A university professor detailed her allegations that Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted her 36 years ago during a momentous Senate hearing on Thursday that could determine whether he will be confirmed to the lifetime job after a pitched political battle.

The hearing, which has riveted Americans and intensified the political polarization in the United States, occurred against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault.

Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh, a conservative federal appeals court judge picked by Trump in July for a lifetime job on the high court, were the only two witnesses scheduled for the Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by two other women as well. He has denied all the allegations.

"I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school," Ford said, reading from her prepared testimony, her voice breaking with emotion.

Ford was seated at a table in the packed hearing room flanked by her lawyers, facing a bank of senators. Cameras from news photographers clicked as she entered the room and took her seat, smiling nervously.

Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California, said a drunken Kavanaugh attacked her and tried to remove her clothing at a gathering of teenagers in Maryland when he was 17 years old and she was 15.

"Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help," Ford said, adding that Kavanaugh and a friend of his were "drunkenly laughing during the attack."

Ford said that when she tried to yell out, he put his hand over her mouth. She said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh and another boy she said was in the room fell off the bed.

Republican Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said at the opening of the hearing that he wanted it to be "safe comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses." He decried the "media circus" around the allegations against Kavanaugh and said the nominee and Ford had been through a terrible couple of weeks since Ford leveled her accusation.

"What they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy," Grassley said. "So I want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated."

"I lament how this hearing has come about," he added, noting that Ford's allegations emerged only after Kavanaugh's original confirmation hearing earlier this month was over. Grassley said it was up to the Senate to assess the credibility of Kavanaugh and Ford.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, said in her opening statement that sexual violence is a serious problem in the United States "and one that goes largely unseen." She thanked Ford for coming forward and referenced the #MeToo movement.

'Rush to judgment'

"What I find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment, the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value and look at them for what they are: a real question of character for someone who is asking for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court," Feinstein said.

Feinstein said Ford should be treated with more respect than Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Thomas was ultimately confirmed by the Senate and still sits on the court.

Ford, who before the hearing had not spoken or appeared publicly, will give her account of an alleged incident in which she has said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 at a gathering of teenagers in Maryland when both of them were in high school.

Supporters of Ford were spotted throughout the Senate office building where the hearing was being held, including a group of about 50 women who attended the same school that Ford did at the time of the alleged incident.

The all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee has hired a female lawyer with experience prosecuting sex crimes, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford. Democratic senators are set to ask their own questions.

In his prepared testimony, Kavanaugh again "unequivocally and categorically" denied her allegation, as well as "other false and uncorroborated accusations" by his other accusers.

"Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect," Kavanaugh said.

Supreme Court appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, and Trump's fellow Republicans control the chamber by a narrow 51-49 margin. That means that a handful of moderate Republican senators who have not announced whether or not they support Kavanaugh could determine his fate. Committee member Jeff Flake is among these.

The committee could vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation on Friday, with a final Senate vote early next week.

Some Democrats have called on Kavanaugh to withdraw in light of the allegations.

The controversy has unfolded just weeks ahead of the Nov. 6 congressional elections in which Democrats are trying to seize control of Congress from Trump's fellow Republicans. Kavanaugh's confirmation would cement conservative control of the high court as Trump moves to shift it and the broader federal judiciary to the right.

Two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, have also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in the 1980s.

Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself during a drunken dormitory party during the 1983-84 academic year when both attended Yale University.

Swetnick, whose allegations emerged on Wednesday, said she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others to get girls drunk at parties so that they could be raped. She also said Kavanaugh was present at a 1982 party at which she was raped.

Trump and some other Republicans described the allegations as part of a last-minute "smear" campaign, though the president indicated that he will be paying close attention to the hearing. "I can always be convinced," Trump said on Wednesday.

Trump chose Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired effective in July.

A university professor detailed her allegations that Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted her 36 years ago during a momentous Senate hearing on Thursday that could determine whether he will be confirmed to the lifetime job after a pitched political battle.

A university professor detailed her allegations that Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted her 36 years ago during a momentous Senate hearing on Thursday that could determine whether he will be confirmed to the lifetime job after a pitched political battle. The hearing, which has riveted Americans and intensified the political polarization in the United States, occurred against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault. Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh, a conservative federal appeals court judge picked by Trump in July for a lifetime job on the high court, were the only two witnesses scheduled for the Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by two other women as well. He has denied all the allegations. "I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school," Ford said, reading from her prepared testimony, her voice breaking with emotion. Ford was seated at a table in the packed hearing room flanked by her lawyers, facing a bank of senators. Cameras from news photographers clicked as she entered the room and took her seat, smiling nervously. Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California, said a drunken Kavanaugh attacked her and tried to remove her clothing at a gathering of teenagers in Maryland when he was 17 years old and she was 15. "Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help," Ford said, adding that Kavanaugh and a friend of his were "drunkenly laughing during the attack." Ford said that when she tried to yell out, he put his hand over her mouth. She said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh and another boy she said was in the room fell off the bed. Republican Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said at the opening of the hearing that he wanted it to be "safe comfortable and dignified for both of our witnesses." He decried the "media circus" around the allegations against Kavanaugh and said the nominee and Ford had been through a terrible couple of weeks since Ford leveled her accusation. "What they have endured ought to be considered by all of us as unacceptable and a poor reflection on the state of civility in our democracy," Grassley said. "So I want to apologize to you both for the way you've been treated." "I lament how this hearing has come about," he added, noting that Ford's allegations emerged only after Kavanaugh's original confirmation hearing earlier this month was over. Grassley said it was up to the Senate to assess the credibility of Kavanaugh and Ford. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, said in her opening statement that sexual violence is a serious problem in the United States "and one that goes largely unseen." She thanked Ford for coming forward and referenced the #MeToo movement. 'Rush to judgment' "What I find most inexcusable is this rush to judgment, the unwillingness to take these kinds of allegations at face value and look at them for what they are: a real question of character for someone who is asking for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court," Feinstein said. Feinstein said Ford should be treated with more respect than Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Thomas was ultimately confirmed by the Senate and still sits on the court. Ford, who before the hearing had not spoken or appeared publicly, will give her account of an alleged incident in which she has said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 at a gathering of teenagers in Maryland when both of them were in high school. Supporters of Ford were spotted throughout the Senate office building where the hearing was being held, including a group of about 50 women who attended the same school that Ford did at the time of the alleged incident. The all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee has hired a female lawyer with experience prosecuting sex crimes, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford. Democratic senators are set to ask their own questions. In his prepared testimony, Kavanaugh again "unequivocally and categorically" denied her allegation, as well as "other false and uncorroborated accusations" by his other accusers. "Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect," Kavanaugh said. Supreme Court appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, and Trump's fellow Republicans control the chamber by a narrow 51-49 margin. That means that a handful of moderate Republican senators who have not announced whether or not they support Kavanaugh could determine his fate. Committee member Jeff Flake is among these. The committee could vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation on Friday, with a final Senate vote early next week. Some Democrats have called on Kavanaugh to withdraw in light of the allegations. The controversy has unfolded just weeks ahead of the Nov. 6 congressional elections in which Democrats are trying to seize control of Congress from Trump's fellow Republicans. Kavanaugh's confirmation would cement conservative control of the high court as Trump moves to shift it and the broader federal judiciary to the right. Two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, have also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in the 1980s. Ramirez accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself during a drunken dormitory party during the 1983-84 academic year when both attended Yale University. Swetnick, whose allegations emerged on Wednesday, said she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others to get girls drunk at parties so that they could be raped. She also said Kavanaugh was present at a 1982 party at which she was raped. Trump and some other Republicans described the allegations as part of a last-minute "smear" campaign, though the president indicated that he will be paying close attention to the hearing. "I can always be convinced," Trump said on Wednesday. Trump chose Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired effective in July.

