of the Constitution and the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated whether to count all immigrants for apportionment purposes and elected in the end to do so.

Opponents of the president’s plan also say that the Constitution explicitly requires that the decennial census be used for reapportionment and that Trump has no authority to deduct unauthorized immigrants from that census before sending population totals to the House.

How have federal courts ruled on the issue so far?

Three courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled against the White House on varying grounds and in some cases barred the Commerce Department from sending a count of immigrants in the country illegally to the White House. The California court ruled that excluding noncitizens violated both federal law and the Constitution.

In New York, a panel of three judges, two appointed by President George W. Bush and one by President Barack Obama, said unanimously that “the merits of the parties’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated.”

The panel said federal law requires the government to produce a single set of population figures for reapportionment, making Trump’s plan for a separate estimate of such immigrants moot. The judges also said that “so long as they reside in the United States, illegal aliens qualify as ‘persons’ in a ‘state’ as Congress used those words.”

Because of that, the judges said, there was no need to take up the question of whether the president’s plan also violated the Constitution.

Is it even possible to count the number of immigrants in the country illegally?

It would be extremely hard, if only because many of them are trying their best to avoid being seen for fear of deportation.

The Trump administration had ordered the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in an attempt to come up with a tally, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Commerce Department had failed to offer a plausible explanation of why the question was needed.

On the president’s order, a Census Bureau task force is working to provide a count anyway, mostly by sifting through federal and state records that show conclusively who is a citizen — and by implication, who is not.

A handful of records, such as compilations of people marked for deportation, do identify people who are in the county illegally, but those tallies are a small fraction of the entire population of such immigrants.

It appears unlikely that the bureau will produce an estimate by the Dec. 31 statutory deadline for sending population totals to the White House. Its experts are racing to complete a count in time to accompany the delivery of preliminary census figures to Congress in early January.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states?

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a question that goes to the heart of American democracy: Must the government count everyone living in the country, citizens or not, in the census totals that the House of Representatives uses to reallocate its 435 seats among the states? For more than two centuries, the answer has been “yes.” Both Article 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment require that House seats be allotted according to “the whole number” of persons in each state. That phrase has long been read to include all the nation’s residents, whether American citizens, foreigners admitted here on visas or immigrants with no documents at all. But President Donald Trump signalled in a memorandum this summer that he intends to exclude immigrants in the country illegally from the 2020 census totals that he hopes to send to the House next year for use in reapportionment. Federal courts have ruled in three separate lawsuits that Trump lacks that authority, saying in one case that the question was not even close. But the Supreme Court will have the final say. Here’s a rundown of some of the basics behind the issue: What’s at stake in the case? First and foremost, the allocation of political power. No precise count of immigrants in the country illegally exists. Trump has ordered the Census Bureau to come up with an estimate, but many experts put the number at about 11 million. Many are concentrated in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York and Texas, and in states like California and Florida where immigrants in the country illegally also are in demand for farm work. Some of those states and a few others could lose House seats if those immigrants were excluded from census totals. Conversely, some states with few immigrants in the country illegally could pick up those seats. Alabama, for example, appears set to lose one of its seven House seats in the next reapportionment; the state is arguing in a separate lawsuit that such immigrants are illegally depriving its citizens of fair representation. Many experts feel that restricting the count to citizens would tend to benefit states that are rural and Republican at the expense of ones that are urban and Democratic. But the Republican Party’s gains probably would be small, most say, given that big Republican states like Texas would be among those that could be affected by the change. What is the legal argument for excluding immigrants in the country illegally from reapportionment totals? While the Constitution required House seats to be equally apportioned among the states based on population, the Justice Department argues, federal law gives the president discretion to make policy judgments about whom the census counts. The discretion includes the definition of an “inhabitant” or “usual resident” of the United States, two terms that have historically been used to determine which people qualify to be counted in a census. The president’s lawyers say federal law gives “virtually unfettered discretion” to the Commerce Department — the federal agency that oversees the Census Bureau — to decide what data is used in counting individual residents of states. What is the legal argument for continuing to count immigrants in the country illegally? History, for one: Noncitizens have been counted in every census — and used in every reapportionment of the House — since the very first census was conducted in 1790. In the nation’s early history, a substantial share of the population had migrated from other countries, and for many decades thereafter, some states actively recruited foreigners, legally or not, to provide labor and boost political representation. Both the framers of the Constitution and the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated whether to count all immigrants for apportionment purposes and elected in the end to do so. Opponents of the president’s plan also say that the Constitution explicitly requires that the decennial census be used for reapportionment and that Trump has no authority to deduct unauthorized immigrants from that census before sending population totals to the House. How have federal courts ruled on the issue so far? Three courts — in New York, Maryland and California — have ruled against the White House on varying grounds and in some cases barred the Commerce Department from sending a count of immigrants in the country illegally to the White House. The California court ruled that excluding noncitizens violated both federal law and the Constitution. In New York, a panel of three judges, two appointed by President George W. Bush and one by President Barack Obama, said unanimously that “the merits of the parties’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated.” The panel said federal law requires the government to produce a single set of population figures for reapportionment, making Trump’s plan for a separate estimate of such immigrants moot. The judges also said that “so long as they reside in the United States, illegal aliens qualify as ‘persons’ in a ‘state’ as Congress used those words.” Because of that, the judges said, there was no need to take up the question of whether the president’s plan also violated the Constitution. Is it even possible to count the number of immigrants in the country illegally? It would be extremely hard, if only because many of them are trying their best to avoid being seen for fear of deportation. The Trump administration had ordered the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in an attempt to come up with a tally, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Commerce Department had failed to offer a plausible explanation of why the question was needed. On the president’s order, a Census Bureau task force is working to provide a count anyway, mostly by sifting through federal and state records that show conclusively who is a citizen — and by implication, who is not. A handful of records, such as compilations of people marked for deportation, do identify people who are in the county illegally, but those tallies are a small fraction of the entire population of such immigrants. It appears unlikely that the bureau will produce an estimate by the Dec. 31 statutory deadline for sending population totals to the White House. Its experts are racing to complete a count in time to accompany the delivery of preliminary census figures to Congress in early January.

A census case that goes to the heart of American democracy

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.S. House of Representatives districts to states. 
 
The challengers to Trump`s July directive include various states led by New York, cities, counties and immigrant rights groups. They have argued that the Republican president`s move could leave several million people uncounted and cause California, Texas and New Jersey to lose House seats, which are based on a state`s population count in the decennial census. 
 
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Trump, is scheduled to hear an 80-minute oral argument by teleconference. 
 
