Ahead of the US Election 2020, the President of United States of America Donald Trump is all set to announce nominee for the vacant seat of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, after the sad demise of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

US President all set to announce nominee for vacant seat of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

As the US braces for a showdown over the vacant Supreme Court seat, watch WION's special broadcast on #USElections with Susan Tehrani.

US Election 2020: A Tribute to Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg |

US Election 2020: Joe Biden slams Trump's plan to push for Supreme Court nominee

US: Heated fight over US' highest court's next justice ahead of election

Despite rows of criticism and the last wish of the US Supreme Court judge&nbsp;Ruth Bader Ginsburg, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> has decided to nominate another judge as her replacement.

An inspiration to many and known for her fight against the wrongs of sexual discrimination and other patriarchal principles,&nbsp;Ruth Bader Ginsburg, passed away yesterday after fighting a long battle with&nbsp;pancreatic cancer.

Her last wish, recorded by her&nbsp;granddaughter Clara Spera, was to not be replaced by the current President of the United States. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she told her granddaughter.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/supreme-court-judge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-wanted-to-see-trump-lose-in-us-elections-328526">Also read:&nbsp;Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections</a>

However, immediately after her death, the&nbsp;US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell&nbsp;announced that the chamber would vote for a nominee that Trump would name. "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said.

Later, Trump, too, announced that he would be nominating someone next week to replace the 'Notorious RBG'.

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."

<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-top-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87-328636/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As of now he has named Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit as possible nominees. He is expected to reveal the third name soon. An official announcement is expected next week.

The decision has not been supported by Biden who feels&nbsp;"that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."

Despite rows of criticism and the last wish of the US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Donald Trump has decided to nominate another judge as her replacement.

Despite rows of criticism and the last wish of the US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Donald Trump has decided to nominate another judge as her replacement. An inspiration to many and known for her fight against the wrongs of sexual discrimination and other patriarchal principles, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, passed away yesterday after fighting a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Her last wish, recorded by her granddaughter Clara Spera, was to not be replaced by the current President of the United States. "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she told her granddaughter. Also read: Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87; wanted to see Trump lose in US elections However, immediately after her death, the US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced that the chamber would vote for a nominee that Trump would name. "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," McConnell said. Later, Trump, too, announced that he would be nominating someone next week to replace the 'Notorious RBG'. "I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men." × As of now he has named Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit as possible nominees. He is expected to reveal the third name soon. An official announcement is expected next week. The decision has not been supported by Biden who feels "that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."

Trump to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg stating he likes 'women more'

A US federal judge refused on Thursday President Donald Trump's effort to block the release of his financial records subpoenaed by a New York grand jury in a case focused on hush money payments and possibly bank fraud.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/dont-buy-goodyear-tyres-says-trump-after-company-bans-maga-caps-321947">Also Read:&nbsp;'Don't buy Goodyear tyres,' says Trump after company bans MAGA caps</a>

Judge Victor Marrero rejected Trump's argument that the investigating jury's demand for eight years of tax records from his accountants Mazars USA was too broad and constituted political harassment.

The Manhattan federal court judge said Trump's reasoning amounted to a "back door" attempt to invoke absolute immunity after the president's lawyers' were denied by the US Supreme Court in July.

For three years Trump has been successful at fending off Congressional demands for his records in probes targeting his financial ties to Russians, his possible record of tax avoidance and other issues involving his real estate business.

However, New York federal district attorney Cyrus Vance opened last year an investigation into Trump's payments in 2016 to allegedly buy the silence of two women who claimed to have had affairs with him.

Court documents have suggested that Vance's grand jury probe has now expanded to possible banking and insurance fraud.

Marrero suggested that Trump's most recent arguments were simply an effort to delay the proceedings, potentially running out the clock on time limits for prosecutions, and risking the loss of witnesses.

Still, the ruling was not likely to force the release of Trump's records before the November presidential election.

Trump can appeal the ruling, a process that could easily be stretched out over the next three months.

At the White House, the president said the case is a "fishing expedition" and claimed that the Supreme Court said he did not have to comply in that case.

"So we'll probably end up back in the Supreme Court. But this is just a continuation of the most hideous witch hunt in the history of our country," he told reporters.

A US federal judge refused on Thursday President Donald Trump's effort to block the release of his financial records subpoenaed by a New York grand jury in a case focused on hush money payments and possibly bank fraud.

A US federal judge refused on Thursday President Donald Trump's effort to block the release of his financial records subpoenaed by a New York grand jury in a case focused on hush money payments and possibly bank fraud. Also Read: 'Don't buy Goodyear tyres,' says Trump after company bans MAGA caps Judge Victor Marrero rejected Trump's argument that the investigating jury's demand for eight years of tax records from his accountants Mazars USA was too broad and constituted political harassment. The Manhattan federal court judge said Trump's reasoning amounted to a "back door" attempt to invoke absolute immunity after the president's lawyers' were denied by the US Supreme Court in July. For three years Trump has been successful at fending off Congressional demands for his records in probes targeting his financial ties to Russians, his possible record of tax avoidance and other issues involving his real estate business. However, New York federal district attorney Cyrus Vance opened last year an investigation into Trump's payments in 2016 to allegedly buy the silence of two women who claimed to have had affairs with him. Court documents have suggested that Vance's grand jury probe has now expanded to possible banking and insurance fraud. Marrero suggested that Trump's most recent arguments were simply an effort to delay the proceedings, potentially running out the clock on time limits for prosecutions, and risking the loss of witnesses. Still, the ruling was not likely to force the release of Trump's records before the November presidential election. Trump can appeal the ruling, a process that could easily be stretched out over the next three months. At the White House, the president said the case is a "fishing expedition" and claimed that the Supreme Court said he did not have to comply in that case. "So we'll probably end up back in the Supreme Court. But this is just a continuation of the most hideous witch hunt in the history of our country," he told reporters.

Judge rejects Trump's bid to halt release of financial records

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-second-federal-execution-in-17-years-313563" hreflang="en">US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years</a>&nbsp;

The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment.

Early on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington issued two injunctions to allow various legal challenges by some of the 61 inmates on federal death row to continue.

One of the injunctions also prevents the federal government from carrying out all scheduled executions, including Purkey's.

But these injunctions were overturned by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

The Justice Department has set execution dates for two other men convicted of murdering children: Dustin Honken on Friday and Keith Nelson on August 28.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled it is "abhorrent" and unconstitutional to execute someone whose mental illness prevents them from comprehending their punishment.

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years. Also read: US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment.

The US Supreme Court has overturned lower court's ruling on Thursday and has cleared the way for the second federal execution in 17 years. Also read: US judge blocks second federal execution in 17 years The court has allowed the Justice Department, who has planned to execute Wesley Purkey, convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, despite objections by lawyers that he has dementia and no longer understands his punishment. Early on Wednesday, US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington issued two injunctions to allow various legal challenges by some of the 61 inmates on federal death row to continue. One of the injunctions also prevents the federal government from carrying out all scheduled executions, including Purkey's. But these injunctions were overturned by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has set execution dates for two other men convicted of murdering children: Dustin Honken on Friday and Keith Nelson on August 28. The Supreme Court has previously ruled it is "abhorrent" and unconstitutional to execute someone whose mental illness prevents them from comprehending their punishment.

US Supreme Court clears way for second federal execution in 17 years

In a major verdict, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump must hand over his tax returns.

US Supreme Court rules on Donald Trump's tax records

In a major verdict, the US Supreme Court today ruled that President Donald Trump must hand over his tax returns.

The Supreme Court, however, temporarily blocked the US Congress from accessing Trump's financial records. The top court gave the verdict 7-2 against the US president asserting that he did not have absolute immunity from criminal investigation.

"Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," it said, adding."We reaffirm that principle today."

Trump hit back calling the verdict: "prosecutorial misconduct".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281260329247399936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"This is all a political prosecution, now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or administration, the US president lamented.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281236214646034432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said that the party will press for financial records to be handed over to Congress asserting that the party "will continue to press our case in the lower courts."

Trump had promised to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign but has since refused to give details. The US president is not mandated to reveal his personal finances.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281209521675874304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The case was brought by Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat who has been investigating &nbsp;Trump's financial records in connection with an alleged payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump has called the verdict a "political witchhunt" and has maintained that he has done nothing wrong.

"Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. but not me," Trump fumed on Twitter, adding, "I won the Mueller witch hunt and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this presidency or administration!" 
&nbsp;

In a major verdict, the US Supreme Court today ruled that President Donald Trump must hand over his tax returns. The Supreme Court, however, temporarily blocked the US Congress from accessing Trump's financial records.