Woman details sexual assault allegation against Trump supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

The US&nbspSupreme Court on Thursday denied last-minute appeals to spare the life of an 83-year-old convicted killer, clearing the path for Alabama's execution of a man who would be the oldest inmate put to death in the modern era of US&nbspcapital punishment.

The execution of Walter Moody had been scheduled for 6 pm&nbspCDT (2300 GMT) at the William C&nbspHolman Correctional Facility in Atmore but was delayed as the court considered the appeals.

The Death Penalty Information Center, which monitors US&nbspcapital punishment, said the oldest inmate put to death since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 was 77-year-old John Nixon in Mississippi in December 2005.

There have been seven executions this year in the United States.

Moody was convicted of mailing a bomb in 1989 that killed US&nbspCircuit Court Judge Robert Vance, 58, and another explosive that killed Georgia civil rights attorney Robert Robinson.

Prosecutors have said Moody sent the bomb to the judge in anger over a 1972 bomb conviction that Moody felt derailed his career, and sent the other to the civil rights lawyer to confuse investigators.

Lawyers for Moody asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to spare Moody's life based on his transfer from the federal court system to Alabama's.

The court did not offer details on why it denied the appeals.

Moody first received seven life sentences in a US&nbspditrict court in 1991 for the deadly bombings. Alabama later indicted him on capital murder charges and his trial began in the state in 1996, court records showed.

Moody's lawyer argued the transfer to an Alabama prison was illegal and he should first serve his federal sentence.

Lawyers for Alabama responded that the federal government consented to the transfer and the state had the right to implement the death penalty handed out by an Alabama court.

Although it has not been an issue in Moody's last-minute appeals, age and poor health were major factors in a botched execution in Alabama earlier this year when the state tried to put to death Doyle Hamm, 61, who had terminal cancer and severely compromised veins.

The execution was called off while Hamm, who survived the ordeal, was on a death chamber gurney and medical staff could not place a line for the lethal injection.

The execution of Walter Moody had been scheduled for 6 pm CDT (2300 GMT) at the William C Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore but was delayed as the court considered the appeals

The US&nbspSupreme Court on Thursday denied last-minute appeals to spare the life of an 83-year-old convicted killer, clearing the path for Alabama's execution of a man who would be the oldest inmate put to death in the modern era of US&nbspcapital punishment. The execution of Walter Moody had been scheduled for 6 pm&nbspCDT (2300 GMT) at the William C&nbspHolman Correctional Facility in Atmore but was delayed as the court considered the appeals. The Death Penalty Information Center, which monitors US&nbspcapital punishment, said the oldest inmate put to death since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 was 77-year-old John Nixon in Mississippi in December 2005. There have been seven executions this year in the United States. Moody was convicted of mailing a bomb in 1989 that killed US&nbspCircuit Court Judge Robert Vance, 58, and another explosive that killed Georgia civil rights attorney Robert Robinson. Prosecutors have said Moody sent the bomb to the judge in anger over a 1972 bomb conviction that Moody felt derailed his career, and sent the other to the civil rights lawyer to confuse investigators. Lawyers for Moody asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to spare Moody's life based on his transfer from the federal court system to Alabama's. The court did not offer details on why it denied the appeals. Moody first received seven life sentences in a US&nbspditrict court in 1991 for the deadly bombings. Alabama later indicted him on capital murder charges and his trial began in the state in 1996, court records showed. Moody's lawyer argued the transfer to an Alabama prison was illegal and he should first serve his federal sentence. Lawyers for Alabama responded that the federal government consented to the transfer and the state had the right to implement the death penalty handed out by an Alabama court. Although it has not been an issue in Moody's last-minute appeals, age and poor health were major factors in a botched execution in Alabama earlier this year when the state tried to put to death Doyle Hamm, 61, who had terminal cancer and severely compromised veins. The execution was called off while Hamm, who survived the ordeal, was on a death chamber gurney and medical staff could not place a line for the lethal injection.

Supreme Court allows Alabama to execute Walter Moody

The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that immigrants can be detained indefinitely without bond hearings, in a setback for immigrant rights.

The five-to-three decision was carried by the court&#39;s conservative justices, who said immigrants detained in the United States had no right to periodic bond hearings.

It reversed a ruling by the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had set a six-month limit for detention without a bond hearing as long as the person did not pose a flight risk or a danger to national security.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention'" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the appeals court had overstepped its authority by re-writing rather than interpreting the law.

&quot;All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention,&quot; he wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer cited the Declaration of Independence, &quot;in particular its insistence that all men and women have &#39;certain unalienable Rights,&#39; and that among them is the right to &#39;Liberty.&#39;&quot;

&quot;We need merely remember that the Constitution&#39;s Due Process Clause protects each person&#39;s liberty from arbitrary deprivation,&quot; he wrote.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the decision.

The case involved a Mexican immigrant, Alejandro Rodriguez, who had legal US residence and worked as a dental assistant.

He was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle in 2004, prompting an immigration judge&#39;s order for his deportation to Mexico, which Rodriguez appealed.

He spent three years in detention while appealing his case, arguing that the relevant laws do not authorize prolonged detention unless the government proves it is justified. Otherwise, it would violate due process.

In the end, Rodriguez won his case against deportation.&nbsp;

&quot;We look forward to going back to the lower courts to show that these statutes, now interpreted by the Supreme Court to require detention without any hearing, violate the Due Process Clause,&quot; Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case, said after the ruling.