Trump lost his bid for re-election on Nov. 3. This case focuses on one of several policy moves his administration is rushing to complete before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20. 
 
The census in mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The challengers argued that Trump is prohibited by the Constitution`s text from excluding illegal immigrants from the population count. The Constitution requires that the apportionment of House seats be based upon the "whole number of persons in each state." 
 
The challengers said Trump`s plan, undertaken as part of the government`s responsibility to administer the 2020 census, also violates a federal law called the Census Act that outlines how a census must be conducted. 
 
They said Trump`s plan would weaken the political power of states with larger numbers of illegal immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting their true populations and depriving them of House seats. If California loses House districts, that likely would mean Democrats lose House seats, benefiting Trump`s fellow Republicans. 
 
There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Until now, the government`s practice was to count all people regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. 
 
"That`s what everyone has always thought," said Dale Ho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents immigrant groups in the case. 
 
Ho said he is optimistic the court`s conservatives, who often tout the importance of interpreting laws as written, would view this one as a "rather easy case." 
 
Trump`s lawyers argued in court papers that the president acted within his authority and that the challengers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case. Trump`s administration "has virtually unfettered discretion as to what data will be used in enumerating individual persons in each state for purposes of the decennial census and apportionment," Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote. 
 
The court is deciding the case on a expedited schedule, with a ruling due before the end of the year. That would make it difficult for the incoming Biden administration to revisit Trump`s plan if it is upheld. 
 
Trump`s hardline stance toward immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency. 
 
The Supreme Court last year ruled 5-4 against Trump`s effort to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics said the question was intended to frighten immigrants from taking part in the population count and artificially reduce population numbers in heavily Democratic areas, also to benefit Republicans. 
 
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in that ruling. But the addition of Trump`s third appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the court changes its dynamics, as seen in action by the justices on Wednesday in a case in which they backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship that challenged New York state`s latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. 
 
Roberts dissented along with the court`s three liberals but Barrett`s vote in favor of the religious groups proved decisive. 
 
LOWER COURTS BACK CHALLENGERS 
 
A three-judge panel in New York ruled against the administration in September in the current case and the justices agreed to take up the appeal on Oct. 16. Federal courts in California and Maryland have reached the same conclusion in other cases though one court in Washington ruled for Trump. 
 
By statute, the president is due to send Congress a report in early January with the population of each of the states and their entitled number of House districts. 
 
Once states are allocated their districts, they themselves draw the boundaries for the districts, which will be used first in the 2022 congressional elections. The number of House seats for each state also determines how many votes that state gets in the Electoral College, the system used to determine the winner of presidential elections. In a close election, one or two electoral votes could swing the outcome. 
 
The census itself does not gather data on a person`s citizenship or immigration status. Trump`s administration would base its numbers on data gathered elsewhere. The U.S. Census Bureau, a spokesman said, "will make public the methods used to provide state-level counts once we have them finalized." 
 
Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at New York University`s Brennan Center for Justice, said it is not yet clear if the administration will even be able to come up with usable numbers. 
 
"This is not the way a transparent constitutional democracy is supposed to be run," Wolf added. 
 
Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University`s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia who filed a brief opposing Trump, said although the challengers have a strong case, one wrinkle could be that some conservative justices embrace a broad view of presidential powers. 
 
"We can`t be too definitive about what the justices will do with it," Somin said.

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump`s unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the population totals used to allocate U.S. House of Representatives districts to states. The challengers to Trump`s July directive include various states led by New York, cities, counties and immigrant rights groups. They have argued that the Republican president`s move could leave several million people uncounted and cause California, Texas and New Jersey to lose House seats, which are based on a state`s population count in the decennial census. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three justices appointed by Trump, is scheduled to hear an 80-minute oral argument by teleconference. Trump lost his bid for re-election on Nov. 3. This case focuses on one of several policy moves his administration is rushing to complete before Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20. The census in mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The challengers argued that Trump is prohibited by the Constitution`s text from excluding illegal immigrants from the population count. The Constitution requires that the apportionment of House seats be based upon the "whole number of persons in each state." The challengers said Trump`s plan, undertaken as part of the government`s responsibility to administer the 2020 census, also violates a federal law called the Census Act that outlines how a census must be conducted. They said Trump`s plan would weaken the political power of states with larger numbers of illegal immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting their true populations and depriving them of House seats. If California loses House districts, that likely would mean Democrats lose House seats, benefiting Trump`s fellow Republicans. There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Until now, the government`s practice was to count all people regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. "That`s what everyone has always thought," said Dale Ho, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents immigrant groups in the case. Ho said he is optimistic the court`s conservatives, who often tout the importance of interpreting laws as written, would view this one as a "rather easy case." Trump`s lawyers argued in court papers that the president acted within his authority and that the challengers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case. Trump`s administration "has virtually unfettered discretion as to what data will be used in enumerating individual persons in each state for purposes of the decennial census and apportionment," Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote. The court is deciding the case on a expedited schedule, with a ruling due before the end of the year. That would make it difficult for the incoming Biden administration to revisit Trump`s plan if it is upheld. Trump`s hardline stance toward immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency. The Supreme Court last year ruled 5-4 against Trump`s effort to add a citizenship question to the census. Critics said the question was intended to frighten immigrants from taking part in the population count and artificially reduce population numbers in heavily Democratic areas, also to benefit Republicans. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in that ruling. But the addition of Trump`s third appointee Amy Coney Barrett to the court changes its dynamics, as seen in action by the justices on Wednesday in a case in which they backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship that challenged New York state`s latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. Roberts dissented along with the court`s three liberals but Barrett`s vote in favor of the religious groups proved decisive. LOWER COURTS BACK CHALLENGERS A three-judge panel in New York ruled against the administration in September in the current case and the justices agreed to take up the appeal on Oct. 16. Federal courts in California and Maryland have reached the same conclusion in other cases though one court in Washington ruled for Trump. By statute, the president is due to send Congress a report in early January with the population of each of the states and their entitled number of House districts. Once states are allocated their districts, they themselves draw the boundaries for the districts, which will be used first in the 2022 congressional elections. The number of House seats for each state also determines how many votes that state gets in the Electoral College, the system used to determine the winner of presidential elections. In a close election, one or two electoral votes could swing the outcome. The census itself does not gather data on a person`s citizenship or immigration status. Trump`s administration would base its numbers on data gathered elsewhere. The U.S. Census Bureau, a spokesman said, "will make public the methods used to provide state-level counts once we have them finalized." Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at New York University`s Brennan Center for Justice, said it is not yet clear if the administration will even be able to come up with usable numbers. "This is not the way a transparent constitutional democracy is supposed to be run," Wolf added. Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University`s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia who filed a brief opposing Trump, said although the challengers have a strong case, one wrinkle could be that some conservative justices embrace a broad view of presidential powers. "We can`t be too definitive about what the justices will do with it," Somin said.

