Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A 10-year-old's death was blamed on a "blackout challenge" seen on TikTok.</li><li>In a recent ruling, the Third Circuit court determined TikTok could be held liable for her death.</li></ul>A 10-year-old child's tragic death, after her parents alleged in a lawsuit that she participated in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mother-warns-about-blackout-challenge-after-daughter-death-2021-12">"blackout challenge"</a> served to her on her TikTok "For You Page," could change the internet as we know it.In a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25107000-third-circuit-section-230-tiktok-decision">decision</a> on August 27, the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that, in 2021, TikTok — via its <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-tiktok-algorithm-for-you-page-works-watch-time-report-2021-7">"For You Page" algorithm</a> — recommended a video promoting a "blackout challenge" to 10-year-old Nylah Anderson."Nylah, still in the first year of her adolescence, likely had no idea what she was doing or that following along with the images on her screen would kill her," Third Circut Judge Paul Matey wrote in his concurring opinion. "But TikTok knew that Nylah would watch because the company's customized algorithm placed the videos on her 'For You Page.'"The challenge encouraged viewers to choke themselves until they passed out. In a 2022 suit filed against TikTok, attorneys for her parents said Nylah tragically died when she attempted to replicate what she saw. The case was initially dismissed by a district judge due to Section 230. The Third Circuit, however, found that TikTok's algorithm, which tailors content recommendations to specific users based on the posts they interact with, is a form of speech — one that isn't protected by Section 230.The company had argued in court that it was immune from prosecution due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-section-230-internet-law-communications-decency-act-explained-2020-5">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, often called the law that created the internet, shields online platforms like TikTok, Meta, X, and others from being held liable for content posted by users of their sites.That means, for example, if a user posted a video encouraging viewers to hurt themselves, the platform they posted the clip to couldn't be held liable if a susceptible viewer followed that suggestion. But the Third Circuit ruling could change that.<h2 id="86fdd06d-047e-47e7-85f5-00a1081ed168">Proponents of the ruling say it's about time</h2>"Imagine that a person walked up to Nylah at school and suggested that she asphyxiate herself. We'd immediately recognize the person's culpability," David French, a columnist and former attorney, wrote in a recent opinion piece for <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://archive.ph/NRPwy#selection-4807.0-4810.0">The New York Times</a>. "Arguably, the algorithmic suggestion is even more powerful than an in-person suggestion."French and other supporters of the Third Circuit ruling argue that TikTok's liability protections should end where its algorithmic suggestions begin.Neutrally hosting a wide array of content on an online platform is fine, French and other proponents say, but promoting specific content — especially content the site administrators know could be harmful — is where a new line needs to be drawn, and the platforms themselves need to be held legally accountable, as the Third Circuit ruled.<h2 id="108dc6d1-8678-4113-ad8d-8ff0ed1ea524">Section 230 defenders argue the ruling is a blow to free speech</h2>Opponents of the ruling argue that critics of Section 230 are using Anderson's tragic death and the reasonable desire to protect children online as a way to erode speech rights."It's a myth — these laws that claim to protect children," Betsy Rosenblatt, the associate director of Case Western University's Spangenberg Center for Law, Technology &amp; the Arts, told Business Insider. "They all wear the costume of child protection, but they are not child protection underneath that — they are attempts to silence speech."Rosenblatt said the Third Circuit's decision doesn't make logical or legal sense. It's morally reprehensible to suggest in a video a child choke themselves for engagement online — but it isn't illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal for the host of the video to show it on your "For You Page.""The more you require platforms to filter speech, the more platforms will have to delete first and ask questions later," Rosenblatt told BI. "And that means that things that are controversial, the moment they face any challenge, will get taken down, even if they should stay up."<h2 id="b73b0075-18f8-4e9c-97a8-c7768718b5be">What's next?</h2>The Third Circuit's decision can be appealed by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ban-tiktok-movement-is-losing-momentum-among-americans-2024-9">TikTok</a>. If the company appeals, the case will then end up on the Supreme Court's desk, where the high court justices could choose to take up the case or let the Third Circuit ruling stand — which would force platforms like TikTok to reconsider <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-tiktok-is-changing-music-industry">how their algorithms function</a> to avoid liability in cases like Anderson's.Though the high court has so far shied away from defining the scope of Section 230, its conservative justices have previously signaled they're open to reconsidering the statute. If they do, their ruling could have even broader consequences than the Third Circuit ruling.Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented in July from the court's refusal to hear a case that would have revisited Section 230. The case stemmed from allegations that the Snapchat app has a design flaw that aids sexual predators, but lower courts found that the app's parent company was shielded by 230.And in a decision last term, SCOTUS also left a loophole open to holding platforms liable based on which country their headquarters are in. In Moody v. NetChoice, which determined a platform's algorithmic activity is a form of "expressive activity" and should be regulated like speech is, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that a foreign-owned social-media platform — like TikTok — may not have the same First Amendment protections that a US corporation does.Rosenblatt said that if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, the high court could agree with the Third Circuit that TikTok's algorithmic recommendations are a version of the site's speech. If they do, the question would then become whether the recommendation itself was negligent, which could carry legal consequences."That would still be terrible for business on the internet, but it wouldn't kill all websites," Rosenblatt said of upholding a more narrow reading of the Third Circuit ruling. But the potential for a broader reading, which could determine that any form of content moderation equals a conversion of user speech into a platform's speech, would "have devastating effects on the internet ecosystem and tech more generally."