In a major verdict, the US Supreme Court today ruled that President Donald Trump must hand over his tax returns. The Supreme Court, however, temporarily blocked the US Congress from accessing Trump's financial records. The top court gave the verdict 7-2 against the US president asserting that he did not have absolute immunity from criminal investigation. "Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," it said, adding."We reaffirm that principle today." Trump hit back calling the verdict: "prosecutorial misconduct". POLITICAL WITCH HUNT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020 × "This is all a political prosecution, now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or administration, the US president lamented. The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020 × Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said that the party will press for financial records to be handed over to Congress asserting that the party "will continue to press our case in the lower courts." Trump had promised to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign but has since refused to give details. The US president is not mandated to reveal his personal finances. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020 × The case was brought by Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat who has been investigating Trump's financial records in connection with an alleged payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Trump has called the verdict a "political witchhunt" and has maintained that he has done nothing wrong. "Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. but not me," Trump fumed on Twitter, adding, "I won the Mueller witch hunt and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this presidency or administration!"

US Supreme Court orders release of Trump's tax returns; president calls it 'political witch hunt'

&nbsp;The US&nbsp;Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a plan by President Donald Trump's administration to give employers broad religious and moral exemptions from a federal mandate that health insurance they provide to their workers includes coverage for women's birth control.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/india-china-standoff-pompeo-hits-out-at-aggressive-chinese-action-at-galwan-says-us-europe-serious-about-threat-311748" hreflang="en">India-China standoff: Pompeo hits out at 'aggressive' Chinese action at Galwan, says US, Europe 'serious' about threat</a>

The court ruled 7-2 against the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which challenged the legality of Trump's 2018 rule weakening the so-called contraceptive mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. Christian conservatives, a key constituency for Trump as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3, had strongly opposed the Obamacare mandate.

The federal government has estimated that up to 126,000 women could lose contraception coverage through their employer-provided health insurance under Trump's regulation.

The Obamacare mandate requires employer-provided health insurance to give coverage for birth control with no co-pays. Previously, many employer-provided insurance policies did not offer this coverage. Republicans have sought to repeal Obamacare, signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama in 2010, and Trump's administration has chipped away at it through various actions.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling "a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience."

"Ensuring that women receive the healthcare they need does not require banishing religious groups that refuse to surrender their beliefs from the public square," McEnany added.

Trump's rule allows any nonprofit or for-profit employer, including publicly traded companies, to seek an exemption on religious grounds. A moral objection can be made by nonprofits and companies that are not publicly traded. The Trump exemption also would be available for religiously affiliated universities that provide health insurance to students.

Writing for the court, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said Trump's administration "had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption."

Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. "Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree," Ginsburg wrote.

The court's other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, agreed with the outcome but did not did not sign on to Thomas' opinion. Kagan wrote that the regulations could yet be challenged on other grounds, including that the moral exemption is overly broad, which she said is a "close call."

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, pledged to continue the fight against Trump's regulation.

"Our case is about an overly broad rule that allows the personal beliefs of CEOs to dictate women's guaranteed access to contraceptive medicine," Shapiro said.

&nbsp;

'OVERJOYED'

Rules implemented under Obama exempted religious entities from the mandate. A further accommodation was created for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, which some groups including the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic order of nuns that was one of the groups seeking an exemption, objected to as not going far enough.

"We are overjoyed that, once again, the Supreme Court has protected our right to serve the elderly without violating our faith," said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters.

Groups supporting the contraception mandate criticized the decision.

"Today's ruling has given bosses the power to dictate how their employees can and cannot use their health insurance - allowing them to intrude into their employees' private decisions based on whatever personal beliefs their employers happen to hold," said Lourdes Rivera of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The legal question was whether Trump's administration had the legal authority to expand the exemption under both the Obamacare law itself and another federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which lets people press religious claims against the federal government.

The administration was joined in the litigation by a Pittsburgh affiliate of the Little Sisters. Under a separate court ruling, the group already had an exemption to the mandate.

Thomas wrote that the Little Sisters "have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs" and that Trump's rule resolves their concerns.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with Catholic schools in a separate legal dispute with teachers who said they were unlawfully dismissed, ruling that religious institutions like churches and schools are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a plan by President Donald Trump's administration to give employers broad religious and moral exemptions from a federal mandate that health insurance they provide to their workers includes coverage for women's birth control.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday endorsed a plan by President Donald Trump's administration to give employers broad religious and moral exemptions from a federal mandate that health insurance they provide to their workers includes coverage for women's birth control. Also read: India-China standoff: Pompeo hits out at 'aggressive' Chinese action at Galwan, says US, Europe 'serious' about threat The court ruled 7-2 against the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which challenged the legality of Trump's 2018 rule weakening the so-called contraceptive mandate of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. Christian conservatives, a key constituency for Trump as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3, had strongly opposed the Obamacare mandate. The federal government has estimated that up to 126,000 women could lose contraception coverage through their employer-provided health insurance under Trump's regulation. The Obamacare mandate requires employer-provided health insurance to give coverage for birth control with no co-pays. Previously, many employer-provided insurance policies did not offer this coverage. Republicans have sought to repeal Obamacare, signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama in 2010, and Trump's administration has chipped away at it through various actions. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling "a big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience." "Ensuring that women receive the healthcare they need does not require banishing religious groups that refuse to surrender their beliefs from the public square," McEnany added. Trump's rule allows any nonprofit or for-profit employer, including publicly traded companies, to seek an exemption on religious grounds. A moral objection can be made by nonprofits and companies that are not publicly traded. The Trump exemption also would be available for religiously affiliated universities that provide health insurance to students. Writing for the court, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said Trump's administration "had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption." Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. "Today, for the first time, the court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree," Ginsburg wrote. The court's other two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, agreed with the outcome but did not did not sign on to Thomas' opinion. Kagan wrote that the regulations could yet be challenged on other grounds, including that the moral exemption is overly broad, which she said is a "close call." Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, pledged to continue the fight against Trump's regulation. "Our case is about an overly broad rule that allows the personal beliefs of CEOs to dictate women's guaranteed access to contraceptive medicine," Shapiro said. 'OVERJOYED' Rules implemented under Obama exempted religious entities from the mandate. A further accommodation was created for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, which some groups including the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic order of nuns that was one of the groups seeking an exemption, objected to as not going far enough. "We are overjoyed that, once again, the Supreme Court has protected our right to serve the elderly without violating our faith," said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters. Groups supporting the contraception mandate criticized the decision. "Today's ruling has given bosses the power to dictate how their employees can and cannot use their health insurance - allowing them to intrude into their employees' private decisions based on whatever personal beliefs their employers happen to hold," said Lourdes Rivera of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The legal question was whether Trump's administration had the legal authority to expand the exemption under both the Obamacare law itself and another federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which lets people press religious claims against the federal government. The administration was joined in the litigation by a Pittsburgh affiliate of the Little Sisters. Under a separate court ruling, the group already had an exemption to the mandate. Thomas wrote that the Little Sisters "have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs" and that Trump's rule resolves their concerns. The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with Catholic schools in a separate legal dispute with teachers who said they were unlawfully dismissed, ruling that religious institutions like churches and schools are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits.

US Supreme Court permits broad religious exemption to birth control coverage

The US Supreme Court's ruling stopping President Donald Trump from rescinding protections for "Dreamers" immigrants marked the second time in a year that he lost a major case because Chief Justice John Roberts faulted his administration for sloppiness in the policy making process.

The conservative Roberts, joined by the court's four liberal justices, decided on Thursday that the administration's actions in crafting the immigration policy were "arbitrary and capricious" under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program protects roughly 649,000 immigrants, mostly young Hispanic adults born in Mexico and other Latin American countries, from deportation and provides them work permits.

Thursday's decision echoed a June 2019 ruling in which the court - Roberts again siding with the four liberal justices - faulted the administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 US census.

Roberts wrote then that the administration had violated the same law, concluding that the stated rationale for adding the question "seems to have been contrived." Critics said the question was intended to dissuade immigrants from taking part in the decennial population count.

In both 5-4 rulings, Roberts split from his four fellow conservatives and ruled against the administration on technical legal process issues without judging whether the actual policy was lawful.

The rulings showed that Roberts, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, is willing to push back against Trump. They also showed that in key instances Trump's administration has been unable to craft high-profile policies that will stand up in court.

"Quite honestly, this is why we have had so many victories against this administration in court. They just refuse to follow the rules," Xavier Becerra, California's Democratic attorney general, told reporters. "They seem to be very impatient and they don't believe the rules apply to them."