The five-to-three decision was carried by the court's conservative justices, who said immigrants detained in the United States had no right to periodic bond hearings

The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that immigrants can be detained indefinitely without bond hearings, in a setback for immigrant rights. The five-to-three decision was carried by the court's conservative justices, who said immigrants detained in the United States had no right to periodic bond hearings. It reversed a ruling by the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had set a six-month limit for detention without a bond hearing as long as the person did not pose a flight risk or a danger to national security. All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention' × Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the appeals court had overstepped its authority by re-writing rather than interpreting the law. "All parties appear to agree that the text of these provisions, when read most naturally, does not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention," he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer cited the Declaration of Independence, "in particular its insistence that all men and women have 'certain unalienable Rights,' and that among them is the right to 'Liberty.'" "We need merely remember that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects each person's liberty from arbitrary deprivation," he wrote. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the decision. The case involved a Mexican immigrant, Alejandro Rodriguez, who had legal US residence and worked as a dental assistant. He was convicted of a drug offense and theft of a vehicle in 2004, prompting an immigration judge's order for his deportation to Mexico, which Rodriguez appealed. He spent three years in detention while appealing his case, arguing that the relevant laws do not authorize prolonged detention unless the government proves it is justified. Otherwise, it would violate due process. In the end, Rodriguez won his case against deportation. "We look forward to going back to the lower courts to show that these statutes, now interpreted by the Supreme Court to require detention without any hearing, violate the Due Process Clause," Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case, said after the ruling.

US Supreme Court rules immigrants can be held indefinitely

A US appeals court on Friday said President Donald Trump&#39;s hotly contested travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries should not be applied to people with strong US ties.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers several West Coast states, also said its ruling would be put on hold pending a decision on the latest version of the travel ban from the Trump administration by the US&nbsp;Supreme Court.

Since taking office in January, Trump has been struggling to enact a ban that passes court muster.

A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit narrowed a previous injunction from a lower federal court to those people &quot;with a credible bona fide relationship with the United States.&quot;

It also said that while the US president has broad powers to regulate the entry of immigrants into the United States, those powers are not without limits.

&quot;We conclude that the President&rsquo;s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority,&quot; the panel said.

The ban targets people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen seeking to enter the United States. The Republican president has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism.

The state of Hawaii, however, challenged it in court, and a Honolulu federal judge said it exceeded Trump&#39;s powers under immigration law.

Trump&#39;s ban also covers people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela, but the lower courts had already allowed those provisions to go into effect.

The same three judge 9th Circuit panel, which limited a previous version of Trump&#39;s ban, heard arguments earlier this month. Some of the judges appeared more cautious toward the idea of blocking the president&#39;s policy.

Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, which caused chaos at airports and mass protests.

He issued a revised one in March after the first was blocked by federal courts.

That expired in September after a long court fight, and was replaced with the current version.

The ban has some exceptions. Certain people from each targeted country can still apply for a visa for tourism, business or education purposes, and any applicant can ask for an individual waiver.

U.S. Justice Department officials were not immediately available for comment.

The US?Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also said its ruling will be put on hold pending a decision on the travel ban by US?Supreme Court.

A US appeals court on Friday said President Donald Trump's hotly contested travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries should not be applied to people with strong US ties. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers several West Coast states, also said its ruling would be put on hold pending a decision on the latest version of the travel ban from the Trump administration by the US Supreme Court. Since taking office in January, Trump has been struggling to enact a ban that passes court muster. A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit narrowed a previous injunction from a lower federal court to those people "with a credible bona fide relationship with the United States." It also said that while the US president has broad powers to regulate the entry of immigrants into the United States, those powers are not without limits. "We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority," the panel said. The ban targets people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen seeking to enter the United States. The Republican president has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism. The state of Hawaii, however, challenged it in court, and a Honolulu federal judge said it exceeded Trump's powers under immigration law. Trump's ban also covers people from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela, but the lower courts had already allowed those provisions to go into effect. The same three judge 9th Circuit panel, which limited a previous version of Trump's ban, heard arguments earlier this month. Some of the judges appeared more cautious toward the idea of blocking the president's policy. Trump issued his first travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in January, which caused chaos at airports and mass protests. He issued a revised one in March after the first was blocked by federal courts. That expired in September after a long court fight, and was replaced with the current version. The ban has some exceptions. Certain people from each targeted country can still apply for a visa for tourism, business or education purposes, and any applicant can ask for an individual waiver. U.S. Justice Department officials were not immediately available for comment.

Trump travel ban should not be applied to people with strong US ties: Court

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday sidestepped a growing controversy over who can give permission to access a computer, a debate that goes to the core of what constitutes hacking in this era of widespread use of the internet and social media.

The justices turned away two cases over whether it is a violation of federal anti-hacking law for account holders to give a third party access to a computer system they do not own themselves. In doing so, they left in place a lower court ruling that went against a Cayman Islands company in a dispute with Facebook, and another against a California-based executive recruiter.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled in both cases that only computer system owners may grant authorization, and not account holders or employees with legitimate access credentials.

The justices turned away two cases over whether it is a violation of federal anti-hacking law for account holders to give a third party access to a computer system they do not own themselves

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday sidestepped a growing controversy over who can give permission to access a computer, a debate that goes to the core of what constitutes hacking in this era of widespread use of the internet and social media. The justices turned away two cases over whether it is a violation of federal anti-hacking law for account holders to give a third party access to a computer system they do not own themselves. In doing so, they left in place a lower court ruling that went against a Cayman Islands company in a dispute with Facebook, and another against a California-based executive recruiter. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled in both cases that only computer system owners may grant authorization, and not account holders or employees with legitimate access credentials.

US Supreme Court declines to review computer hacking cases

Neil Gorsuch, picked by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, was sworn in as a US Supreme Court justice at the White House on Monday and was poised to have an instant impact on a court once again dominated by conservatives.

Trump earned the biggest political victory of his presidency and fulfilled a major campaign promise when the Senate voted on Friday to confirm the conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado to the lifetime job despite vehement Democratic opposition. With Gorsuch aboard, the court once again has five conservative justices and four liberals.

Gorsuch took his judicial oath in a White House Rose Garden ceremony with Trump watching on, filling a vacancy that lingered for nearly 14 months after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. The oath was administered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch worked as a clerk as a young lawyer. Gorsuch will become the first justice to serve alongside a former boss.

All the other members of the court were at the ceremony, including liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called Trump &quot;a faker&quot; last year during the presidential campaign but later said she regretted the remark. Trump at the time called on her to resign and said her &quot;mind is shot.&quot;

Scalia&#39;s widow, Maureen, also attended the ceremony.