US Supreme Court weighs Trump bid to bar illegal immigrants from census totals

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots.

On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations.

The order marked one of the first consequential actions on the court of incumbent president Donald Trump's new appointee, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who cast a deciding vote in favour of the religious groups. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the court's three liberals.

An October 6 decision by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down non-essential businesses in targetted areas where infections have spiked, including some Brooklyn neighbourhoods. It limited gatherings at religious institutions to 10 people in some areas and 25 in others.

The houses of worship say that the limits violated religious freedoms protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and that their facilities were singled out for more stringent restrictions than essential businesses, such as food stores. The Orthodox congregations Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills and Agudath Israel of Madison, as well as nationwide Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America.

A federal judge in Brooklyn rejected separate requests made by the religious groups on October 9. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined emergency requests filed by both sets of challengers on November 9.

In two previous cases this year, the court on 5-4 votes turned away similar requests by churches in Nevada and California.

Those votes occurred before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and saw her and her three liberal colleagues joined by Roberts in the majority.

(with inputs) 
&nbsp;

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations.

The US Supreme Court has backed Christian and Jewish houses of worship challenging New York state's latest restrictions in novel coronavirus hot spots. On Wednesday, the court on a 5-4 vote granted requests made by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish congregations. The order marked one of the first consequential actions on the court of incumbent president Donald Trump's new appointee, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who cast a deciding vote in favour of the religious groups. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts dissented along with the court's three liberals. An October 6 decision by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shut down non-essential businesses in targetted areas where infections have spiked, including some Brooklyn neighbourhoods. It limited gatherings at religious institutions to 10 people in some areas and 25 in others. The houses of worship say that the limits violated religious freedoms protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and that their facilities were singled out for more stringent restrictions than essential businesses, such as food stores. The Orthodox congregations Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills and Agudath Israel of Madison, as well as nationwide Orthodox Jewish group Agudath Israel of America. A federal judge in Brooklyn rejected separate requests made by the religious groups on October 9. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined emergency requests filed by both sets of challengers on November 9. In two previous cases this year, the court on 5-4 votes turned away similar requests by churches in Nevada and California. Those votes occurred before the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and saw her and her three liberal colleagues joined by Roberts in the majority. (with inputs)

US Supreme Court backs religious groups over New York coronavirus curbs

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes.&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-result-live-update-donald-trump-joe-biden-votes-tally-president-predictions-begins-vote-count-how-to-follow-the-2020-us-election-results-from-india-Trump-wins-Kentucky-joe-Biden-Vermont-340293">Live updates on US election</a>

US election 2020: Trump wants Supreme Court to intervene

Trump recently claimed that his administration would involve the US Supreme Court in a bid to halt counting of votes, which according to the incumbent Republican president is causing election fraud in the country.

But many analysts have posited that the US SC may not be the final arbiter in this election.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-donald-trump-criticises-surprise-ballot-dumps-for-lagging-behind-joe-biden-340569" hreflang="en">Trump criticises 'surprise ballot dumps' for lagging behind Joe Biden</a>

With a fierce battle in key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump had claimed that the delay in counting increases the chances of fraud voting.&nbsp;This was the first time in history that so many Americans exercised&nbsp;their franchise, with many voting early, and others voting through mail-in ballots, which the Republicans have tried to invalidate multiple times.

Fraud is rare in US elections, and there is no evidence of any cheating happening due to mail-in voting. "This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we'll be going to the US&nbsp;Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop”, Trump had announced.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-election-what-happens-next-340615/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Without divulging any details of what Trump administration intends to do in terms of litigation, Trump’s team is attempting to throw open a pending case which seeks to block mail-in ballots that are showing up late in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. In Michigan too, the Trump admin wants counting to stop.

US election 2020: Can the court do much?

Many analysts told Reuters that such objections to voting may not have a role to play in the final outcome.

An election law expert at the Ohio State University - Ned Foley believe that as opposed to the 2000 presidential race, a SC intervention will most probably will not end in the favour of Trump. In 2000, the Supreme Court announced George W Bush victorious after a recount of votes.

"It’s extremely early on but at the moment it doesn’t seem apparent how this would end up where the US Supreme Court would be decisive," Foley told Reuters.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-world-leaders-react-on-the-presidential-election-340509" hreflang="en">US election 2020: World leaders react on the presidential election</a>

Given how close the race is, and with Trump’s ongoing threats, both Biden and Trump’s legal teams are ready to step up if the situation demands it.

"If we have to go through these legal challenges, that's not unprecedented," Trump’s attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox Business Network in an interview on Wednesday. “He wants to make sure that the election is not stolen”, Ellis added.

A Pennsylvania top court recently allowed votes arriving upto 3 days after Election Day to be counted in the final tally, much to Trump’s dismay, who wanted the results to be declared on the same day. Earlier, the SC had refused to fast-track a Republican appeal.

US election 2020: What if Pennsylvania case is opened?

Even if the court reopened the case, it may not play a major role in deciding the final vote in Pennsylvania.

David Boies, who represented Al Gore in 2000, told Reuters it is unlikely that the Trump campaign would succeed in a possible effort to halt the counting of votes coming in after November 3. "I think that it’s more posturing and hope than anything else," Boies said.

Boies also claimed that Pennsylvania’s outcome could be rendered irrelevant based on the outcome in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-ritchie-torres-first-openly-gay-afro-latino-member-of-congress-340525" hreflang="en">Ritchie Torres — First openly gay, Afro-Latino member of Congress</a>

Legal experts also added how if Biden wins 270 electoral votes, he wouldn’t need to pursue a legal case in the state anyway.

"I think the Court would summarily turn away any effort by the President or his campaign to short-circuit the ordinary legal process," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Reuters.

"Even Bush v. Gore went through the Florida state courts first”, he added.

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes.