Becerra, among those challenging the DACA rescission, pointed to another ruling issued on Wednesday by a different court. A California-based judge blocked Trump's Department of Education from withholding federal coronavirus pandemic relief funds from students who do not qualify for financial aid.

Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler said that in some cases that Trump's administration has lost, courts have adopted an "unduly rigorous standard" that makes it harder for the government to win. But, Adler added, "it's also fair to say this administration has had its fair share of sloppy work."

Trump's administration has lost 79 out of 85 cases involving federal agencies on deregulatory or policy issues tracked by the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank connected to New York University School of Law.

Earthjustice, an environmental group that regularly sues the administration over regulatory issues, has said it has won 33 of 40 cases decided on the merits of the legal issues involved. In one of them, a judge blocked Trump's attempt to open vast areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans to oil and gas leasing.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request seeking comment.

TRUMP VERSUS JUDGES

"Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" Trump asked on Twitter on Thursday.

Trump has often criticized American courts and judges - and Roberts himself - for ruling against his policies. Roberts in November 2018 hit back at Trump after the president called a judge who ruled against one of the president's immigration policies an "Obama judge."

But Trump has also won a number of big cases, with victories over ending subsidy payments to health insurance companies, various deregulatory efforts and his the efforts toward a wall along the US-Mexican border.

The Supreme Court has bailed him out in two major cases.

Lower courts found that his administration did not adequately explain why it was in the interests of the United States to implement Trump's 2017 travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries, as required by federal immigration law. Lower courts also faulted the administration for failing to back up its policies to restrict transgender troops from the military.

The Supreme Court, in both instances, sided with the administration to allow the travel ban and the transgender military policy to take effect.

The US Supreme Court's ruling stopping President Donald Trump from rescinding protections for "Dreamers" immigrants marked the second time in a year that he lost a major case because Chief Justice John Roberts faulted his administration for sloppiness in the policy making process.

The US Supreme Court's ruling stopping President Donald Trump from rescinding protections for "Dreamers" immigrants marked the second time in a year that he lost a major case because Chief Justice John Roberts faulted his administration for sloppiness in the policy making process. The conservative Roberts, joined by the court's four liberal justices, decided on Thursday that the administration's actions in crafting the immigration policy were "arbitrary and capricious" under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program protects roughly 649,000 immigrants, mostly young Hispanic adults born in Mexico and other Latin American countries, from deportation and provides them work permits. Thursday's decision echoed a June 2019 ruling in which the court - Roberts again siding with the four liberal justices - faulted the administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 US census. Roberts wrote then that the administration had violated the same law, concluding that the stated rationale for adding the question "seems to have been contrived." Critics said the question was intended to dissuade immigrants from taking part in the decennial population count. In both 5-4 rulings, Roberts split from his four fellow conservatives and ruled against the administration on technical legal process issues without judging whether the actual policy was lawful. The rulings showed that Roberts, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, is willing to push back against Trump. They also showed that in key instances Trump's administration has been unable to craft high-profile policies that will stand up in court. "Quite honestly, this is why we have had so many victories against this administration in court. They just refuse to follow the rules," Xavier Becerra, California's Democratic attorney general, told reporters. "They seem to be very impatient and they don't believe the rules apply to them." Becerra, among those challenging the DACA rescission, pointed to another ruling issued on Wednesday by a different court. A California-based judge blocked Trump's Department of Education from withholding federal coronavirus pandemic relief funds from students who do not qualify for financial aid. Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler said that in some cases that Trump's administration has lost, courts have adopted an "unduly rigorous standard" that makes it harder for the government to win. But, Adler added, "it's also fair to say this administration has had its fair share of sloppy work." Trump's administration has lost 79 out of 85 cases involving federal agencies on deregulatory or policy issues tracked by the Institute for Policy Integrity, a think tank connected to New York University School of Law. Earthjustice, an environmental group that regularly sues the administration over regulatory issues, has said it has won 33 of 40 cases decided on the merits of the legal issues involved. In one of them, a judge blocked Trump's attempt to open vast areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans to oil and gas leasing. The Justice Department did not respond to a request seeking comment. TRUMP VERSUS JUDGES "Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" Trump asked on Twitter on Thursday. Trump has often criticized American courts and judges - and Roberts himself - for ruling against his policies. Roberts in November 2018 hit back at Trump after the president called a judge who ruled against one of the president's immigration policies an "Obama judge." But Trump has also won a number of big cases, with victories over ending subsidy payments to health insurance companies, various deregulatory efforts and his the efforts toward a wall along the US-Mexican border. The Supreme Court has bailed him out in two major cases. Lower courts found that his administration did not adequately explain why it was in the interests of the United States to implement Trump's 2017 travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries, as required by federal immigration law. Lower courts also faulted the administration for failing to back up its policies to restrict transgender troops from the military. The Supreme Court, in both instances, sided with the administration to allow the travel ban and the transgender military policy to take effect.

Trump administration's 'sloppy' work has led to Supreme Court losses

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court on Thursday dealt President Donald Trump a major setback on his hardline immigration policies, blocking his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.

More than&nbsp;652,800 people, including&nbsp;doctors fighting the coronavirus, were waiting on the decision about the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known by its acronym&nbsp;Daca.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-consider-next-steps-after-bolton-revelations-on-trump-306879">Democrats consider next steps after Bolton revelations on Trump</a>

Daca allowed young people, known as Dreamers, who were raised without legal immigration status in the US, to obtain renewable, two-year authorizations to live and work in America. It did not provide a path to citizenship.

The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's four liberals, upheld lower court decisions that found that Trump's 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, was unlawful.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/eight-of-the-most-stunning-claims-made-by-trumps-former-nsa-in-his-tell-all-book-306844">In pics: Eight of the most stunning claims made by Trump’s former NSA</a>

The administration's actions, the justices ruled, were "arbitrary and capricious" under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ruling means that the roughly 649,000 immigrants, mostly young Hispanic adults born in Mexico and other Latin American countries, currently enrolled in&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;will remain protected from deportation and eligible to obtain renewable two-year work permits.

The ruling does not prevent Trump from trying again to end the program. But his administration may find it difficult to rescind&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;- and win any ensuing legal battle - before the November&nbsp;3 election in which Trump is seeking a second term in office.

"We do not decide whether&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;or its rescission are sound policies. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action," Roberts wrote, referring to Trump's Department of Homeland Security.

The ruling marked the second time this week that Roberts ruled against Trump in a major case following Monday's decision finding that gay and transgender workers are protected under federal employment law.

"These horrible &amp; politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote on Twitter after the&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;ruling.

The Republican president said he wanted "a legal solution on&nbsp;DACA, not a political one" and that "now we have to start this process all over again." Trump did not specify what action he envisioned.

DACA&nbsp;recipients and their supporters in Congress including House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and in the business community welcomed the ruling and called for enactment of permanent protections.

"I felt tears of relief running down my face," said Wendy Larios, a 19-year-old college student and&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;enrollee who is studying nursing and psychology in Bakersfield, California.

Trump's administration had argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he created&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;by executive action, bypassing Congress.

States including California and New York,&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;enrollees and civil rights groups sued to block Trump's plan to end the program. Lower courts in California, New York and the District of Columbia ruled against Trump and left&nbsp;DACA&nbsp;in place.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday dealt President Donald Trump a major setback on his hardline immigration policies, blocking his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.

The US Supreme Court on Thursday dealt President Donald Trump a major setback on his hardline immigration policies, blocking his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. More than 652,800 people, including doctors fighting the coronavirus, were waiting on the decision about the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known by its acronym Daca. Also read: Democrats consider next steps after Bolton revelations on Trump Daca allowed young people, known as Dreamers, who were raised without legal immigration status in the US, to obtain renewable, two-year authorizations to live and work in America. It did not provide a path to citizenship. The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's four liberals, upheld lower court decisions that found that Trump's 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, was unlawful. In pics: Eight of the most stunning claims made by Trump’s former NSA The administration's actions, the justices ruled, were "arbitrary and capricious" under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling means that the roughly 649,000 immigrants, mostly young Hispanic adults born in Mexico and other Latin American countries, currently enrolled in DACA will remain protected from deportation and eligible to obtain renewable two-year work permits. The ruling does not prevent Trump from trying again to end the program. But his administration may find it difficult to rescind DACA - and win any ensuing legal battle - before the November 3 election in which Trump is seeking a second term in office. "We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action," Roberts wrote, referring to Trump's Department of Homeland Security. The ruling marked the second time this week that Roberts ruled against Trump in a major case following Monday's decision finding that gay and transgender workers are protected under federal employment law. "These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote on Twitter after the DACA ruling. The Republican president said he wanted "a legal solution on DACA, not a political one" and that "now we have to start this process all over again." Trump did not specify what action he envisioned. DACA recipients and their supporters in Congress including House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and in the business community welcomed the ruling and called for enactment of permanent protections. "I felt tears of relief running down my face," said Wendy Larios, a 19-year-old college student and DACA enrollee who is studying nursing and psychology in Bakersfield, California. Trump's administration had argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he created DACA by executive action, bypassing Congress. States including California and New York, DACA enrollees and civil rights groups sued to block Trump's plan to end the program. Lower courts in California, New York and the District of Columbia ruled against Trump and left DACA in place.

US Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA immigrant program

The US Supreme Court has delivered a major victory for LGBT rights and a defeat for President Donald Trump's administration. The top court passed a ruling that a longstanding law barring workplace discrimination also protects gay and transgender employees.

US top court bars workplace discrimination: Extends civil rights to LGBT workers

The US&nbsp;Supreme Court on Monday delivered a watershed victory for&nbsp;LGBT&nbsp;rights and a defeat for President Donald Trump's administration by ruling that a longstanding federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees.

The landmark 6-3 ruling represented the biggest moment for&nbsp;LGBT&nbsp;rights in the United States since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Two conservative justices joined the court's four liberals in the decision: Neil Gorsuch, a 2017 Trump appointee who wrote the ruling, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, colour, national origin and religion.

Workplace bias against gay and transgender employees had remained legal in much of the country, with 28 U.S. states lacking comprehensive measures against employment discrimination. The ruling - in two gay rights cases from Georgia and New York and a transgender rights case from Michigan - recognizes new worker protections in federal law.

The legal fight focused on the definition of "sex" in Title VII. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that discriminating against gay and transgender workers was inherently based on their sex and consequently was illegal.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump called the ruling very powerful and said, "They've ruled and we live with their decision." Supported by evangelical Christian voters, Trump has taken actions that have undermined gay and transgender rights since taking office in 2017.

LGBT&nbsp;activists and the only surviving plaintiff in the litigation lauded the ruling.

"I truly believe I went into shock this morning," said Gerald Bostock, who brought the Georgia case after losing his job as a county government child welfare services coordinator months after joining the local gay-friendly Hotlanta Softball League.

"I'm proud to have taken part in this process in getting us to this historic moment," Bostock added.

The ruling does not resolve other legal issues on&nbsp;LGBT&nbsp;rights including whether separate federal laws that bar sex discrimination should also be interpreted as covering sexual orientation and gender identity.

"Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle," said John Bursch, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that represented the employer in the Michigan case.

Trump's administration joined the employers in arguing that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect gay and transgender people when it passed the law. Gorsuch conceded that point but said what mattered was the law's text.

'A necessary and undisguisable role'&nbsp;&nbsp;

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Gorsuch, who signaled sympathy toward the plaintiffs during arguments in the case in October, wrote that "there is no way an employer can discriminate against those who check the homosexual or transgender box without discriminating in part because of an applicant's sex."

Roberts, considered the ideological center of the court, backed gay rights in this case after dissenting in the gay marriage ruling.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from Monday's ruling.

"There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation," Alito wrote.

Two other plaintiffs did not live to see the ruling. Donald Zarda, who sued after being fired as a skydiving instructor in New York, died in 2014. Aimee Stephens, fired by a Detroit funeral home after revealing plans to transition from male to female, died in May.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign gay rights group, said, "No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or whom they love."

"By discriminating against homosexuals," Gorsuch wrote, "the employer intentionally penalizes men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women. By discriminating against transgender persons, the employer unavoidably discriminates against persons with one sex identified at birth and another today."

Trump's administration last week issued a rule lifting anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in healthcare.

His administration also has backed the right of certain businesses to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religious objections, banned most transgender service members from the military and rescinded protections on bathroom access for transgender students in public schools.

The court faces another test in its next term, which starts in October, in a case pitting&nbsp;LGBT&nbsp;rights against religious rights involving Philadelphia's decision to bar a Catholic organization from participating in the city's foster care program because the group will not place children with same-sex couples.

The US Supreme Court on Monday delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights and a defeat for President Donald Trump's administration by ruling that a longstanding federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees.

The US Supreme Court on Monday delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights and a defeat for President Donald Trump's administration by ruling that a longstanding federal law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. The landmark 6-3 ruling represented the biggest moment for LGBT rights in the United States since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Two conservative justices joined the court's four liberals in the decision: Neil Gorsuch, a 2017 Trump appointee who wrote the ruling, and Chief Justice John Roberts. The justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, colour, national origin and religion. Workplace bias against gay and transgender employees had remained legal in much of the country, with 28 U.S. states lacking comprehensive measures against employment discrimination. The ruling - in two gay rights cases from Georgia and New York and a transgender rights case from Michigan - recognizes new worker protections in federal law. The legal fight focused on the definition of "sex" in Title VII. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that discriminating against gay and transgender workers was inherently based on their sex and consequently was illegal. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump called the ruling very powerful and said, "They've ruled and we live with their decision." Supported by evangelical Christian voters, Trump has taken actions that have undermined gay and transgender rights since taking office in 2017. LGBT activists and the only surviving plaintiff in the litigation lauded the ruling. "I truly believe I went into shock this morning," said Gerald Bostock, who brought the Georgia case after losing his job as a county government child welfare services coordinator months after joining the local gay-friendly Hotlanta Softball League. "I'm proud to have taken part in this process in getting us to this historic moment," Bostock added. The ruling does not resolve other legal issues on LGBT rights including whether separate federal laws that bar sex discrimination should also be interpreted as covering sexual orientation and gender identity. "Americans must be able to rely on what the law says, and it is disappointing that a majority of the justices were unwilling to affirm that commonsense principle," said John Bursch, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that represented the employer in the Michigan case. Trump's administration joined the employers in arguing that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect gay and transgender people when it passed the law. Gorsuch conceded that point but said what mattered was the law's text. 'A necessary and undisguisable role' "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids." Gorsuch, who signaled sympathy toward the plaintiffs during arguments in the case in October, wrote that "there is no way an employer can discriminate against those who check the homosexual or transgender box without discriminating in part because of an applicant's sex." Roberts, considered the ideological center of the court, backed gay rights in this case after dissenting in the gay marriage ruling. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from Monday's ruling. "There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation," Alito wrote. Two other plaintiffs did not live to see the ruling. Donald Zarda, who sued after being fired as a skydiving instructor in New York, died in 2014. Aimee Stephens, fired by a Detroit funeral home after revealing plans to transition from male to female, died in May. Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign gay rights group, said, "No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or whom they love." "By discriminating against homosexuals," Gorsuch wrote, "the employer intentionally penalizes men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women. By discriminating against transgender persons, the employer unavoidably discriminates against persons with one sex identified at birth and another today." Trump's administration last week issued a rule lifting anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in healthcare. His administration also has backed the right of certain businesses to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religious objections, banned most transgender service members from the military and rescinded protections on bathroom access for transgender students in public schools. The court faces another test in its next term, which starts in October, in a case pitting LGBT rights against religious rights involving Philadelphia's decision to bar a Catholic organization from participating in the city's foster care program because the group will not place children with same-sex couples.

In landmark ruling, US Supreme Court bars discrimination against LGBT workers

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake.

What may be the most significant case on the subject in decades centers on a law in the state of Louisiana that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Groups who support abortion rights argue that the law would severely restrict access to the practice and lead to the closure of two of three remaining clinics in the southern state.

The measure is almost identical to Texas legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, deeming it too restrictive.

"Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face," said Julie Rikelman, who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a Louisiana abortion clinic.

The case, June Medical Services v Russo, is the first on the divisive issue to come before the court since Trump's two conservative appointees -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- joined the nine-member bench.

Kavanaugh replaced former justice Anthony Kennedy, who had sided with the court's four left-leaning justices to block the Texas law.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that the Texas and Louisiana laws were not one and the same and should be treated on a "state by state" basis.

Galvanized activists

Appointment of the two new justices galvanized anti-abortion activists in the country's conservative "Bible Belt," and several states have passed tough laws restricting the practice. A ban in Alabama even covered cases of rape.

That and most of those other laws have been struck down by lower courts, but anti-abortion groups are hoping to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized a woman's right to an abortion.

If the court were to reverse itself on the Texas law, for example, it could signify that it is also ready to do so on Roe.

Trump, who years ago described himself as "pro-choice in every respect," has flip-flopped to become a staunch opponent of abortion as he seeks to rally evangelical Christians behind his re-election campaign.