Gorsuch earlier in the day took his separate constitutional oath, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts, in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court with the other justices.

Trump made Gorsuch, 49, the youngest Supreme Court nominee since Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 selected Clarence Thomas, who was then 43. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades, and Trump could make further appointments to the high court to make it even more solidly conservative, with three of the eight justices 78 or older: Ginsburg, 84; fellow liberal Stephen Breyer, 78; and conservative swing vote Kennedy, 80.

Gorsuch will take part in the court&#39;s next round of oral arguments, starting on April 17. They include a closely watched religious rights case on April 19 in which a Missouri church is objecting to being frozen out of state funds for a playground project due to a state ban on providing public money to religious organizations.

He is expected to take part in oral arguments in 13 cases during the court&#39;s current term, which ends in June.

Gorsuch can be expected to have an immediate impact of the court. He takes part on Thursday in the justices&#39; private conference to decide which cases to take up. Appeals are pending before the justices on expanding gun rights to include carrying concealed firearms in public, state voting restrictions that critics say are aimed at reducing minority turnout, and letting Christian business owners object on religious grounds to providing gay couples certain services.

Gorsuch could also play a vital role in some cases on which his new colleagues may have been split 4-4 along ideological lines and therefore did not yet decide. Those cases potentially could be reargued in the court&#39;s next term, which starts in October.

Gorsuch&#39;s wife, Louise, and his two daughters were also present at the private constitutional oath ceremony at the court, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg. Louise Gorsuch held a family Bible as her husband took the oath, Arberg said.

The Senate, which last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama&#39;s nomination of Merrick Garland, voted 54-45 to confirm Gorsuch.

(Reuters) 
&nbsp;

With Gorsuch aboard, the court once again has five conservative justices and four liberals

Neil Gorsuch, picked by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, was sworn in as a US Supreme Court justice at the White House on Monday and was poised to have an instant impact on a court once again dominated by conservatives. Trump earned the biggest political victory of his presidency and fulfilled a major campaign promise when the Senate voted on Friday to confirm the conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado to the lifetime job despite vehement Democratic opposition. With Gorsuch aboard, the court once again has five conservative justices and four liberals. Gorsuch took his judicial oath in a White House Rose Garden ceremony with Trump watching on, filling a vacancy that lingered for nearly 14 months after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. The oath was administered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Gorsuch worked as a clerk as a young lawyer. Gorsuch will become the first justice to serve alongside a former boss. All the other members of the court were at the ceremony, including liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called Trump "a faker" last year during the presidential campaign but later said she regretted the remark. Trump at the time called on her to resign and said her "mind is shot." Scalia's widow, Maureen, also attended the ceremony. Gorsuch earlier in the day took his separate constitutional oath, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts, in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court with the other justices. Trump made Gorsuch, 49, the youngest Supreme Court nominee since Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 selected Clarence Thomas, who was then 43. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades, and Trump could make further appointments to the high court to make it even more solidly conservative, with three of the eight justices 78 or older: Ginsburg, 84; fellow liberal Stephen Breyer, 78; and conservative swing vote Kennedy, 80. Gorsuch will take part in the court's next round of oral arguments, starting on April 17. They include a closely watched religious rights case on April 19 in which a Missouri church is objecting to being frozen out of state funds for a playground project due to a state ban on providing public money to religious organizations. He is expected to take part in oral arguments in 13 cases during the court's current term, which ends in June. Gorsuch can be expected to have an immediate impact of the court. He takes part on Thursday in the justices' private conference to decide which cases to take up. Appeals are pending before the justices on expanding gun rights to include carrying concealed firearms in public, state voting restrictions that critics say are aimed at reducing minority turnout, and letting Christian business owners object on religious grounds to providing gay couples certain services. Gorsuch could also play a vital role in some cases on which his new colleagues may have been split 4-4 along ideological lines and therefore did not yet decide. Those cases potentially could be reargued in the court's next term, which starts in October. Gorsuch's wife, Louise, and his two daughters were also present at the private constitutional oath ceremony at the court, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg. Louise Gorsuch held a family Bible as her husband took the oath, Arberg said. The Senate, which last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, voted 54-45 to confirm Gorsuch. (Reuters)

Neil Gorsuch sworn in as US Supreme Court judge

President Donald Trump on Tuesday nominated Neil Gorsuch for a lifetime job on the US Supreme Court, picking the 49-year-old federal appeals court judge to restore the court&#39;s conservative majority and help shape rulings on divisive issues such as abortion, gun control, the death penalty and religious rights.

The Colorado native faces a potentially contentious confirmation battle in the US Senate after Republicans last year refused to consider Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s nominee to fill the vacancy caused by the February 2016 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the nation&#39;s highest court in more than a quarter century, and he could influence the direction of the court for decades.

&quot;Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has earned bipartisan support,&quot; Trump said.

&quot;Depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years. And his or her decisions can last a century or more, and can often be permanent,&quot; Trump added.

Trump during his presidency may get to make additional appointments to the Supreme Court. Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Trump called upon to resign last July after she called him &quot;a faker,&quot; is 83 while Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer, another liberal, is 78.

&nbsp;

Gorsuch is a judge on the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and was appointed to that post by Republican President George W&nbsp;Bush in 2006.

Some Democrats in the US Senate, which votes on whether to confirm judicial nominees, have already said they would seek to block whoever Trump nominates.

Gorsuch is considered a conservative intellectual, known for backing religious rights, and is seen as very much in the mold of Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the court for decades.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the choice of Gorsuch was seen by the White House as a significant departure from Supreme Court nominations from the recent past, given that many justices have come from the eastern United States. Gorsuch lives in Boulder, Colorado, where he raises horses and is a life-long outdoorsman.

The official described Gorsuch as a mainstream judge who should easily be confirmed by the Senate. The official noted that the Senate confirmed him for his current judgeship in 2006 by voice vote with no one voting against him.

&nbsp;

&quot;He plays it straight. He sticks to principles, and his opinions reflect a consistency regardless of who is in his courtroom,&quot; the official said of Gorsuch.

Trump made his choice between two US&nbsp;appeals court judges, Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman of the Philadelphia-based 3rd US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a source involved in the selection process.

Gorsuch became the youngest US&nbsp;Supreme Court nominee since Republican President George HW&nbsp;Bush in 1991 selected conservative Clarence Thomas, who was 43 at the time.