US election 2020: In US elections 2020, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are running neck-and-neck. Trump even declared his victory before the official count ended, while Joe Biden announced that he will emerge victorious after all the votes are counted, especially in battleground states that are still counting votes. | Live updates on US election US election 2020: Trump wants Supreme Court to intervene Trump recently claimed that his administration would involve the US Supreme Court in a bid to halt counting of votes, which according to the incumbent Republican president is causing election fraud in the country. But many analysts have posited that the US SC may not be the final arbiter in this election. Also read: Trump criticises 'surprise ballot dumps' for lagging behind Joe Biden With a fierce battle in key states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump had claimed that the delay in counting increases the chances of fraud voting. This was the first time in history that so many Americans exercised their franchise, with many voting early, and others voting through mail-in ballots, which the Republicans have tried to invalidate multiple times. Fraud is rare in US elections, and there is no evidence of any cheating happening due to mail-in voting. "This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we'll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop”, Trump had announced. Without divulging any details of what Trump administration intends to do in terms of litigation, Trump’s team is attempting to throw open a pending case which seeks to block mail-in ballots that are showing up late in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. In Michigan too, the Trump admin wants counting to stop. US election 2020: Can the court do much? Many analysts told Reuters that such objections to voting may not have a role to play in the final outcome. An election law expert at the Ohio State University - Ned Foley believe that as opposed to the 2000 presidential race, a SC intervention will most probably will not end in the favour of Trump. In 2000, the Supreme Court announced George W Bush victorious after a recount of votes. "It’s extremely early on but at the moment it doesn’t seem apparent how this would end up where the US Supreme Court would be decisive," Foley told Reuters. Also read: US election 2020: World leaders react on the presidential election Given how close the race is, and with Trump’s ongoing threats, both Biden and Trump’s legal teams are ready to step up if the situation demands it. "If we have to go through these legal challenges, that's not unprecedented," Trump’s attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox Business Network in an interview on Wednesday. “He wants to make sure that the election is not stolen”, Ellis added. A Pennsylvania top court recently allowed votes arriving upto 3 days after Election Day to be counted in the final tally, much to Trump’s dismay, who wanted the results to be declared on the same day. Earlier, the SC had refused to fast-track a Republican appeal. US election 2020: What if Pennsylvania case is opened? Even if the court reopened the case, it may not play a major role in deciding the final vote in Pennsylvania. David Boies, who represented Al Gore in 2000, told Reuters it is unlikely that the Trump campaign would succeed in a possible effort to halt the counting of votes coming in after November 3. "I think that it’s more posturing and hope than anything else," Boies said. Boies also claimed that Pennsylvania’s outcome could be rendered irrelevant based on the outcome in Michigan and Wisconsin. Also read: Ritchie Torres — First openly gay, Afro-Latino member of Congress Legal experts also added how if Biden wins 270 electoral votes, he wouldn’t need to pursue a legal case in the state anyway. "I think the Court would summarily turn away any effort by the President or his campaign to short-circuit the ordinary legal process," Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Reuters. "Even Bush v. Gore went through the Florida state courts first”, he added.

US election 2020: Can United States Supreme Court be the final arbiter?

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “We want all voting to stop.”

The first statement was premature. The second did not make sense.

The Supreme Court decides actual disputes, not abstract propositions, and then only after lower courts have made their own rulings. While there have been countless election cases filed around the nation, it is not clear which of them might reach the court in the coming days.

But one candidate is already on the court’s docket. Last month, the court refused to put a case from Pennsylvania on a fast track, but three justices indicated that the court might return to it later if need be.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Trump campaign asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in the case alongside Republican state lawmakers and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The court has not said whether it would hear the case or when it might decide whether to grant review.

As far as voting is concerned, it stopped on Election Day. But some states allow votes cast by mail on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received up to several days afterward. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving ballots from Election Day to three days later.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-hail-mary-keep-counting-us-presidential-election-340871">The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election</a>

Should the vote in Pennsylvania have the potential to determine the outcome in the Electoral College and should those late-arriving ballots have the potential to swing the state — two big ifs — the U.S. Supreme Court might well intercede.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a three-day extension for ballots clearly mailed on or before Election Day and for those with missing or illegible postmarks “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.”

Late last month, on Oct. 28, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.

<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-election-2020-joe-biden-needs-six-electoral-votes-to-win-340882/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The court’s refusal to move more quickly came a little more than a week after it deadlocked, 4-4, on an emergency application in the case Oct. 19.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court Oct. 27, did not take part in the decision not to fast-track the case. A court spokesperson said Barrett had not participated “because of the need for a prompt resolution” and “because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has not hesitated to block orders from federal judges that sought to alter state rules for conducting elections. Rulings from state courts present more difficult questions because the Supreme Court generally defers to them in cases concerning interpretations of state law, while the Constitution empowers state legislatures to set the times, places and manner of congressional elections.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-result-2020-trumps-campaign-files-lawsuit-in-georgia-asking-to-pause-vote-count-340622">US Election result 2020: Trump's campaign files lawsuit in Georgia asking to pause vote count</a> 
 
In a statement issued when the court refused to speed the Pennsylvania case, Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized his court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”

“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” he wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”

“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the state Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”

But there was not enough time, he wrote. Still, Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case.

“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

Pennsylvania officials have instructed county election officials to segregate ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on Election Day through 5 p.m. three days later. That would as a practical matter allow a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether they were ultimately counted.

Alito’s statement in the Pennsylvania case echoed an earlier concurring opinion by Kavanaugh in a voting case from Wisconsin. Kavanaugh also said that state legislatures, rather than state courts, have the last word in setting state election procedures.

Taken together, the Oct. 17 deadlock and statements from four justices suggest that Barrett could cast the decisive vote if the Pennsylvania dispute holds the key to the election.

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

President Donald Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “We want all voting to stop.” The first statement was premature. The second did not make sense. The Supreme Court decides actual disputes, not abstract propositions, and then only after lower courts have made their own rulings. While there have been countless election cases filed around the nation, it is not clear which of them might reach the court in the coming days. But one candidate is already on the court’s docket. Last month, the court refused to put a case from Pennsylvania on a fast track, but three justices indicated that the court might return to it later if need be. On Wednesday afternoon, the Trump campaign asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in the case alongside Republican state lawmakers and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The court has not said whether it would hear the case or when it might decide whether to grant review. As far as voting is concerned, it stopped on Election Day. But some states allow votes cast by mail on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received up to several days afterward. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving ballots from Election Day to three days later. Also Read | The Hail-Mary Keep-Counting US Presidential Election Should the vote in Pennsylvania have the potential to determine the outcome in the Electoral College and should those late-arriving ballots have the potential to swing the state — two big ifs — the U.S. Supreme Court might well intercede. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a three-day extension for ballots clearly mailed on or before Election Day and for those with missing or illegible postmarks “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.” Late last month, on Oct. 28, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully. × The court’s refusal to move more quickly came a little more than a week after it deadlocked, 4-4, on an emergency application in the case Oct. 19. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court Oct. 27, did not take part in the decision not to fast-track the case. A court spokesperson said Barrett had not participated “because of the need for a prompt resolution” and “because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.” The U.S. Supreme Court has not hesitated to block orders from federal judges that sought to alter state rules for conducting elections. Rulings from state courts present more difficult questions because the Supreme Court generally defers to them in cases concerning interpretations of state law, while the Constitution empowers state legislatures to set the times, places and manner of congressional elections. Also Read | US Election result 2020: Trump's campaign files lawsuit in Georgia asking to pause vote count In a statement issued when the court refused to speed the Pennsylvania case, Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized his court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.” “The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” he wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.” “It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the state Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.” But there was not enough time, he wrote. Still, Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case. “The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” Pennsylvania officials have instructed county election officials to segregate ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on Election Day through 5 p.m. three days later. That would as a practical matter allow a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether they were ultimately counted. Alito’s statement in the Pennsylvania case echoed an earlier concurring opinion by Kavanaugh in a voting case from Wisconsin. Kavanaugh also said that state legislatures, rather than state courts, have the last word in setting state election procedures. Taken together, the Oct. 17 deadlock and statements from four justices suggest that Barrett could cast the decisive vote if the Pennsylvania dispute holds the key to the election.