On Wednesday, protesters from both sides of the debate were stationed in front of the Supreme Court, where Dennis McKirahan, a 75-year-old abortion opponent from Cincinnati, said "we must stop killing babies."

Not far away, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hit out at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He said they would "pay the price" if additional curbs on access to abortion were allowed.

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply rebuked him, calling the comments "threatening" and "dangerous."

'Protecting women'

A ruling in the case is expected in June, just months ahead of the November presidential vote.

The Trump administration, along with more than 200 Republican members of Congress, is backing Louisiana authorities in the case.

The lawmakers argued in a supporting brief that the case illustrates the "unworkability of the 'right to abortion' found in Roe" and questioned whether it should be "reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled."

Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who helped argue the case for the state, said the law aims to protect women in the event of complications and ensure "continuity of care."

Rikelman maintained, however, that the law provided no medical benefit and would leave only one doctor and clinic available to perform the procedure in the state, where about 10,000 abortions are carried out every year.

The court's progressive justices appeared to agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that "most of these abortions don't have any complications."

Her colleague Elena Kagan noted that some hospitals did not want to be associated with abortion providers.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, blocked the application of the Louisiana law in February 2019 but without delivering a final decision. Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the bench in temporarily blocking the law.&nbsp;

He is seen as the key vote this time around.

chp/bfm-sst/it

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake.

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case for the first time since President Donald Trump appointed two new conservative justices -- with the future of the procedure potentially at stake. What may be the most significant case on the subject in decades centers on a law in the state of Louisiana that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Groups who support abortion rights argue that the law would severely restrict access to the practice and lead to the closure of two of three remaining clinics in the southern state. The measure is almost identical to Texas legislation that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, deeming it too restrictive. "Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face," said Julie Rikelman, who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a Louisiana abortion clinic. The case, June Medical Services v Russo, is the first on the divisive issue to come before the court since Trump's two conservative appointees -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- joined the nine-member bench. Kavanaugh replaced former justice Anthony Kennedy, who had sided with the court's four left-leaning justices to block the Texas law. On Wednesday, Kavanaugh seemed to suggest that the Texas and Louisiana laws were not one and the same and should be treated on a "state by state" basis. Galvanized activists Appointment of the two new justices galvanized anti-abortion activists in the country's conservative "Bible Belt," and several states have passed tough laws restricting the practice. A ban in Alabama even covered cases of rape. That and most of those other laws have been struck down by lower courts, but anti-abortion groups are hoping to force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized a woman's right to an abortion. If the court were to reverse itself on the Texas law, for example, it could signify that it is also ready to do so on Roe. Trump, who years ago described himself as "pro-choice in every respect," has flip-flopped to become a staunch opponent of abortion as he seeks to rally evangelical Christians behind his re-election campaign. On Wednesday, protesters from both sides of the debate were stationed in front of the Supreme Court, where Dennis McKirahan, a 75-year-old abortion opponent from Cincinnati, said "we must stop killing babies." Not far away, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hit out at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. He said they would "pay the price" if additional curbs on access to abortion were allowed. Chief Justice John Roberts sharply rebuked him, calling the comments "threatening" and "dangerous." 'Protecting women' A ruling in the case is expected in June, just months ahead of the November presidential vote. The Trump administration, along with more than 200 Republican members of Congress, is backing Louisiana authorities in the case. The lawmakers argued in a supporting brief that the case illustrates the "unworkability of the 'right to abortion' found in Roe" and questioned whether it should be "reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled." Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who helped argue the case for the state, said the law aims to protect women in the event of complications and ensure "continuity of care." Rikelman maintained, however, that the law provided no medical benefit and would leave only one doctor and clinic available to perform the procedure in the state, where about 10,000 abortions are carried out every year. The court's progressive justices appeared to agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted that "most of these abortions don't have any complications." Her colleague Elena Kagan noted that some hospitals did not want to be associated with abortion providers. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, blocked the application of the Louisiana law in February 2019 but without delivering a final decision. Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the bench in temporarily blocking the law. He is seen as the key vote this time around. chp/bfm-sst/it

US Supreme Court hears case that could set future of abortion

Apple Inc's plea to avoid paying $440 million in damages to VirnetX Inc for using the patent licensing firm's security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling was denied by the US Supreme Court.

Apple Inc's plea to avoid paying $440 million in damages to VirnetX Inc for using the patent licensing firm's security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling was denied by the US Supreme Court. Apple's appeal was rejected by the judges in this case which spans a decade, wherein a Texas jury had discovered in 2016 that the iPhone manufacturer had infringed VirnetX's patents, following which the patent licensing firm was awarded $302 million. The amount was increased to $439.7 million including interest and other costs. Also Read: US jury asks Apple to pay $145 million in damages to Canada's WiLan In 2010, the Nevada-based VirnetX filed a lawsuit against California-based Apple of infringing four patents for secure networks, known as virtual private networks, and secure communications links. VirnetX was adamant that Apple infringed with its FaceTime and VPN on Demand features in products such as the iPhone and iPad. The judgement against apple was upheld last year by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. During the hearings, Apple and other tech titans requested a review of the validity of VirnetX patents by a tribunal of the US Patent and Trademark Office. Also Read: Samsung to pay $539 million to Apple for copying patented smartphone designs, features Key parts of the patents at issue, in this case, were cancelled by the Tribunal but in separate decisions issued last year, the Federal Circuit set aside certain of the tribunal's rulings which brought VirnetX closer to collecting damages from Apple. The world-renowned mobile phone manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the damages should be recalculated because the specific patents VirnetX accused it of infringing with FaceTime were nearly wiped out. Also Read: Top US court rejects Samsung's appeal on patent loss to Apple In a court filing, Apple called the Federal Circuit's opposition to indulge its demands "legally wrong and grossly unfair." The company also stated that lower courts unlawfully granted requests from VirnetX and granted them compensation for damages far beyond the value of the patented invention. VirnetX issued a statement saying that "The entire damages award ... remains supported by claims that a jury - and the Federal Circuit - found valid years ago and that have not been cancelled since."

Apple appeals rejected by US Supreme Court in legal battle with VirnetX

Sudan has agreed to compensate the families of sailors killed in an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">al Qaeda</a> attack on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">USS Cole</a> warship 20 years ago, state news agency SUNA said on Thursday, part of government efforts to remove the country from a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The report said the settlement had been signed on February&nbsp;7. It did not mention the amount paid in compensation, but a source with knowledge of the deal, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Sudan had agreed to settle the case for $30 million.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">Trump confirms key plotter in USS Cole attack has been killed</a>

The 17 sailors were killed, and dozens of others injured, in the attack on October&nbsp;12, 2000, when two men in a small boat detonated explosives alongside the Navy guided missile destroyer as it was refueling in the southern Yemeni port of Aden.

Khartoum agreed to settle "only for the purpose of fulfilling the condition set by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">US&nbsp;administration</a> to remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism", SUNA said, citing the justice ministry.

Being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism makes Sudan ineligible for desperately needed debt relief and financing from lenders such as the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lebanons-new-finance-minister-meets-with-imf-official-276548">International Monetary Fund</a> and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/world-bank-to-reduce-lending-to-china-267039">World Bank</a>.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/al-qaeda-is-stronger-today-than-it-was-on-911-232726">Al-Qaeda is stronger today than it was on 9/11</a>

Removal from the list potentially opens the door for foreign investment.

"The government of Sudan would like to point out that the settlement agreement explicitly affirmed that the government was not responsible for this incident or any terrorist act," the justice ministry said in its statement, cited by SUNA said.

The announcement comes two days after Khartoum and rebel groups agreed that all those wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and genocide in the Darfur region should appear before the tribunal. The list includes Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir.

The US&nbsp;sailors' relatives had sued Sudan under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars suits against foreign countries except those designated by the United States as a sponsor of terrorism, as Sudan has been since 1993.

Sudan did not defend against the claims in court. In 2014, a trial judge found that Sudan's aid to al Qaeda "led to the murders" of the 17 Americans and awarded the families about $35 million, including $14 million in punitive damages.

Sudan then tried to void the judgment, arguing the lawsuit was not properly served on its foreign minister, violating notification requirements under <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">US&nbsp;</a>and international law.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confirms-key-plotter-in-uss-cole-attack-has-been-killed-188597">US</a>&nbsp;Supreme Court turned down the bid by the families last year.