He is the son of Anne Burford, the first woman to head the US&nbsp;Environmental Protection Agency. She served in Republican President Ronald Reagan&#39;s administration but resigned in 1983 amid a fight with Congress over documents on the EPA&#39;s use of a fund created to clean up toxic waste dumps nationwide.

Trump&#39;s selection was one of the most consequential appointments of his young presidency as he moved to restore a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that had been in place for decades until Scalia died at age 79 on February&nbsp;13, 2016.

Trump, who took office on January&nbsp;20, got the opportunity to name Scalia&#39;s replacement only because the Republican-led US&nbsp;Senate, in an action with little precedent in US&nbsp;history, refused to consider Obama&#39;s nominee for the post, appeals court judge Merrick Garland. Obama nominated Garland on March 16 but Republican senators led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied Garland the customary confirmation hearings and vote.

Trump has said his promise to appoint a conservative justice was one of the reasons he won the November&nbsp;8 presidential election, with Christian conservatives and others emphasising the importance of the pick during the campaign. Trump last week said evangelical Christians would love his nominee.

Trump&#39;s fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate. The minority Democrats, irate over Garland&#39;s rebuff, potentially could try to block the nomination with procedural hurdles.

The new appointee would expand the court&#39;s conservative wing, made up of John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kennedy long has been considered the court&#39;s pivotal vote, sometimes siding with the liberals in key cases such as the June 2016 ruling striking down abortion restrictions in Texas.

The court&#39;s restored conservative majority likely would be supportive toward the death penalty and gun rights and hostile toward campaign finance limits. Scalia&#39;s replacement also could be pivotal in cases involving abortion, religious rights, presidential powers, transgender rights, voting rights, federal regulations others.

Gorsuch has strong academic qualifications, with an Ivy League education: attending Columbia University and, like several of the other justices on the court, Harvard Law School. He also completed a doctorate in legal philosophy at Oxford University, spent several years in private practice and worked in George W&nbsp;Bush&#39;s Justice Department.

Gorsuch joined an opinion in 2013 saying that owners of private companies could object on religious grounds to a provision of the Obamacare health insurance law requiring employers to provide coverage for birth control for women.

As long as Kennedy and four liberals remain on the bench, the court is not expected to pare back abortion rights as many US&nbsp;conservatives fervently hope. The Supreme Court legalised abortion in the landmark 1973 Roe v&nbsp;Wade ruling. In June, the justices ruled 5-3 to strike down a Texas law that restricted abortion access, with Kennedy and the liberals in the majority.

The current vacancy is the court&#39;s longest since a 391-day void from 1969 to 1970 during Republican Richard Nixon&#39;s presidency. After Abe Fortas resigned from the court in May 1969, the Senate voted down two nominees put forward by Nixon before confirming Harry Blackmun, who became a justice in June 1970. Aside from that one, no other Supreme Court vacancy since the US&nbsp;Civil War years of the 1860s has been as long as the current one.

&nbsp;

Advocacy groups geared up for a fight

Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal advocacy group, said it would launch the first part of a $10 million media advertisement campaign on Tuesday night in favour of Trump&#39;s pick. The effort will hold Senate Democrats who face election in 2018 &quot;accountable for their choice&quot; on the Supreme Court, the group said.

Liberal groups including People For the American Way and abortion rights advocate NARAL Pro-Choice America planned a nighttime rally in opposition to Trump&#39;s nominee outside the Supreme Court after the announcement.

Some Democrats have threatened to pursue a procedural hurdle called a filibuster, meaning 60 votes would be needed in the 100-seat Senate unless its long-standing rules are changed. Trump&#39;s fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 majority, meaning some Democratic votes would be needed to confirm his pick.

Trump said last week he would favour Senate Republicans eliminating the filibuster, a change dubbed the &quot;nuclear option,&quot; for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block his pick.

If any of those three is replaced by a Trump appointee, conservatives would be eager to bring cases challenging the Roe v&nbsp;Wade ruling in the hope it would be overturned, long a goal for many Christian conservatives.

(Reuters)

He faces a potentially contentious confirmation battle in the US Senate after Republicans last year refused to consider Obama's nomination