The Supreme Court may have a shot to strike down Section 230 after a child's death was blamed on a 'blackout challenge' seen on TikTok

A day after Bharti Airtel approached the <keyword id="6354977" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> over the assessment of adjusted gross revenue (AGR) calculations, <keyword id="1553175" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vodafone-Idea">Vodafone Idea</keyword> also moved the top court seeking "correction" in the AGR assessment. The petition filed by the telco on Thursday said that payments made by the company have not been accounted for in the AGR demands issued by the department. Further, it also said that double counting has been done on some revenue items in the AGR demands. It also said that deduction has not been given for PSTN related call charges and for roaming charges actually paid to other operators. "The excess demand upon the applicant which is attributable to these error amounts to Rs 5,932 crores of principal amount, which would have an overall impact of over four times on the total principal amount aforementioned due to the imposition of interest, penalty and interest on penalty," the petition said. In September, the <keyword id="6356229" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court">apex court</keyword> allowed telecom operators 10 years to pay up <keyword id="8275485" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="agr-dues">AGR dues</keyword>. Vodafone Idea's total AGR dues as per DoT stood at Rs 58,254 crore, while the dues according to the company stood at Rs 21,533 crore. The company has paid AGR dues worth of Rs 7,854 crore so far. Shares of the telco moved higher on the development. Around 1.08 p.m. Vodafone Idea shares on the BSE were trading at Rs 12.17, higher by 1.67 per cent from its previous close. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/airtel-approaches-supreme-court-claiming-error-in-assessment-of-agr-dues-by-dot/articleshow/80135781.cms">Airtel approaches Supreme Court claiming error in assessment of AGR dues by DoT</a>

Vodafone Idea approaches Supreme Court over AGR dues

The Supreme Court on Monday, during the hearing on the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) matter of telecom companies, questioned the Centre as to how is it possible to sell the spectrum and whether it is transferable. A bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), to come prepared on the next hearing, and explain how can spectrum be sold or whether is transferable. The bench also asked Mehta to get the NCLT orders connected with the query, as it scheduled the next hearing on the matter on August 14. Mehta contended before the bench that the government has filed an appeal saying spectrum is a national property and it should not be part of bankruptcy assets. At this, the bench questioned: "Why there was a delay in filing the appeal? What if the spectrum is sold in the meanwhile?" Mehta contended before the bench that the Centre has told the National Company Law Tribunal that spectrum is a national property, cannot be an asset of the company, and it cannot be sold. The bench also questioned how Aircel's spectrum and license were sold and who gave the permission for it. Aircel's monitoring committee's lawyer contended before the bench that no dues to government are be paid under the bankruptcy resolution plan, and insisted that he will place the details in court. The lawyer contended that the company paid the money to buy spectrum, and it is a transferable asset. The Centre, however, said Aircel's dues were Rs 12,000 crore. As the bench questioned the DoT as to how it proposes to recover the <keyword id="8275485" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="agr-dues">AGR dues</keyword> from a company which has gone into insolvency, Mehta replied that DoT's stand is that spectrum cannot be part of bankruptcy assets.