Sudan has agreed to compensate the families of sailors killed in an al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship 20 years ago, state news agency SUNA said on Thursday, part of government efforts to remove the country from a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Sudan has agreed to compensate the families of sailors killed in an al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship 20 years ago, state news agency SUNA said on Thursday, part of government efforts to remove the country from a list of state sponsors of terrorism. The report said the settlement had been signed on February 7. It did not mention the amount paid in compensation, but a source with knowledge of the deal, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Sudan had agreed to settle the case for $30 million. Also read: Trump confirms key plotter in USS Cole attack has been killed The 17 sailors were killed, and dozens of others injured, in the attack on October 12, 2000, when two men in a small boat detonated explosives alongside the Navy guided missile destroyer as it was refueling in the southern Yemeni port of Aden. Khartoum agreed to settle "only for the purpose of fulfilling the condition set by the US administration to remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism", SUNA said, citing the justice ministry. Being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism makes Sudan ineligible for desperately needed debt relief and financing from lenders such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Also read: Al-Qaeda is stronger today than it was on 9/11 Removal from the list potentially opens the door for foreign investment. "The government of Sudan would like to point out that the settlement agreement explicitly affirmed that the government was not responsible for this incident or any terrorist act," the justice ministry said in its statement, cited by SUNA said. The announcement comes two days after Khartoum and rebel groups agreed that all those wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and genocide in the Darfur region should appear before the tribunal. The list includes Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir. The US sailors' relatives had sued Sudan under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally bars suits against foreign countries except those designated by the United States as a sponsor of terrorism, as Sudan has been since 1993. Sudan did not defend against the claims in court. In 2014, a trial judge found that Sudan's aid to al Qaeda "led to the murders" of the 17 Americans and awarded the families about $35 million, including $14 million in punitive damages. Sudan then tried to void the judgment, arguing the lawsuit was not properly served on its foreign minister, violating notification requirements under US and international law. The US Supreme Court turned down the bid by the families last year.

Sudan agrees to compensate families of USS Cole victims

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-anti-abortion-rally-trump-assails-democrats-draws-applause-276481">US Supreme Court</a> on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-detains-800-central-american-migrants-headed-to-united-states-276281">Mexico detains 800 Central American migrants headed to&nbsp;United States</a> 
&nbsp;

The top chamber's five conservative justices outvoted their four progressive colleagues to support a request by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../trump-had-ukraine-aid-withheld-reveals-boltons -new-book-276814">President Donald Trump</a> to lift a New York court injunction that had blocked the rule's application.

Trump has made clamping down on immigrants a cornerstone of his presidency, and Monday's ruling is the latest by the Supreme Court in favour of his migrant-related policies.

"Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois," the Supreme Court ruling said.

The White House lauded the ruling, calling it a "massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution" in a statement.

Announcing last August a new definition of the longstanding "public charge" law, Trump said that "to protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/trump-threatens-to-close-mexico-border-describes-immigrants-as-invasion-178993/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The new rules threatened to set back the citizenship hopes of millions of mostly Hispanic migrants who work for low wages and depend in part on public services to get by.

Under the changes, the 22 million non-citizen residents of the United States using food stamps, public healthcare and other welfare will not be able to obtain green cards or US citizenship, according to the White House.

Additionally, hopeful migrants will not be granted resident visas if they are deemed too poor and likely to need public assistance.

'Activist' judges

Immigration officials will have more leeway to deny the entry of immigrants or to grant a certain migrant status to those receiving public assistance.

A coalition of states in August quickly sued Trump's administration over the rule. They said it was unconstitutional and disproportionately targeted non-white immigrants.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, welcomed Monday's ruling.

He said the Supreme Court "is fed up" with injunctions by judges whom he said are trying to impose policy rather than enforce the law.

"I hope some of these activist district court judges finally get the message that they need to deal with the law, not their policy preferences. If they want to do that, get out and run for Congress," he said.

The Democratic National Committee, charged with the process of choosing the party's challenger to Trump in this year's elections, countered that "it's sickening to see the United States Supreme Court rubber-stamp Trump's extreme, anti-immigrant, xenophobic agenda."

In September, the Supreme Court said Trump could enact severe restrictions on asylum seekers.

That followed a July ruling backing the president's move to divert billions of dollars in Pentagon funds for extending or rebuilding stretches of the wall on the Mexican border.

The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits.

The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with a rule that aims to deny permanent residency and citizenship to immigrants who claim welfare benefits. Also read: Mexico detains 800 Central American migrants headed to United States The top chamber's five conservative justices outvoted their four progressive colleagues to support a request by President Donald Trump to lift a New York court injunction that had blocked the rule's application. Trump has made clamping down on immigrants a cornerstone of his presidency, and Monday's ruling is the latest by the Supreme Court in favour of his migrant-related policies. "Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois," the Supreme Court ruling said. The White House lauded the ruling, calling it a "massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution" in a statement. Announcing last August a new definition of the longstanding "public charge" law, Trump said that "to protect benefits for American citizens, immigrants must be financially self-sufficient." × The new rules threatened to set back the citizenship hopes of millions of mostly Hispanic migrants who work for low wages and depend in part on public services to get by. Under the changes, the 22 million non-citizen residents of the United States using food stamps, public healthcare and other welfare will not be able to obtain green cards or US citizenship, according to the White House. Additionally, hopeful migrants will not be granted resident visas if they are deemed too poor and likely to need public assistance. 'Activist' judges Immigration officials will have more leeway to deny the entry of immigrants or to grant a certain migrant status to those receiving public assistance. A coalition of states in August quickly sued Trump's administration over the rule. They said it was unconstitutional and disproportionately targeted non-white immigrants. Ken Cuccinelli, acting Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, welcomed Monday's ruling. He said the Supreme Court "is fed up" with injunctions by judges whom he said are trying to impose policy rather than enforce the law. "I hope some of these activist district court judges finally get the message that they need to deal with the law, not their policy preferences. If they want to do that, get out and run for Congress," he said. The Democratic National Committee, charged with the process of choosing the party's challenger to Trump in this year's elections, countered that "it's sickening to see the United States Supreme Court rubber-stamp Trump's extreme, anti-immigrant, xenophobic agenda." In September, the Supreme Court said Trump could enact severe restrictions on asylum seekers. That followed a July ruling backing the president's move to divert billions of dollars in Pentagon funds for extending or rebuilding stretches of the wall on the Mexican border.

US top court sides with Trump on immigrant welfare benefits

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear President Donald Trump's appeals in three separate cases to prevent his financial records, including tax returns, being handed over to Democratic-led House of Representatives committees and a New York prosecutor.

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear President Donald Trump's appeals in three separate cases to prevent his financial records, including tax returns, being handed over to Democratic-led House of Representatives committees and a New York prosecutor. The Republican president is trying to block subpoenas for bank records, tax returns or other materials demanded by various Democratic-led House of Representatives committees investigating corruption or foreign meddling in the US elections process. The House probes are not part of the Democratic-led impeachment proceedings against Trump over his dealings with Ukraine. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is seeking Trump's tax returns in a criminal investigation of the president, the Trump Organization and his family real estate business. The court will hold oral arguments in March, with rulings due by the end of June. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President’s three pending cases. These cases raise significant constitutional issues," said Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's lawyers. Democratic leaders in the House expressed disappointment that the justices' decision to hear the cases will result in further delay. "Unfortunately, the American people will now have to wait several more months for final rulings," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. "We are confident that the Supreme Court ... will uphold the Constitution, the rulings of the lower courts and ensure that Congressional oversight can proceed." A spokesman for Vance declined to comment. The cases are a test for how the justices view Trump's arguments that the subpoenas are a threat to the presidency, on the one hand, and the need for lawmakers or prosecutors for information to pursue legislation or criminal investigations on the other. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority including two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The justices' decision to review the legality of the subpoenas investigating Trump's conduct adds another politically-contentious issue to a court term that already includes high-profile cases on abortion, LGBT worker rights, gun rights and the fate of "dreamer" immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children. One of the Trump cases is his appeal of a lower court ruling allowing a New York grand jury to subpoena his accounting firm Mazars LLP for his records. Trump's attorneys said prosecutors could be encouraged to investigate a president to advance their careers or score political points if that subpoena is enforced. Another case concerns a lower court decision in Washington that endorsed subpoenas issued by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee to Mazars. Trump's lawyers say there was no legislative purpose for the subpoenas and that the aim was merely to dig for dirt on the president. In the third case, the justices will review a lower court ruling allowing the enforcement of separate House committee subpoenas targeting Trump-related financial records from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. The court on Friday extended its hold on the lower court ruling, which it had temporarily blocked last week. The lower court rulings in the congressional cases, if left intact, would bring House Democrats closer to getting some of the details about Trump's business interests. That outcome would also amount to a major blow for the president, who, unlike past presidents, has refused to publicly disclose his tax returns. Legal experts say the justices often hear cases when the president asks them to, but that does not mean Trump will ultimately prevail.

US Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to shield financial records

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US&nbsp;Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m.&nbsp;in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous US&nbsp;city.

It is the first major gun case to come before the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-restrictive-abortion-law-253858">Supreme Court</a> since 2010.

New York City's regulation was amended in July to remove the restrictions at issue in the case, but the Supreme Court opted to proceed with the arguments anyway. The justices have said they will consider during the arguments the city's contention that the change in the regulation has made the matter moot.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/armed-with-new-power-democrats-push-for-stricter-us-gun-laws-196435">Gun control advocates</a> have expressed concern that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could use the legal battle over a now-loosened gun control regulation unique to one city to issue a ruling widening gun rights nationwide.

Such a ruling could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions passed in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has deemed dangerous, according to these advocates.

The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons.

Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA - a national lobby group closely aligned with President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-congressional-panel-to-begin-drawing-up-charges-against-us-president-265633">Donald Trump</a> and other Republicans - argued that the regulation violated the US&nbsp;Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment.

Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws.

City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or thefts is heightened.

The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range.

The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city.

The Supreme Court had avoided taking up a major firearms case since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The challengers have said that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right extends beyond the home. They also are asking the Supreme Court to require lower courts to more strictly review gun curbs, with an eye toward striking them down.

The court's ruling is due by the end of June.

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term. The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m. in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous US city. It is the first major gun case to come before the Supreme Court since 2010. New York City's regulation was amended in July to remove the restrictions at issue in the case, but the Supreme Court opted to proceed with the arguments anyway. The justices have said they will consider during the arguments the city's contention that the change in the regulation has made the matter moot. Gun control advocates have expressed concern that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could use the legal battle over a now-loosened gun control regulation unique to one city to issue a ruling widening gun rights nationwide. Such a ruling could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions passed in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has deemed dangerous, according to these advocates. The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons. Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA - a national lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans - argued that the regulation violated the US Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment. Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws. City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or thefts is heightened. The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range. The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city. The Supreme Court had avoided taking up a major firearms case since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The challengers have said that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right extends beyond the home. They also are asking the Supreme Court to require lower courts to more strictly review gun curbs, with an eye toward striking them down. The court's ruling is due by the end of June.

United States Supreme Court to hear its first major gun case since 2010

Immigrants known as "Dreamers" and senior Democrats rallied behind the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme on Tuesday as the US&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-to-examine-dreamers-program-that-trump-wants-axed-261490">Supreme Court considered</a> whether to let President Donald Trump end it.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse on a grey and chilly morning to show their support for the "Dreamers," immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally or overstayed a visa as children.

DACA, launched in 2012 by Democratic former President Barack Obama, provides roughly 661,000 such immigrants with deportation protection and work permits. Trump, a Republican known for his hardline immigration policies, announced plans in September 2017 to phase out DACA, but was blocked by lower courts.

Demonstrator Anel Medina, a 28-year-old DACA enrollee and oncology nurse at Penn Medicine in the Philadelphia area, said the programme changed her life. She was born in Mexico City, and her mother brought her to the United States at age 5. She was a college student and living without legal status when DACA was created in 2012.

"I was able to get a job ... finish nursing school," she said. "It was the moment I was waiting for."

Democratic congressional leaders criticized Trump and Republicans for failing to pass legislation to protect "Dreamers." The Democratic-led House passed a bill in June that would give legal status to an estimated 2.7 million people, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not taken up the measure.

"The president's relentless scapegoating of immigrants is the most un-American thing I can think of," Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, said during a news conference with roughly two dozen DACA recipients in the US&nbsp;Capitol.

Trump tweeted in the morning that he would strike a deal with Democrats to allow DACA recipients to stay if the Supreme Court rules against the programme, but also said many programme enrollees are "very tough, hardened criminals." The DACA programme bars applicants with serious criminal convictions.

Demonstrators at the protest outside the courthouse carried signs that read "home is here" and "defend DACA." Several hoisted depictions of monarch butterflies, which migrate from parts of the United States to Mexico and have become a symbol of the "Dreamers" movement.

No DACA opponents were evident outside the Supreme Court, but Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favours lower levels of immigration, argued that Trump's termination was lawful.

"President Obama's initial action was undertaken informally, and so the policy can be undone in precisely the same manner," Stein said in a statement.

Arisaid Gonzalez Porras and her brother Sergio, both DACA recipients and undergraduate students at Georgetown University, said the court should affirm the programme's legality, but that a permanent fix is needed.

"When the programme was rescinded it made a lot of us realise that DACA is just a Band Aid," she said.

Sammie Chai, a 19-year-old freshman at American University whose parents came to the United States from Malaysia, said she attended the demonstration in solidarity with "Dreamers" and other immigrants in the face of Trump's hardline policies.

"He exemplifies xenophobia," she said of Trump. "Everyone showing up here today, we're just showing that we will not stand for that."

Immigrants known as "Dreamers" and senior Democrats rallied behind the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme on Tuesday as the US Supreme Court considered whether to let President Donald Trump end it.

Immigrants known as "Dreamers" and senior Democrats rallied behind the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme on Tuesday as the US Supreme Court considered whether to let President Donald Trump end it. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse on a grey and chilly morning to show their support for the "Dreamers," immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally or overstayed a visa as children. DACA, launched in 2012 by Democratic former President Barack Obama, provides roughly 661,000 such immigrants with deportation protection and work permits. Trump, a Republican known for his hardline immigration policies, announced plans in September 2017 to phase out DACA, but was blocked by lower courts. Demonstrator Anel Medina, a 28-year-old DACA enrollee and oncology nurse at Penn Medicine in the Philadelphia area, said the programme changed her life. She was born in Mexico City, and her mother brought her to the United States at age 5. She was a college student and living without legal status when DACA was created in 2012. "I was able to get a job ... finish nursing school," she said. "It was the moment I was waiting for." Democratic congressional leaders criticized Trump and Republicans for failing to pass legislation to protect "Dreamers." The Democratic-led House passed a bill in June that would give legal status to an estimated 2.7 million people, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not taken up the measure. "The president's relentless scapegoating of immigrants is the most un-American thing I can think of," Chuck Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, said during a news conference with roughly two dozen DACA recipients in the US Capitol. Trump tweeted in the morning that he would strike a deal with Democrats to allow DACA recipients to stay if the Supreme Court rules against the programme, but also said many programme enrollees are "very tough, hardened criminals." The DACA programme bars applicants with serious criminal convictions. Demonstrators at the protest outside the courthouse carried signs that read "home is here" and "defend DACA." Several hoisted depictions of monarch butterflies, which migrate from parts of the United States to Mexico and have become a symbol of the "Dreamers" movement. No DACA opponents were evident outside the Supreme Court, but Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favours lower levels of immigration, argued that Trump's termination was lawful. "President Obama's initial action was undertaken informally, and so the policy can be undone in precisely the same manner," Stein said in a statement. Arisaid Gonzalez Porras and her brother Sergio, both DACA recipients and undergraduate students at Georgetown University, said the court should affirm the programme's legality, but that a permanent fix is needed. "When the programme was rescinded it made a lot of us realise that DACA is just a Band Aid," she said. Sammie Chai, a 19-year-old freshman at American University whose parents came to the United States from Malaysia, said she attended the demonstration in solidarity with "Dreamers" and other immigrants in the face of Trump's hardline policies. "He exemplifies xenophobia," she said of Trump. "Everyone showing up here today, we're just showing that we will not stand for that."

'Dreamers,' Democrats rally behind DACA as US top court mulls programme's fate

Angelica Villalobos came to the United States illegally as a child and lived in the shadows until she and 700,000 others like her gained protection from deportation under a program that the Supreme Court will take up on Tuesday.