Supreme Court and the election: What we know

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man.

The justices threw out a lower court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed and said that more analysis was needed on whether Louisiana state law allows for such a claim.

McKesson has argued that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment should shield him from the lawsuit that accused him of negligence for leading the protest in Baton Rouge, but the court did not resolve that issue.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/black-lives-matter-after-george-floyd-jacob-blake-becomes-next-victim-of-police-brutality-323047" hreflang="en">Black Lives Matter: After George Floyd, Jacob Blake becomes next victim of police brutality</a>

"The constitutional issue, though undeniably important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place," the court said in the unsigned ruling.

The officer sustained serious injuries after being struck in the face by a rock or piece of concrete thrown by an unknown person, not by McKesson.

Litigation will now continue in lower courts.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, the ruling said.

The officer, whose identify was not disclosed in the lawsuit, sued the Black Lives Matter organization and McKesson seeking monetary damages over an incident at a July 2016 protest in Baton Rouge. The negligence lawsuit argued that McKesson should have known that violence would result from his actions leading the protest, which was one of many around the country that year arising from incidents involving police and Black individuals.

The protest took place outside the police department in the aftermath of the police killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man, after a struggle outside a convenience store where he was selling homemade CDs. The incident was caught on video.

McKesson, a civil rights activist who was one of the leading voices in the Black Lives Matter movement, said that his First Amendment rights outweigh any potential liability for negligence he could face under Louisiana law.

His lawyers said that if protest organizers can be sued for actions taken by others without their involvement, it could enable opponents to effectively block future demonstrations because activists would have to direct resources to battling litigation and could face monetary damages at trial.

McKesson's lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling involving Black civil rights activists in Mississippi that limited liability for protest leaders over the conduct of others when they are involved in actions protected by the First Amendment.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/black-lives-matter-movement-takes-political-colour-as-us-elections-near-317335" hreflang="en">Black Lives Matter movement takes political colour as US elections near</a>

The officer, according to the lawsuit, suffered loss of teeth, a jaw injury, a brain injury and a head injury.

The Black Lives Matter movement was formed after the high-profile killing of a Black 17-year-old named Trayvon Martin by a man named George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012. Its activists have criticized overly aggressive policing particularly against Black Americans. The movement attained further prominence following the May police killing of a Black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled that neither McKesson nor the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole could be sued over the Baton Rouge incident.

The officer appealed and in 2019 the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the claim against McKesson, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit left in place the judge's ruling dismissing Black Lives Matter from the case.

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man.

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson in his ongoing effort to avoid a lawsuit filed by a police officer injured during a 2016 protest in Louisiana triggered by the police killing of a Black man. The justices threw out a lower court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed and said that more analysis was needed on whether Louisiana state law allows for such a claim. McKesson has argued that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment should shield him from the lawsuit that accused him of negligence for leading the protest in Baton Rouge, but the court did not resolve that issue. Also read: Black Lives Matter: After George Floyd, Jacob Blake becomes next victim of police brutality "The constitutional issue, though undeniably important, is implicated only if Louisiana law permits recovery under these circumstances in the first place," the court said in the unsigned ruling. The officer sustained serious injuries after being struck in the face by a rock or piece of concrete thrown by an unknown person, not by McKesson. Litigation will now continue in lower courts. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, the ruling said. The officer, whose identify was not disclosed in the lawsuit, sued the Black Lives Matter organization and McKesson seeking monetary damages over an incident at a July 2016 protest in Baton Rouge. The negligence lawsuit argued that McKesson should have known that violence would result from his actions leading the protest, which was one of many around the country that year arising from incidents involving police and Black individuals. The protest took place outside the police department in the aftermath of the police killing of Alton Sterling, a Black man, after a struggle outside a convenience store where he was selling homemade CDs. The incident was caught on video. McKesson, a civil rights activist who was one of the leading voices in the Black Lives Matter movement, said that his First Amendment rights outweigh any potential liability for negligence he could face under Louisiana law. His lawyers said that if protest organizers can be sued for actions taken by others without their involvement, it could enable opponents to effectively block future demonstrations because activists would have to direct resources to battling litigation and could face monetary damages at trial. McKesson's lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling involving Black civil rights activists in Mississippi that limited liability for protest leaders over the conduct of others when they are involved in actions protected by the First Amendment. Also read: Black Lives Matter movement takes political colour as US elections near The officer, according to the lawsuit, suffered loss of teeth, a jaw injury, a brain injury and a head injury. The Black Lives Matter movement was formed after the high-profile killing of a Black 17-year-old named Trayvon Martin by a man named George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012. Its activists have criticized overly aggressive policing particularly against Black Americans. The movement attained further prominence following the May police killing of a Black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis. In 2017, a federal judge ruled that neither McKesson nor the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole could be sued over the Baton Rouge incident. The officer appealed and in 2019 the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the claim against McKesson, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit left in place the judge's ruling dismissing Black Lives Matter from the case.

US Supreme Court hands narrow win to Black Lives Matter activist over protest incident

The U.S. senate is not the only institution divided over Amy Coney Barrett. Protests were held outside the Supreme Court during Barrett's swearing-in. Pro-life & pro-choice activists faced off outside SCOTUS . WION reports

Pro-life & pro-choice protests outside Supreme Court | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

In a lightning-fast senate approval, Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Handing a pre-poll SCOTUS victory to Donald Trump. For the first time in 151 years, a justice got confirmed without a single support from minority party. What next?

Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

In the midst of a polarised election in the history of America, SCOTUS is going through a parallel reality. Final confirmation vote on Amy Coney Barrett is on the horizon with choosing a Supreme Court Justice so close to US Election 2020. WION reports

Final vote for judge Barrett's confirmation | U.S. Election 2020 New York Direct

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week.