Supreme Court adjourns AGR case hearing to August 14

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Houston's basic-income program faces shutdown after Texas' attorney general labels it "unconstitutional."</li><li>The program offers 18 monthly payments of $500 to low-income families for housing and groceries.</li></ul>When Delwin Sutton learned he had been accepted into a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/houston-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-uplift-harris-housing-finances-rent-2024-4#:~:text=The%20program%20gives%20%24500%20each,housing%20costs%20or%20daily%20expenses.">guaranteed basic-income pilot</a> in Houston, he signed a lease on a new apartment.He spent almost all of his savings on his April rental fees and plans to spend his first $500 basic-income payment from <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/universal-basic-income-texas-houston-harris-county-covid-relief-2023-12">Uplift Harris</a> on rent for May: his new two-bedroom costs him $1,083 a month. He knows the GBI money will help him breathe a little easier.The 51-year-old works in a warehouse in Harris County, which includes Houston. His hours vary, he said, and he doesn't always make enough to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/guaranteed-basic-income-san-antonio-texas-woman-afford-food-housing-2024-4">afford rent and groceries</a> for himself and his wife. With GBI, Sutton hopes to become more financially secure and save money for the future."It's truly a blessing because people need to understand — when you live paycheck to paycheck, it's horrible," he told Business Insider. "It's almost debilitating."The program randomly selected 1,928 eligible families out of 82,500 applicants — an acceptance rate lower than Harvard or Yale — for monthly payments, distributing $500 no-strings-attached to help them afford housing and groceries for 18 months.The program was set to begin payments on Wednesday, but the Texas Supreme Court issued an administrative stay on the program on Tuesday afternoon. The ruling — which comes as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging the program for being "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-paul-bettencourt-guaranteed-basic-income-ubi-uplift-harris-houston-2024-1">unconstitutional"</a> — will temporarily block Uplift Harris from distributing payments until the Court deliberates further. It is unclear when the state Supreme Court will issue a ruling.Texas Attorney General's office originally filed suit on April 9 against <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/universal-basic-income-texas-houston-harris-county-covid-relief-2023-12">Harris County,</a> with Paxton calling <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/houston-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-uplift-harris-housing-finances-rent-2024-4">Uplift Harris</a> an "unlawful" program that "redistributes public money in a manner that violates the Texas Constitution." The filing noted that the state Constitution prohibits public funds from being given away "to benefit individuals." A district judge denied Paxton's request to pause the Houston-area program last Thursday.Uplift Harris cannot proceed with cash payments as it awaits a decision from the state Supreme Court. For participants, there's a lot at stake.If the GBI program is shut down completely, Sutton worries he won't have enough money to afford his new apartment. The idea of the program being canceled sends him into "panic mode.""I'm scared that if I don't get this money, I'm going to be homeless," he said.<h2>Uplift Harris participants hope the program will make them more financially stable</h2>Guaranteed basic income is an <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/basic-income-funding-comes-from-philanthropy-federal-budget-housing-taxes2024-4">increasingly popular solution to combat poverty </a>in US cities. The programs differ from traditional Social Services because participants receive cash to spend as they choose instead of on specific categories. GBI participants have previously told BI that they used the funds to secure housing and food, pay off debt, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/san-antonio-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-pay-housing-expenses-work-2024-3">afford school supplies for their children.</a>"We don't tell people that they have to spend the money on anything in particular, we don't put conditions on it," said Dustin Palmer, US country director at GiveDirectly, a nonprofit helping administer the Houston-area pilot. "We really trust people to do what they need, with the cash to get on their feet, or basic needs, whatever they would like to do."Most applicants live in high-poverty ZIP codes with household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line, which is $31,200 for a family of four. Like <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/basic-income-funding-comes-from-philanthropy-federal-budget-housing-taxes2024-4">some other pilots</a> nationwide, the program received $20.5 million in funding from the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-economy-is-bidenomics-working-policies-progress-unnoticed-2023-9">American Rescue Plan Act</a>, which financially supported Americans during the pandemic."We've had folks who are in really unstable housing situations who want to use the money to get into stability," Palmer said. "We know from a lot of research that people use the money for rent and housing, as this is a major expense for folks, and those expenses have ballooned."Jay Carter, 37, told BI he "can't wait" to start receiving his cash payments and plans to use the money to pay for his storage unit and PO box. He is also hoping he can pay for a haircut, his phone bill, and some basic cleaning supplies.He isn't currently employed and is between apartments. Carter said basic income will help him find financial stability, and he hopes to help his mom pay bills while he temporarily stays with her and applies for housing."I can plan my life better," he said. "It's good to see your future 18 months from now — I want to accomplish everything that I need to do."With the support he gets from Uplift Harris, Carter said he hopes to find secure employment, save money for the future, and work toward affording a car. He might even go back to school, he said.