Angelica Villalobos came to the United States illegally as a child and lived in the shadows until she and 700,000 others like her gained protection from deportation under a program that the Supreme Court will take up on Tuesday. The court will hear arguments on the fate of these people known as "Dreamers," whom the administration of then president Barack Obama "gave wings," in Villalobos' words, in 2012 by letting them have work and study permits. President Donald Trump -- who campaigned on a starkly anti-immigrant platform -- moved in 2017 to end the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that has given Villalobos and others legal cover in the US. Trump gave Congress six months to devise a plan to replace DACA, saying he was sympathetic to the "Dreamers" but that Obama had established the program illegally. But lawmakers were unable to reach agreement, and the program expired the following year. The phase-out of the program has been appealed to several courts across the country, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. It is not expected to issue a ruling before next year, when the US will hold a hotly contested presidential election. If the Supreme Court fails to extend legal protection to the "Dreamers," they are not expected to be automatically deported; most will probably slip quietly into the shadowy life of the undocumented, for whom working and studying is fraught with difficulty. In the meantime "this is has been like a roller coaster," said Villalobos, a 34 Mexican and mother of five who works in an auto repair shop in Oklahoma. She said she and her husband, who also entered illegally as a minor, talk to their children about what might happen if the court ruling does not go their way and they maybe cannot drive or work anymore -- "things that we're doing right now that keep the family more normal." 'Bargaining chips' Like them, nearly 700,000 others "have been in the country for at least 12 years, become part of the fabric of our communities or institutions," said Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the Trump administration moved to end DACA in order to use "Dreamers" as "bargaining chips" with the Democrats to achieve other immigration goals. Indeed, Trump tried in vain to obtain congressional funding for his promised wall along the border with Mexico in exchange for new protections for the "Dreamers," many of whom have little to no memory of the country in which they were born. The vast majority are from Mexico, and smaller numbers come from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, South Korea, Brazil and other countries. The courts have stepped into this case because of questions about the Trump administration's motives for ending DACA. They have said so far that it acted "arbitrarily or capriciously." Noel Francisco, the solicitor general who will represent the government before the Supreme Court, said in September that what it has done with DACA is "entirely lawful and rational." Besides the fate of the immigrants, the case is important because of what it means for executive authority, said Steven Schwinn, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He said the court could in effect extend the discretionary powers of the president by allowing him to do or undo policy without giving an explanation.

US Supreme Court to examine 'Dreamers' program that Trump wants axed

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

The nine justices will examine the merits of an abortion law adopted in 2014 in the conservative southern state.

The court issued an injunction in February blocking the law from taking effect, but without ruling on what it actually stipulates.

A decision in the case would come before the end of the Supreme Court's term in June 2020, just months before the US presidential election.

The law states that doctors at Louisiana abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometres) of where the procedure is being carried out.

Abortion rights advocates say this restriction is extreme and would force the closure of most of the state's clinics, leaving it with just one doctor authorised to perform abortions.

Louisiana says the stipulation in the law is needed because of the risk of a complication arising during abortions and the need to be able to transfer a patient to a nearby hospital.

Around 10,000 abortions are performed each year in the state.

'Hanging by a thread'

After years of legal wrangling, a federal appeals court upheld the law last year.

Critics of the bill filed an urgent lawsuit with the Supreme Court and just as the law was about to take effect in February, the high court voted 5-4 to block it -- but did not rule on the law's merits.

In June 2016, the court struck down a Texas abortion law similar to the one it will now consider.

The Supreme Court's deliberations will come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign -- and its eventual ruling will be the first meaty decision on the hot-button issue since Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, shifting the court's balance to the right.

In February, the pair voted to allow the Louisiana law to take effect.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who voted in favour of the Texas law, sided with the four progressives on the bench in suspending the Louisiana measure.

On both sides of the abortion debate, people are watching to see what Roberts does now.

"Access to abortion is hanging by a thread in this country, and this case is what could snap that thread," said Alexis McGill, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood.

Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, said the high court could only strike down the Louisiana law if it follows its own precedent from the Texas case.

"If the rule of law means anything, it means that the Court cannot sit by and watch as the lower court thumbs its nose at Supreme Court precedent and at people's constitutional rights," she said.

On the other side of the debate, Katrina Jackson, a lawmaker who helped write the Louisiana law, urged the court to reverse or at least alter the precedent set with the Texas law.

"Abortion has known medical risks, and the women of this state who are often coerced into abortion deserve to have the same standard of care required for other surgical procedures," Jackson wrote in a statement published by pressure group Louisiana Right to Life.

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, taking up a flashpoint issue that will serve as a test for two new conservative judges appointed by President Donald Trump. The nine justices will examine the merits of an abortion law adopted in 2014 in the conservative southern state. The court issued an injunction in February blocking the law from taking effect, but without ruling on what it actually stipulates. A decision in the case would come before the end of the Supreme Court's term in June 2020, just months before the US presidential election. The law states that doctors at Louisiana abortion clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kilometres) of where the procedure is being carried out. Abortion rights advocates say this restriction is extreme and would force the closure of most of the state's clinics, leaving it with just one doctor authorised to perform abortions. Louisiana says the stipulation in the law is needed because of the risk of a complication arising during abortions and the need to be able to transfer a patient to a nearby hospital. Around 10,000 abortions are performed each year in the state. 'Hanging by a thread' After years of legal wrangling, a federal appeals court upheld the law last year. Critics of the bill filed an urgent lawsuit with the Supreme Court and just as the law was about to take effect in February, the high court voted 5-4 to block it -- but did not rule on the law's merits. In June 2016, the court struck down a Texas abortion law similar to the one it will now consider. The Supreme Court's deliberations will come right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign -- and its eventual ruling will be the first meaty decision on the hot-button issue since Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, shifting the court's balance to the right. In February, the pair voted to allow the Louisiana law to take effect. But Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative who voted in favour of the Texas law, sided with the four progressives on the bench in suspending the Louisiana measure. On both sides of the abortion debate, people are watching to see what Roberts does now. "Access to abortion is hanging by a thread in this country, and this case is what could snap that thread," said Alexis McGill, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, said the high court could only strike down the Louisiana law if it follows its own precedent from the Texas case. "If the rule of law means anything, it means that the Court cannot sit by and watch as the lower court thumbs its nose at Supreme Court precedent and at people's constitutional rights," she said. On the other side of the debate, Katrina Jackson, a lawmaker who helped write the Louisiana law, urged the court to reverse or at least alter the precedent set with the Texas law. "Abortion has known medical risks, and the women of this state who are often coerced into abortion deserve to have the same standard of care required for other surgical procedures," Jackson wrote in a statement published by pressure group Louisiana Right to Life.

US Supreme Court agrees to hear case on restrictive abortion law

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-use-disputed-funds-of-25-billion-for-border-wall-238745">US Supreme Court lets Trump use disputed funds of $2.5 billion for border wall</a>

The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/four-dead-nine-injured-after-twin-quakes-hit-northern-philippines-238739">Eight dead, 60 injured after twin quakes hit northern Philippines</a>

At least eight people were killed and over dozen were injured when the northern Philippines was struck with twin earthquakes of magnitudes 5.4 and 5.9 on early Saturday, police said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-donald-trump-announces-controversial-asylum-deal-with-guatemala-238748">US President Donald Trump announces controversial asylum deal with Guatemala</a>

President Donald Trump announced Friday that a "landmark" asylum agreement has been reached with Guatemala, as the United States ratchets up pressure on its southern neighbours to stem the flow of migrants towards its border.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-approves-sales-to-support-pakistans-f-16s-indias-c-17s-238754">US approves sales to support Pakistan's F-16s, India's C-17s</a>

Washington on Friday approved $125 million worth of support for Pakistan's F-16 warplanes, and also $670 worth of support for India's C-17 transport planes.

Approval to support US-built aircraft for the two south Asian rivals were approved by the US State Department, and announced simultaneously by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/heavy-rain-lashes-mumbai-flooding-several-areas-seven-flights-cancelled-238751">Heavy rain lashes Mumbai flooding several areas, traffic severely affected</a>

Heavy rains lashed Mumbai in the last 24 hours flooding several areas and severely affecting the road, rail and air traffic.

US Supreme Court lets Trump use disputed funds of $2.5 billion for border wall The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.

US Supreme Court lets Trump use disputed funds of $2.5 billion for border wall The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding. Eight dead, 60 injured after twin quakes hit northern Philippines At least eight people were killed and over dozen were injured when the northern Philippines was struck with twin earthquakes of magnitudes 5.4 and 5.9 on early Saturday, police said. US President Donald Trump announces controversial asylum deal with Guatemala President Donald Trump announced Friday that a "landmark" asylum agreement has been reached with Guatemala, as the United States ratchets up pressure on its southern neighbours to stem the flow of migrants towards its border. US approves sales to support Pakistan's F-16s, India's C-17s Washington on Friday approved $125 million worth of support for Pakistan's F-16 warplanes, and also $670 worth of support for India's C-17 transport planes. Approval to support US-built aircraft for the two south Asian rivals were approved by the US State Department, and announced simultaneously by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Heavy rain lashes Mumbai flooding several areas, traffic severely affected Heavy rains lashed Mumbai in the last 24 hours flooding several areas and severely affecting the road, rail and air traffic.

News brief: Big stories of the day

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