“While I oppose the process that has led us to this point,” Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor, “I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility.”

Her unexpected turnabout gave a boost to Senate Republicans looking to quiet intraparty dissent in the face of unified Democratic opposition. They already had the votes they needed to confirm Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, but Murkowski’s support means that only one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — is likely to defect when the roll is called on Monday.

The development came as a divided Senate slogged through another day of debate over Barrett, 48, an appeals court judge whose confirmation would lock in a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats again turned to parliamentary tactics to draw out the process and needle Republicans for confirming a justice so close to Election Day.

Amid the scripted partisan theatrics, Murkowski’s 16-minute speech stood out as a rare moment of suspense. An iconoclast willing to occasionally buck her party, Murkowski had been one of the lone voices in her party joining Democrats last month to push back against the decision to quickly fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Murkowski repeated those concerns Saturday, warning that the rush by her fellow Republicans to fill the seat would “reinforce the public perception about political influence on the court.” She lamented decades of partisan escalation in the Senate over judicial nominations.

“Moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could — I don’t think that this will help our country become a better version of itself,” she said.

Murkowski said she would still join Democrats in trying to filibuster the nomination Sunday.

But after meeting with Barrett in recent days, Murkowski said she came away impressed and concluded she was unwilling to punish a qualified nominee because her party insisted on moving ahead.

“Frankly,” she added, “I lost that procedural fight.”

Murkowski, who is up for reelection in Alaska in 2022, has frequently broken with Republicans on significant votes in the last four years. She was the only member of her party in 2018 to oppose Trump’s last nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, earning her the vitriol of the president and some of his staunchest supporters.

Like Collins, Murkowski voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act and is a proponent of abortion rights. With her latest decision, Murkowski now risks stirring up a backlash from the left, which believes Barrett’s confirmation threatens those very issues.

It could be forceful. After Collins supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018, she became the top target of liberals across the country, who poured millions of dollars into her Democratic opponents’ coffers. Two years later, polls suggest she could lose reelection next month thanks in large part to that vote.

The comparison to Collins is not a perfect one, though. The fight over Kavanaugh was a bitter affair that consumed the nation in a debate over general and sexual violence after he was accused during the proceedings of sexual assault. In this case, polling suggests a majority of the public, including many Democrats, support confirming Barrett. What’s more, Alaska tends to be a more conservative state than Maine, and Murkowski is so well known that in 2010 she won a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the group was “deeply disappointed” by Murkowski’s intended vote in support of Barrett.

“Her extreme views should be disqualifying for anyone who claims to be a champion for women and families,” Hogue said.

Murkowski made only glancing comments about abortion rights or the Affordable Care Act during her floor speech, but they suggested she had been reassured by Barrett about how the two issues would fare by the nation’s highest court in the future. She dodged reporters in the Capitol after the speech.

“It was important for me to hear and to better understand her views on precedence and her evaluation process, specifically the weight that she affords reliance on decisions that have been in place for decades, such as Roe v. Wade,” she said in her remarks.

She said she also discussed with the nominee the issue of “severability,” a legal doctrine that could lead to the preservation of the Affordable Care Act when the Supreme Court hears a challenge seeking to invalidate it just after the election.

“I do not believe Judge Barrett will take her seat on the bench with a predetermined agenda or with a goal of putting a torch to every volume of the United States Reports,” she said, referring to the official bound volumes of Supreme Court opinions.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who has vocally opposed filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court so close to an election, said on Saturday that she would nonetheless vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett this coming week. “While I oppose the process that has led us to this point,” Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor, “I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility.” Her unexpected turnabout gave a boost to Senate Republicans looking to quiet intraparty dissent in the face of unified Democratic opposition. They already had the votes they needed to confirm Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, but Murkowski’s support means that only one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — is likely to defect when the roll is called on Monday. The development came as a divided Senate slogged through another day of debate over Barrett, 48, an appeals court judge whose confirmation would lock in a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats again turned to parliamentary tactics to draw out the process and needle Republicans for confirming a justice so close to Election Day. Amid the scripted partisan theatrics, Murkowski’s 16-minute speech stood out as a rare moment of suspense. An iconoclast willing to occasionally buck her party, Murkowski had been one of the lone voices in her party joining Democrats last month to push back against the decision to quickly fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Murkowski repeated those concerns Saturday, warning that the rush by her fellow Republicans to fill the seat would “reinforce the public perception about political influence on the court.” She lamented decades of partisan escalation in the Senate over judicial nominations. “Moving forward on a nominee just over a week removed from a pitched presidential election when partisan tensions are running about as high as they could — I don’t think that this will help our country become a better version of itself,” she said. Murkowski said she would still join Democrats in trying to filibuster the nomination Sunday. But after meeting with Barrett in recent days, Murkowski said she came away impressed and concluded she was unwilling to punish a qualified nominee because her party insisted on moving ahead. “Frankly,” she added, “I lost that procedural fight.” Murkowski, who is up for reelection in Alaska in 2022, has frequently broken with Republicans on significant votes in the last four years. She was the only member of her party in 2018 to oppose Trump’s last nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, earning her the vitriol of the president and some of his staunchest supporters. Like Collins, Murkowski voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act and is a proponent of abortion rights. With her latest decision, Murkowski now risks stirring up a backlash from the left, which believes Barrett’s confirmation threatens those very issues. It could be forceful. After Collins supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018, she became the top target of liberals across the country, who poured millions of dollars into her Democratic opponents’ coffers. Two years later, polls suggest she could lose reelection next month thanks in large part to that vote. The comparison to Collins is not a perfect one, though. The fight over Kavanaugh was a bitter affair that consumed the nation in a debate over general and sexual violence after he was accused during the proceedings of sexual assault. In this case, polling suggests a majority of the public, including many Democrats, support confirming Barrett. What’s more, Alaska tends to be a more conservative state than Maine, and Murkowski is so well known that in 2010 she won a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary. Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the group was “deeply disappointed” by Murkowski’s intended vote in support of Barrett. “Her extreme views should be disqualifying for anyone who claims to be a champion for women and families,” Hogue said. Murkowski made only glancing comments about abortion rights or the Affordable Care Act during her floor speech, but they suggested she had been reassured by Barrett about how the two issues would fare by the nation’s highest court in the future. She dodged reporters in the Capitol after the speech. “It was important for me to hear and to better understand her views on precedence and her evaluation process, specifically the weight that she affords reliance on decisions that have been in place for decades, such as Roe v. Wade,” she said in her remarks. She said she also discussed with the nominee the issue of “severability,” a legal doctrine that could lead to the preservation of the Affordable Care Act when the Supreme Court hears a challenge seeking to invalidate it just after the election. “I do not believe Judge Barrett will take her seat on the bench with a predetermined agenda or with a goal of putting a torch to every volume of the United States Reports,” she said, referring to the official bound volumes of Supreme Court opinions.