<h2>Texas is a leader in GBI programs, but it still faces political opposition</h2>Texas has been a key state for GBI pilots, with recent programs in Austin and San Antonio. Still, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/guaranteed-basic-income-ban-ubi-arizona-texas-houston-homelessness-poverty-2024-2">Republican lawmakers</a> continue to challenge the programs, calling them "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-paul-bettencourt-guaranteed-basic-income-ubi-uplift-harris-houston-2024-1">socialist</a>" and worrying that the money could make low-income families too dependent on the government.Paxton is opposing the Houston-area program because he said the Texas Constitution prohibits the state's counties and cities from granting public money to aid individuals, especially since the pilot does not limit what participants spend the money on.Harris County Attorney Christian D. Menefee said in a statement that the Texas Supreme Court's decision to temporarily block Uplift Harris is disappointing and shows how politicized the Court has become."It's unfortunate the court would take such an extraordinary step to block a program that would help people in Harris County — even temporarily," Menefee said. "The Court knew that the first payments were scheduled to go out tomorrow."Paxton has not sued other municipalities in Texas that have launched basic-income pilots. The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/austin-guarunteed-basic-income-gbi-ubi-housing-security-homeless-2024-1">Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot</a> distributed $1,000 monthly to 135 low-income families, many of whom allotted money to housing, food, and other daily costs. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/san-antonio-ubi-guaranteed-basic-income-housing-finances-austin-rent-2024-3">San Antonio</a>'s basic-income pilot, which reported similar results, gave participants $5,108 total over 25 months. El Paso County also committed to distributing $500 monthly cash payments to about 80 families.However, Paxton's challenge to the Houston-area program mirrors GOP efforts to ban basic income in other states. The Arizona legislature is currently hearing a bill that could ban GBI, South Dakota Republicans are hoping to prohibit local governments from offering basic income, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/16/iowa-legislature-ban-on-guaranteed-income-programs-passes/73094377007/">Iowa lawmakers</a> banned basic income programs across the state last week.With the future of Uplift Harris' basic-income program unclear, Sutton said he worries about affording his rent and groceries. He wishes more people understood that — in his financial situation — a little bit of help goes a long way."Everybody that asks us for assistance doesn't want it for the rest of their lives like Mr. Paxton is trying to make it seem," Sutton said. "I want to work, I want to be better. If it's taking everything that I have just to survive, I will never be able to be better."Editor's note: April 23, 2024 — The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked the program shortly after publication. This story has been updated to reflect that development.Have you benefited from a guaranteed basic income program? Are you willing to share how the money has impacted your life? Reach out to these reporters at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:allisonkelly@insider.com">allisonkelly@businessinsider.com</a> and <a target="_blank" href="mailto:nsheidlower@insider.com">nsheidlower@businessinsider.com.</a>

Houston's basic-income participants plan to spend the $500 a month on rent and groceries &mdash; but the Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked the program 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the authority of federal agencies.</li><li>It's one of three major cases that could upend the way the government works.</li></ul>Three major Supreme Court cases could upend the way the government works — and put Americans' federal benefits and consumer protections at risk.On November 29, the nation's high court is hearing oral arguments in the case <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-to-consider-multi-pronged-constitutional-attack-on-sec/">SEC v. Jarkesy</a>, which challenges how federal agencies can regulate the industries they oversee.In this case, administrative law judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission found that two hedge funds managed by conservative commentator George Jarkesy committed securities fraud, barring him from participating in the securities industry.However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pdf">reversed</a> the SEC's decision in May 2022, declaring the SEC's administrative law judges unconstitutional and stating that Congress does not have the authority to allow the SEC to adjudicate securities fraud cases and that they instead need to go through traditional courts."Federal courts have dealt with actions under the securities statutes for many decades, and there is no reason to believe that such courts are suddenly incapable of continuing that work just because an agency may now share some of the workload," the 5th Circuit's decision said.The SEC and several other federal agencies have used in-house adjudication systems for years, and Jarkesy's challenge to that process could upend the way Americans and businesses rely on that process to help with any concerns or challenges they might be dealing with.Essentially, getting rid of administrative law judges would make it a lot harder for agencies to actually regulate industries, putting consumer protections at risk.According to a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/sec-v-jarkesy-the-threat-to-congressional-and-agency-authority/">brief</a> from the think tank Center for American Progress, a ruling in favor of Jarkesy would make it harder for Social Security recipients to have their benefits claims adjudicated by the administrative law judges in the Social Security Administration."Such a ruling could result in 80 years of administrative law being overturned by removing ALJs' independent decision-making within their agencies, either eliminating them or creating an appearance of bias in their rulings by putting them under the direction of agency management," the brief said. "In turn, this would flood the federal courts with cases, causing both agencies and the courts to grind to a halt."This isn't the only case that challenges how the government works — and poses major implications to consumers. These are the other big cases to follow on the Supreme Court's docket.<h2>A challenge to how a major consumer watchdog is funded</h2>In October, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-debt-relief-borrowers-cfpb-scotus-2023-9">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.