President Donald Trump on Tuesday nominated Neil Gorsuch for a lifetime job on the US Supreme Court, picking the 49-year-old federal appeals court judge to restore the court's conservative majority and help shape rulings on divisive issues such as abortion, gun control, the death penalty and religious rights. The Colorado native faces a potentially contentious confirmation battle in the US Senate after Republicans last year refused to consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy caused by the February 2016 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the nation's highest court in more than a quarter century, and he could influence the direction of the court for decades. "Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has earned bipartisan support," Trump said. "Depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years. And his or her decisions can last a century or more, and can often be permanent," Trump added. Trump during his presidency may get to make additional appointments to the Supreme Court. Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Trump called upon to resign last July after she called him "a faker," is 83 while Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer, another liberal, is 78. Gorsuch is a judge on the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and was appointed to that post by Republican President George W Bush in 2006. Some Democrats in the US Senate, which votes on whether to confirm judicial nominees, have already said they would seek to block whoever Trump nominates. Gorsuch is considered a conservative intellectual, known for backing religious rights, and is seen as very much in the mold of Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the court for decades. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the choice of Gorsuch was seen by the White House as a significant departure from Supreme Court nominations from the recent past, given that many justices have come from the eastern United States. Gorsuch lives in Boulder, Colorado, where he raises horses and is a life-long outdoorsman. The official described Gorsuch as a mainstream judge who should easily be confirmed by the Senate. The official noted that the Senate confirmed him for his current judgeship in 2006 by voice vote with no one voting against him. "He plays it straight. He sticks to principles, and his opinions reflect a consistency regardless of who is in his courtroom," the official said of Gorsuch. Trump made his choice between two US appeals court judges, Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman of the Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a source involved in the selection process. Gorsuch became the youngest US Supreme Court nominee since Republican President George HW Bush in 1991 selected conservative Clarence Thomas, who was 43 at the time. He is the son of Anne Burford, the first woman to head the US Environmental Protection Agency. She served in Republican President Ronald Reagan's administration but resigned in 1983 amid a fight with Congress over documents on the EPA's use of a fund created to clean up toxic waste dumps nationwide. Trump's selection was one of the most consequential appointments of his young presidency as he moved to restore a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that had been in place for decades until Scalia died at age 79 on February 13, 2016. Trump, who took office on January 20, got the opportunity to name Scalia's replacement only because the Republican-led US Senate, in an action with little precedent in US history, refused to consider Obama's nominee for the post, appeals court judge Merrick Garland. Obama nominated Garland on March 16 but Republican senators led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied Garland the customary confirmation hearings and vote. Trump has said his promise to appoint a conservative justice was one of the reasons he won the November 8 presidential election, with Christian conservatives and others emphasising the importance of the pick during the campaign. Trump last week said evangelical Christians would love his nominee. Trump's fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate. The minority Democrats, irate over Garland's rebuff, potentially could try to block the nomination with procedural hurdles. The new appointee would expand the court's conservative wing, made up of John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kennedy long has been considered the court's pivotal vote, sometimes siding with the liberals in key cases such as the June 2016 ruling striking down abortion restrictions in Texas. The court's restored conservative majority likely would be supportive toward the death penalty and gun rights and hostile toward campaign finance limits. Scalia's replacement also could be pivotal in cases involving abortion, religious rights, presidential powers, transgender rights, voting rights, federal regulations others. Gorsuch has strong academic qualifications, with an Ivy League education: attending Columbia University and, like several of the other justices on the court, Harvard Law School. He also completed a doctorate in legal philosophy at Oxford University, spent several years in private practice and worked in George W Bush's Justice Department. Gorsuch joined an opinion in 2013 saying that owners of private companies could object on religious grounds to a provision of the Obamacare health insurance law requiring employers to provide coverage for birth control for women. As long as Kennedy and four liberals remain on the bench, the court is not expected to pare back abortion rights as many US conservatives fervently hope. The Supreme Court legalised abortion in the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. In June, the justices ruled 5-3 to strike down a Texas law that restricted abortion access, with Kennedy and the liberals in the majority. The current vacancy is the court's longest since a 391-day void from 1969 to 1970 during Republican Richard Nixon's presidency. After Abe Fortas resigned from the court in May 1969, the Senate voted down two nominees put forward by Nixon before confirming Harry Blackmun, who became a justice in June 1970. Aside from that one, no other Supreme Court vacancy since the US Civil War years of the 1860s has been as long as the current one. Advocacy groups geared up for a fight Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal advocacy group, said it would launch the first part of a $10 million media advertisement campaign on Tuesday night in favour of Trump's pick. The effort will hold Senate Democrats who face election in 2018 "accountable for their choice" on the Supreme Court, the group said. Liberal groups including People For the American Way and abortion rights advocate NARAL Pro-Choice America planned a nighttime rally in opposition to Trump's nominee outside the Supreme Court after the announcement. Some Democrats have threatened to pursue a procedural hurdle called a filibuster, meaning 60 votes would be needed in the 100-seat Senate unless its long-standing rules are changed. Trump's fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 majority, meaning some Democratic votes would be needed to confirm his pick. Trump said last week he would favour Senate Republicans eliminating the filibuster, a change dubbed the "nuclear option," for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block his pick. If any of those three is replaced by a Trump appointee, conservatives would be eager to bring cases challenging the Roe v Wade ruling in the hope it would be overturned, long a goal for many Christian conservatives. (Reuters)

Trump nominates conservative judge Gorsuch for US Supreme Court

The United States&nbsp;Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Samsung&nbsp;in its big-money smartphone patent fight with Apple, throwing out an appeals court ruling that the South Korean company had to pay a $399 million penalty to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs.

The 8-0 ruling, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that a patent violator does not always have to fork over its entire profits from the sales of products using stolen designs, if the designs covered only certain components and not the whole thing.

The justices sent the case back to the US&nbsp;Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington to determine how much Samsung must pay. But they did not provide a road map to juries and lower courts on how to navigate similar disputes in the future.

Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock said in a statement that the US company remained &quot;optimistic that the lower courts will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn&#39;t right.&quot;

Samsung told Reuters in a statement the ruling was a &quot;victory for Samsung and for all those who promote creativity, innovation and fair competition in the marketplace.&quot;

Following a 2012 jury verdict favouring Apple, Samsung initially was hit with nearly $930 million in penalties, later cut by $382 million, for infringing Apple&#39;s iPhone patents and mimicking its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices.

Samsung in December 2015 paid its Cupertino, California-based rival $548 million. But Samsung took the matter to the Supreme Court, saying it should not have had to make $399 million of that payout for copying the patented designs of the iPhone&#39;s rounded-corner front face, bezel and colourful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.

With the products that used iPhone designs, Samsung went on to become the world&#39;s top smartphone maker.

Tuesday&#39;s ruling followed a ferocious legal battle between the world&#39;s top two smartphone manufacturers that began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for patent and trademark infringement. It was one of the most closely watched patent cases to come before the top US&nbsp;court in recent years.

The legal dispute centred on whether the term &quot;article of manufacture,&quot; on which design patent damages are calculated in U.S. patent law, should be interpreted as a finished product in its entirety, or merely a component in a complex product.

In court papers, Samsung, Apple and the US&nbsp;government all agreed that the term could mean a component.

But Apple urged the Supreme Court to affirm the appeals court&#39;s ruling because Samsung presented no evidence that the article of manufacture in this case was anything less than its entire smartphone as sold. Samsung, meanwhile, said that it did not have to present such evidence.

Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous court, said that the law is clear. The term &quot;article of manufacture is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product,&quot; she wrote.

Period of uncertainity

The justices nevertheless refused to devise a test for juries and lower courts to use to discern what a relevant article of manufacture is in a particular case, a task that could be fraught with difficulty when considering high-tech products.

&quot;No doubt whether with Apple-Samsung, or some other design patent case, we are going to have a period of uncertainty where courts will be trying to formulate a test and what the boundaries are,&quot; Richard McKenna, an expert in design rights at the law firm Foley &amp; Lardner in Milwaukee, said in an interview.

In court papers, Apple said its iPhone&#39;s success was tied to innovative designs, which other manufacturers quickly adopted in their own products. Samsung, in particular, made a deliberate decision to copy the iPhone&#39;s look and many user interface features, Apple said.

Samsung argued that it should not have had to turn over all its profits, saying that design elements contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.

Design patent fights very rarely reach the Supreme Court. It had not heard such a case in more than 120 years.

The case is Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd v. Apple Inc, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-777.