Murkowski, in a turnabout, says she will vote to confirm Barrett

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election.

“The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.”

After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday.

Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trump-biden-press-on-in-the-final-leg-of-campaigning-337583">US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning</a> 
 
“Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election.

Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap.

“This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.”

Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.”

But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat.

Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time.

By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day.

The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy.

Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late.

“The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.”

Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett.

“It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.”

But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987.

McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered.

“This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.”

In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown.

“I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.”

Schumer was just as withering.

“We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl.

Democrats ground the Senate to a crawl Friday as debate began on confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, unleashing a barrage of dilatory tactics that briefly forced the chamber into an unusual closed session and prompted an acrid partisan brawl. Lacking the votes to block Barrett’s installation, Democrats hoped to put an indelible stain on her confirmation and brand the process of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an illegitimate power grab. Their efforts appeared to be squarely aimed at revving up the party’s base just 11 days before the election. “The Republicans, as we all know, as the nation knows, are running the most partisan, most hypocritical, least legitimate process in the history of Supreme Court nominations,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “We are not going to have business as usual.” After Schumer demanded, unusually, that all members be physically present in the chamber to conduct business, though, Republicans roundly rejected each move. In time, they succeeded in beginning formal debate on Barrett’s nomination and setting the Senate on course for a final confirmation vote Monday. Most senators were expected to remain in Washington through the weekend to debate Barrett’s nomination, missing some of their last opportunities to campaign in favor of a push to install Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee by Election Day. Democrats promised more delay tactics but conceded they were powerless to actually block or delay the vote. Also Read | US Election 2020: Trump, Biden press on in the final leg of campaigning “Might does not make right,” Schumer said again and again, referring to Republicans’ decision to backtrack on earlier promises not to confirm a new justice so close to the election. Friday’s exchanges, heavy with references to three decades of escalating warfare over the courts, suggested an already polarized Senate was growing only more bitter as Republicans closed in on a singular achievement: a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court that could well outlast Trump’s presidency or their own Senate majority. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and the majority leader, briefly tried to refocus attention on Barrett herself, an appeals court judge in Chicago who, at 48, could serve on the court for decades. Like Democrats, Republicans are counting on the confirmation of a young, conservative judge on the court to excite their base and close a dangerously wide polling gap. “This outstanding nominee is exceptionally suited for this job — period,” McConnell said. “And I know we all know that.” Later, after rehashing decades of tit-for-tat confirmation fights with Democrats, he added, “The good news is this: In about 72 hours, I anticipate, we will have a third new justice to the Supreme Court.” But mostly, Barrett receded to the background as Democrats and Republicans traded complaints and defenses about the confirmation process itself. Democrats trained fury on Republicans for filling the seat at all so close to an election, especially after they refused to fill a similar vacancy in 2016 when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight months before the election. Then, Republicans insisted that voters should be allowed to have a say in filling the seat. Democrats began making trouble as soon as the Senate gaveled into session just after noon. When McConnell tried to begin the day’s business, Schumer made an unusual demand: Democrats would insist that a quorum of senators be present to do so. Typically, both parties ignore that requirement, and only a few senators are present at any one time. By the time the Senate wrapped up business three hours later, he had forced six roll call votes, including on whether to indefinitely delay consideration of the nomination, to send it back to the Judiciary Committee and to adjourn the Senate altogether until after the election. Most of the votes fell along party lines, but Democrats did pick up occasional support from Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans, who oppose filling the seat before Election Day. The decision to go into closed session, though, was the most unusual. Not since 2010 has the Senate met in secret in that way. Cameras that broadcast proceedings in the chamber were shut off. Reporters and even most Senate staff were cleared from the chamber. Senators who remained were sworn to secrecy. Schumer framed it as a last-ditch effort for senators to have a heart-to-heart discussion about the confirmation process and push off the vote before it was too late. “The damage to Americans’ faith in these institutions could be lasting,” he said. “So before we go any further, we should shut off the cameras, close the Senate and talk face to face about what this might mean for the country.” Republicans wanted no such discussion. They voted within a matter of minutes to reopen the proceedings and move ahead with considering Barrett. “It’s just harassment,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “It’s not about substance.” But it was left to McConnell, the architect of Republicans’ takeover of the federal courts, to offer a fuller response. Turning away from the cameras to speak directly to Republican members seated at their desks, he offered a selectively curated history of the devolving judicial nominations process in the Senate, reaching back to Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork, a conservative nominee, in 1987. McConnell argued that the decision to block Garland had been consistent with history and so was the decision to confirm Barrett because now, unlike then, the same party controls the White House and the Senate. Democrats view the Garland blockade as a serious escalation from which the chamber has not recovered. “This is not spin. This is fact,” McConnell said. Referring to Democrats, he added, “Every new escalation, every new step, every new shattered precedent — every one of them was initiated over there. No exceptions.” In a sign of how toxic the relationship between the two leaders had become four years after Schumer assumed his leadership post, McConnell suggested his counterpart was merely reaping what he had sown. “I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he’s built,” McConnell said. “I hope he’s happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.” Schumer was just as withering. “We have just heard a tit-for-tat, convoluted version of history that the majority leader uses to justify steering the Senate toward one of the lowest moments in its history,” he said in reply. McConnell’s actions, he added, would “forever defile the Senate.”

Democrats try to shut down Senate, seeking to stain Barrett confirmation

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED.

We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all.

The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay.

Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation?

No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting.

I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side.

Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do.

On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law.

Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop.

For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail.

In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018.

One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion.

He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion.

“Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.”

The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote:

Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.

He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.”

In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett.

Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”:

It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it.

No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now.

(In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.)

Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.”

The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law.

But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.”

It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett.

