Results for: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, a decision former President Trump hailed as a ‘big win for our Constitution and for democracy.’ The court’s ruling in Trump v. United States clarifies the scope of presidential immunity, but leaves the line between official and unofficial acts for lower courts to determine. The decision comes as Trump faces charges in connection with the January 6th Capitol riot and the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate how social media companies moderate user content. The court found that lower courts had not properly analyzed the First Amendment issues in the case. This sends the cases back to the respective Circuit Courts of Appeals for further review.

The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. This decision, however, does not directly apply to the charges against former President Donald Trump regarding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, sending the case back to a lower court. The ruling sparked debate about the balance of power and the implications for future presidents.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador defended the state’s abortion law, the Defense of Life Act, following a Supreme Court decision that allowed the law to continue to be enforced while legal challenges continue. Labrador argued that the law does not restrict access to medical care for women and that the Biden administration’s interpretation of federal law is misguided.

The controversy surrounding the NEET-UG examination, including allegations of unfair marking and paper leaks, is driving a large number of students towards private medical colleges. The uncertainty surrounding the exam’s future, with the Supreme Court set to hear petitions on July 8, is adding to the confusion and leading students to seek admission in private institutions where counselling begins on July 6.

The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the state’s ban on gender transition treatment for children, becoming one of at least 25 states with such restrictions. The law, which prohibits hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender transition surgery for minors, has been challenged as harmful to transgender youth and their families. The court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that the Legislature made a permissible policy choice to limit medical procedures for children.

The Supreme Court has temporarily cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to perform emergency abortions, but the decision leaves many unanswered questions and could lead to a new trial before the conservative court. This decision comes after an initial draft of the opinion was accidentally posted online, revealing a close similarity to the final version. The court’s decision to dismiss the case for now avoids a potentially politically charged decision in an election year.

The Supreme Court has rejected a nationwide settlement between Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and state and local governments, effectively shielding the Sackler family from lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic. This decision, which came after a 5-4 vote, has significant implications for victims and the fight against opioid addiction.

Today, June 26th, marks a busy day for India with several significant events taking place. From the election of the Lok Sabha Speaker to the Supreme Court’s decision on Arvind Kejriwal’s plea, the day promises to be filled with crucial developments. The new Telecom Act also comes into effect, replacing a century-old law. Additionally, the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi will be heard, and the International Sugar Organisation meeting kicks off in Delhi. Other events include the Orissa High Court’s deadline for jail decongestion, Assam’s cabinet meeting, and the Essel Group’s appeal hearing.

The Arkansas Supreme Court has reinstated a state law banning the use of ‘X’ as a gender identification option on state IDs, reversing a lower court ruling that had blocked the law. The decision eliminates the option for residents to choose a neutral gender marker, drawing criticism from the ACLU of Arkansas, which argued the rule would harm transgender and non-binary individuals.