(Reuters)

The ruling held that violator doesn't have to give away all its profits made from stolen designs, if the designs covered only certain parts

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Samsung in its big-money smartphone patent fight with Apple, throwing out an appeals court ruling that the South Korean company had to pay a $399 million penalty to its American rival for copying key iPhone designs. The 8-0 ruling, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that a patent violator does not always have to fork over its entire profits from the sales of products using stolen designs, if the designs covered only certain components and not the whole thing. The justices sent the case back to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington to determine how much Samsung must pay. But they did not provide a road map to juries and lower courts on how to navigate similar disputes in the future. Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock said in a statement that the US company remained "optimistic that the lower courts will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn't right." Samsung told Reuters in a statement the ruling was a "victory for Samsung and for all those who promote creativity, innovation and fair competition in the marketplace." Following a 2012 jury verdict favouring Apple, Samsung initially was hit with nearly $930 million in penalties, later cut by $382 million, for infringing Apple's iPhone patents and mimicking its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices. Samsung in December 2015 paid its Cupertino, California-based rival $548 million. But Samsung took the matter to the Supreme Court, saying it should not have had to make $399 million of that payout for copying the patented designs of the iPhone's rounded-corner front face, bezel and colourful grid of icons that represent programs and applications. With the products that used iPhone designs, Samsung went on to become the world's top smartphone maker. Tuesday's ruling followed a ferocious legal battle between the world's top two smartphone manufacturers that began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for patent and trademark infringement. It was one of the most closely watched patent cases to come before the top US court in recent years. The legal dispute centred on whether the term "article of manufacture," on which design patent damages are calculated in U.S. patent law, should be interpreted as a finished product in its entirety, or merely a component in a complex product. In court papers, Samsung, Apple and the US government all agreed that the term could mean a component. But Apple urged the Supreme Court to affirm the appeals court's ruling because Samsung presented no evidence that the article of manufacture in this case was anything less than its entire smartphone as sold. Samsung, meanwhile, said that it did not have to present such evidence. Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous court, said that the law is clear. The term "article of manufacture is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product," she wrote. Period of uncertainity The justices nevertheless refused to devise a test for juries and lower courts to use to discern what a relevant article of manufacture is in a particular case, a task that could be fraught with difficulty when considering high-tech products. "No doubt whether with Apple-Samsung, or some other design patent case, we are going to have a period of uncertainty where courts will be trying to formulate a test and what the boundaries are," Richard McKenna, an expert in design rights at the law firm Foley & Lardner in Milwaukee, said in an interview. In court papers, Apple said its iPhone's success was tied to innovative designs, which other manufacturers quickly adopted in their own products. Samsung, in particular, made a deliberate decision to copy the iPhone's look and many user interface features, Apple said. Samsung argued that it should not have had to turn over all its profits, saying that design elements contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features. Design patent fights very rarely reach the Supreme Court. It had not heard such a case in more than 120 years. The case is Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd v. Apple Inc, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-777. (Reuters)

US Supreme Court rules in favour of Samsung in Apple design patent case

The top court in the United States on Friday agreed to decide on a highly sensitive question about which toilets should be used by transgenders.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

For the first time, the US Supreme Court said that it will rule on the transgender rights after a Virginia public school district filed a case to prevent a female-born transgender high school student from using the boys&#39; bathroom, international news agency Reuters reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Gavin Grimm, 17,&nbsp;who was born a female but identifies as a male, filed a suit in 2015 to challenge the case, according to international news agency AFP. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;I never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate. The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else,&quot; Grimm said in a statement, Reuters reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The case, to be argued and decided before the end of June, will be one of the biggest of the court&#39;s term, according to the international news agency.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&quot;The court&#39;s decision to take the case means Grimm will not be able to use the boys` bathroom before graduating from high school next year,&quot; Josh Block, Gavin&#39;s lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, was quoted as saying by Reuters.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Public schools in the&nbsp;US should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies (instead of the birth gender), the Obama administration has said.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The approach, however, has been approached by more than a dozen Republican-controlled states that are challenging the federal government in court.

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

A 17-year-old, who was born a female but identifies as a male, filed a suit last year after he was prevented from using boys' bathroom

The top court in the United States on Friday agreed to decide on a highly sensitive question about which toilets should be used by transgenders. For the first time, the US Supreme Court said that it will rule on the transgender rights after a Virginia public school district filed a case to prevent a female-born transgender high school student from using the boys' bathroom, international news agency Reuters reported. Gavin Grimm, 17, who was born a female but identifies as a male, filed a suit in 2015 to challenge the case, according to international news agency AFP. "I never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate. The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else," Grimm said in a statement, Reuters reported. The case, to be argued and decided before the end of June, will be one of the biggest of the court's term, according to the international news agency. "The court's decision to take the case means Grimm will not be able to use the boys` bathroom before graduating from high school next year," Josh Block, Gavin's lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, was quoted as saying by Reuters. Public schools in the US should grant access to toilets and locker rooms based on the gender with which a student identifies (instead of the birth gender), the Obama administration has said. The approach, however, has been approached by more than a dozen Republican-controlled states that are challenging the federal government in court. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Transgender rights: US Supreme Court takes up school bathroom case

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. 
 
The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. 
 
Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman&#39;s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. 
 
Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to &quot;consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer.&quot; 
 
Deferring to state legislatures over &quot;questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court&#39;s case law,&quot; Breyer added. 
 
Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. 
 
By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. 
 
Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women&#39;s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. 
 
Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. 
The Texas law required abortion doctors to have &quot;admitting privileges,&quot; a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. 
 
The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 
 
&#39;Substantial obstacle&#39; 
 
&quot;We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,&quot; Breyer wrote in the ruling. &quot;Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.&quot; 
 
Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court &quot;simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases.&quot; 
 
The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. 
 
Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. 
 
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, &quot;Every day Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We&rsquo;re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.&quot; 
 
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling &quot;a victory for women in Texas and across America.&quot; 
 
&quot;This fight isn&#39;t over: The next president has to protect women&#39;s health. Women won&#39;t be &#39;punished&#39; for exercising their basic rights,&quot; she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face &quot;some sort of punishment.&quot; The presidential election is November 8. 
 
Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women&rsquo;s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives,&quot; Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. 
 
Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now &quot;free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open &ndash; even under substandard conditions &ndash;outweighs the state&rsquo;s ability to put women&rsquo;s health and safety first.&quot; 
 
Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. 
 
Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. 
 
Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. 
 
(Reuters)

The judges said the laws restricted access to abortion clinics, while rights activists said they were aimed at shutting them down

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer." Deferring to state legislatures over "questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court's case law," Breyer added. Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women's health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. Democratic President Barack Obama's administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. The Texas law required abortion doctors to have "admitting privileges," a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 'Substantial obstacle' "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes," Breyer wrote in the ruling. "Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution." Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court "simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases." The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, "Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open." Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling "a victory for women in Texas and across America." "This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights," she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face "some sort of punishment." The presidential election is November 8. Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. "It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives," Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now "free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open – even under substandard conditions –outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first." Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. (Reuters)

US Supreme Court stands up for women's right to abortion, strikes down restrictive Texas laws

The US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama&#39;s plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation in a split ruling that heartened political foes who had accused him of overstepping his powers. 
 