WE KNOW WHO HER ALLIES ARE, AND WE KNOW HOW TO READ WHAT SHE’S WRITTEN OR SIGNED. We saw the future of the Supreme Court this week, and its name is Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s 4-4 deadlock Monday on whether Pennsylvania must count some late-arriving ballots said it all. The four most conservative justices sided with the Republican Party, which has fought tooth and nail against permitting states to make accommodations to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump-induced collapse of the United States Postal Service by relaxing rules, including deadlines. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted to grant the party’s request for a stay of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision providing that ballots will be counted if postmarked by the night of Nov. 3 and received within the following three days. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, in voting to let the decision stand. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would undoubtedly have voted with them. With her or without her, the conservatives would still be one vote short of the five needed to grant a stay. Can I be certain that soon-to-be Justice Barrett, President Trump’s choice to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, would have been that fifth vote? Can I assume that she would really have been so bold, so unabashed about carrying the Republican Party’s water within days of her arrival following the strong-arm tactics the party used to secure her confirmation? No, of course, I can’t. All I know for sure is who her friends are — and what she said and didn’t say during her two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. I don’t know whether the four justices who voted to block the Pennsylvania court’s decision have ever met Judge Barrett. But they seem to consider her their ally-in-waiting. I say that because when the Supreme Court denies a stay without opinion, as it did on Monday, there is no requirement or general practice for indicating the actual vote or the identities of the justices who voted one way or another. When a tie vote makes the court unable to decide a case it has actually heard on the merits, a more consequential step than the mere denial of a stay, the court says nothing more than “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” We are left to guess who was on which side. Yet here, the four justices who voted unsuccessfully for a stay chose to reveal themselves by noting that they “would grant the application.” Why did they do that? It’s not too cynical to suppose that they wanted to make it clear to the base how much they needed Judge Barrett to join them, now, before other cases like this one inevitably come along. Do Supreme Court justices have a base? These do. On the subject of abortion, we don’t need to read tea leaves. We just need to know how to read. And I don’t mean the statement Judge Barrett signed back in 2006 opposing “abortion on demand” and supporting the “right to life from fertilization to a natural death.” I mean an opinion she joined in 2018 calling for her court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to reconsider as a full court an opinion by a smaller panel of the court that had invalidated an Indiana anti-abortion law. Because the opinion was a dissent, one that she joined but didn’t write, and because the requested full-court rehearing never took place, the case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, has remained under the radar. It emerged only once during last week’s hearing, in a question by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. Judge Barrett deflected the question with an answer that struck me as close to disingenuous, and the senator, either pressed for time or not fully understanding the exchange, let the matter drop. For that reason, and because I see this procedurally obscure case as providing the clearest indication of how Judge Barrett will approach abortion cases, it’s worth unpacking in some detail. In 2016, the Indiana legislature passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed an abortion law with two provisions. One required clinics to treat aborted fetuses as deceased persons, by cremation or burial. The other prohibited doctors from performing an abortion knowing that the woman’s decision was based on the sex or race of the fetus or because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or “any other disability.” A federal district judge barred enforcement of both provisions, and a Seventh Circuit panel upheld that ruling in April 2018. One of the three judges on the panel, Daniel Manion, dissented from the fetal-remains portion of the opinion. He then said he found it “regrettable” that Supreme Court precedent required him to concur with his colleagues that the other provision was unconstitutional, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has ruled that before fetal viability, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion. He then proceeded to rail against the court’s abortion jurisprudence in a separate 20-page opinion that contained the blithe assertion that “children with Down syndrome bring joy to everyone around them” — an observation that had no bearing on the legal issue and that coming from a 78-year-old man might well appear cavalier to a young family struggling to grasp the uncertain future that such a diagnosis portends; most families faced with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose abortion. “Indiana made a noble attempt to protect the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group,” Judge Manion wrote, adding, “The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence proved an insurmountable obstacle.” The state sought a rehearing before the full court on the fetal-remains provision. It did not ask the court to reconsider the validity of the provision prohibiting abortions sought for particular reasons. The court denied rehearing over the dissent of five judges in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook. His opinion is a remarkable document. Even though the state had not put the prohibition portion of the statute at issue, Judge Easterbrook proceeded to address it at length, calling it “an anti-eugenics law.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Easterbrook wrote: Casey and other decisions hold that, until a fetus is viable, a woman is entitled to decide whether to bear a child. But there is a difference between ‘I don’t want a child’ and ‘I want a child, but only a male’ or ‘I want only children whose genes predict success in life.’ Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered. None of the court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children. He added, “We ought not to impute to the justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.” In other words, Judge Easterbrook, and the judges who joined him in dissent, would have, if they had the power, reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s precedents to uphold a statute that those precedents clearly prohibit. One of those judges was Judge Barrett. Asked about the case by Senator Leahy, Judge Barrett said this, referring to “the eugenics portion of the bill”: It is true the state of Indiana did not seek ‘en banc’ rehearing on that, but we had many other states enter the case urging us to take that claim up, and what Judge Easterbrook’s dissent did was explain why he thought it was an open question, but one that’s left to the Supreme Court, and we did not reach any conclusion with respect to it. No, Judge Barrett. It’s not an “open question.” It’s a question with one answer and one answer only. For now. (In May 2019, the Supreme Court, over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, overturned the Seventh Circuit and upheld the fetal-remains portion of the statute. The court denied Indiana’s appeal on the prohibition portion, letting stand the panel’s decision on its unconstitutionality. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas mirrored, fervently and at length, Judge Easterbrook’s complaint.) Judge Barrett had left the witness chair by Friday, the Judiciary Committee’s wrap-up day. But outside the hearing room, far from Washington, the lock-step march of the Trump administration’s anti-abortion judges continued. With two Trump judges in the 2-1 majority, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Kentucky law that will have the effect of closing the two remaining abortion clinics in the state, a decision that the dissenting judge, Eric Clay, called “terribly and tragically wrong.” The law requires abortion clinics, in order to maintain their license, to have a “transfer agreement” with a nearby Kentucky-licensed hospital to accept any patients needing care. This is a copycat law in imitation of the admitting-privileges requirement that the Supreme Court has invalidated in two successive decisions. Needless to say, the two Trump appointees in the majority, Judges Joan Larsen and Chad Readler, had to jump through many hoops to justify upholding this law. But the richest part of their opinion was their assertion that the two clinics, neither of which has been able to reach a hospital agreement, hadn’t demonstrated with sufficient persuasiveness that they would actually have to close. That’s because the law offers the chance to apply for a 90-day waiver. To the clinics’ objection that they can’t remain in business if they can’t assure their staff of employment after 90 days, Judge Larsen had this to say in her majority opinion: “We must presume that the inspector general will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act simply to make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.” It was somehow fitting for this decision to appear on the day the Judiciary Committee finished its astonishingly rushed confirmation hearing for Judge Barrett. As I read the majority opinion, this thought occurred to me: Here, with Roe v. Wade still on the books, a state can force the closure of all abortion clinics within its borders. So at this rate, when the Supreme Court gets around sooner or later to overturning Roe, how will anyone be able to tell?

What does Amy Coney Barrett mean for the Supreme Court?

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