The 4-4 ruling, coming seven months before Obama&#39;s term in office ends, marked the latest success that his Republican adversaries have had in thwarting a major policy initiative of the Democratic president. Obama had hoped that overhauling the US immigration system and resolving the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would be part of his presidential legacy. 
 
The ruling is likely to further amplify the role that the immigration issue will play in the run-up to the November 8 presidential election in which voters will pick Obama&#39;s successor. It also leaves in legal limbo the roughly 4 million people Obama&#39;s action was meant to help. 
 
Obama unveiled his plan in November 2014. It was quickly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that Obama overstepped the powers granted to him by the US Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress. His unilateral executive action bypassed the Republican-led Congress. 
 
Because the court was split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama&#39;s plan was left in place. The plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it. 
 
The plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a programme that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits. 
 
A split ruling was possible because the court was down to eight justices, four liberals and four conservatives, after conservative justice Antonin Scalia died in February. The Republican-led Senate has refused to act on Obama&#39;s nomination of appeals court judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. 
 
In an appearance at the White House after the ruling, Obama expressed frustration at the court&#39;s inability to issue a decisive ruling on the merits of the case and at Senate Republicans for &quot;wilfully&quot; keeping the court shorthanded. 
 
&quot;I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who&#39;ve raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way,&quot; Obama said. 
 
Obama said the U.S. immigration system has been broken for two decades and that this ruling set it back even further. 
 
The issue of illegal immigration has featured prominently in the presidential campaign. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has called for deportation of all illegal immigrants - most of them from Mexico and other Latin American countries - and building a wall along the Mexican border. 
 
The court did not reveal how each justice voted in the ruling, but it was possible the four liberals backed Obama and the four conservatives backed the states. 
 
The court appeared divided along ideological lines during oral arguments on April 18, with liberals indicating support for the administration and conservative opposed. 
 
 
&#39;Major setback&#39; 
The nation&#39;s top elected Republican, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, and others in his party welcomed the ruling. 
 
&quot;This is a major setback to President Obama&rsquo;s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law,&quot; said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican. 
 
The Constitution assigns certain powers to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. 
 
The split decision set no nationwide legal precedent on presidential power or immigration law. The ruling indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of illegal immigrants would have to be enacted by Congress. 
 
&quot;We feel that justice has turned its back on millions of immigrants who, much like our founding fathers and mothers, sought a better future for themselves and their children and yet continue to live in the shadows without the respect and dignity that they deserve,&quot; said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. 
 
The Obama administration could ask the high court to rehear the case, as losing parties in two other cases in which the court has split 4-4 have done. The court has not yet acted on those other petitions. 
 
The Supreme Court decision does not affect a separate 2012 programme aimed at protecting people brought to the United States as children from deportation, which Texas and the other states did not challenge. 
 
Obama took the action after House Republicans killed bipartisan immigration legislation, billed as the biggest overhaul of U.S. laws on the matter in decades and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013. 
 
Maya Ledezma, an immigrant from Mexico who lives in Maryland, said would have been eligible for Obama&#39;s programme because she has lived in the United States for more than a decade and has an 8-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen. 
 
&ldquo;My life would have changed if the vote had been favourable,&rdquo; she said through a translator during a rally outside the Supreme Court. 
 
Republicans have been critical of Obama&#39;s use of executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and other issues such as gun control and healthcare. 
 
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized the ruling for &quot;throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty.&quot; Trump said the ruling &quot;blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.&quot; 
 
(Reuters)

Programme would have shielded 4 million people -- who have lived illegally in the US since 2010, have no criminal record -- from deportation

The US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama's plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation in a split ruling that heartened political foes who had accused him of overstepping his powers. The 4-4 ruling, coming seven months before Obama's term in office ends, marked the latest success that his Republican adversaries have had in thwarting a major policy initiative of the Democratic president. Obama had hoped that overhauling the US immigration system and resolving the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would be part of his presidential legacy. The ruling is likely to further amplify the role that the immigration issue will play in the run-up to the November 8 presidential election in which voters will pick Obama's successor. It also leaves in legal limbo the roughly 4 million people Obama's action was meant to help. Obama unveiled his plan in November 2014. It was quickly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that Obama overstepped the powers granted to him by the US Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress. His unilateral executive action bypassed the Republican-led Congress. Because the court was split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama's plan was left in place. The plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it. The plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a programme that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits. A split ruling was possible because the court was down to eight justices, four liberals and four conservatives, after conservative justice Antonin Scalia died in February. The Republican-led Senate has refused to act on Obama's nomination of appeals court judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. In an appearance at the White House after the ruling, Obama expressed frustration at the court's inability to issue a decisive ruling on the merits of the case and at Senate Republicans for "wilfully" keeping the court shorthanded. "I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who've raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way," Obama said. Obama said the U.S. immigration system has been broken for two decades and that this ruling set it back even further. The issue of illegal immigration has featured prominently in the presidential campaign. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has called for deportation of all illegal immigrants - most of them from Mexico and other Latin American countries - and building a wall along the Mexican border. The court did not reveal how each justice voted in the ruling, but it was possible the four liberals backed Obama and the four conservatives backed the states. The court appeared divided along ideological lines during oral arguments on April 18, with liberals indicating support for the administration and conservative opposed. 'Major setback' The nation's top elected Republican, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, and others in his party welcomed the ruling. "This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican. The Constitution assigns certain powers to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. The split decision set no nationwide legal precedent on presidential power or immigration law. The ruling indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of illegal immigrants would have to be enacted by Congress. "We feel that justice has turned its back on millions of immigrants who, much like our founding fathers and mothers, sought a better future for themselves and their children and yet continue to live in the shadows without the respect and dignity that they deserve," said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. The Obama administration could ask the high court to rehear the case, as losing parties in two other cases in which the court has split 4-4 have done. The court has not yet acted on those other petitions. The Supreme Court decision does not affect a separate 2012 programme aimed at protecting people brought to the United States as children from deportation, which Texas and the other states did not challenge. Obama took the action after House Republicans killed bipartisan immigration legislation, billed as the biggest overhaul of U.S. laws on the matter in decades and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013. Maya Ledezma, an immigrant from Mexico who lives in Maryland, said would have been eligible for Obama's programme because she has lived in the United States for more than a decade and has an 8-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen. “My life would have changed if the vote had been favourable,” she said through a translator during a rally outside the Supreme Court. Republicans have been critical of Obama's use of executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and other issues such as gun control and healthcare. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized the ruling for "throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty." Trump said the ruling "blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president." (Reuters)

Split US Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan

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