</a>, which argues the CFPB's independent funding structure is unconstitutional.Since the CFPB's establishment in 2011, it has received funding from the Federal Reserve rather than relying on annual funding approval from Congress. The Fifth Circuit ruled in October, however, that the funding structure is unconstitutional and the consumer protection agency should not be allowed to receive funding without explicit annual congressional approval.As Business Insider previously reported, an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court could put consumers at risk because it would threaten the CFPB's ability to perform its oversight actions. For example, the CFPB has <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-debt-relief-borrowers-cfpb-scotus-2023-9">protected student-loan borrowers</a> and returned money to them after being subjected to predatory lending, and changing the funding structure would limit the agency's ability to continue those actions.A ruling against the CFPB's funding scheme could also threaten other federal programs that aren't subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process.Former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-medicare-federal-programs-vulnerable-cfpb-supreme-court-fdic-2023-10">said in October</a> "the opinion could lead to a sea change in how essential government agencies function — and to potential chaos every time Congress engages in brinkmanship over funding.""Essential government agencies and programs, including Social Security and Medicare, both of which are administered by independently funded bodies, would see their sources of independent funding vulnerable to challenge," she said.<h2>Changing how the federal government is allowed to make regulations</h2>Another Supreme Court challenge has big implications for the way all federal agencies function. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</a> challenges how much authority federal agencies really have in establishing rules when Congress does not put forth specific language on the regulations in question.Specifically, the case was brought on by a group of fisheries that are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation of a law. The NMFS requires commercial fishing boats to allow federal agents to come on fishing expeditions to collect data, but it also said a statute would require some of the fisheries to pay or subsidize the salary of some of those agents.The fisheries are challenging that idea, arguing against the NMFS' interpretation of that statute. The key issue at play here is the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/supreme-court-fishermen-required-to-pay-federal-monitors-should-chevron-be-overruled/">Chevron doctrine</a>, which gives federal agencies the power to interpret a relevant law as long as it doesn't go against Congress's language. That doctrine has allowed federal agencies to make regulations across many different industries, even if the original laws enabling those agencies left some details blank.If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the fisheries, it would mean agencies with expertise on a law would not have the ability to make decisions on it — instead giving that authority to courts without the same knowledge.The Supreme Court will likely issue final decisions on these cases by June.

How 3 big Supreme Court cases could derail the government 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Mark Meadows has requested Supreme Court to recognize immunity for president's subordinates.</li><li>He's criminally charged alongside Trump for a plot to erase Biden's electoral win in Georgia.</li></ul>Before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in former President Donald Trump's immunity case, Mark Meadows tried to get his foot in the door.The high court had agreed to decide whether former presidents can enjoy legal immunity from criminal charges for actions taken during their presidency.Trump hoped that a decision <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity-jan-6-criminal-case-2024-4">would scuttle the indictment against him</a> over his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election — a result that now seems unlikely, even though the trial <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-january-6-trial-timing-delay-2024-election-2024-4">will likely be delayed</a> until after the 2024 presidential election.Meadows, a former Republican member of Congress, served as Trump's chief of staff in the final year of his White House administration. He was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-indictment-georgia-grand-jury-fulton-county-fani-willis-2023-8">criminally charged alongside Trump</a> in a separate case, brought by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office in Atlanta, over a plot to erase now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory in Georgia.Judges have denied <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/meadows-court-flop-increases-pressure-codefendants-to-flip-on-trump-2023-9">Meadows's attempts to move his criminal case to federal court</a>, which could be <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-meadows-trump-indictment-georgia-trial-federal-court-obama-judge-2023-8">more favorable legal territory</a>. His lawyers have leaned on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which protects the federal government from the meddling of state-level officials.Despite the lower-court losses, Meadows nonetheless asked the Supreme Court to recognize that the president's subordinates should have immunity from criminal prosecution — in both federal or state-level cases — because they were just doing their job by following the president's instructions.His lawyers said the court should recognize immunity for Meadows even if Trump himself doesn't have immunity."If the Court addresses or resolves the question whether a president may act in a non-official capacity while in office and thereby lose the protection of presidential immunity, the Court should make clear that its ruling does not reach the conduct of subordinate federal officials who, like Meadows, generally assisted the former President as part of their federal roles," his lawyers wrote in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303455/20240319162253710_23-939%20ac%20Meadows.pdf">an amicus brief to the Supreme Court</a>.<h2>A Trump appointee had the opposite approach</h2>In Thursday's hearings, the Supreme Court didn't directly take up the issue.But Justice Neil Gorsuch — a Trump appointee to the court — seemed to draw the opposite conclusion.In a series of questions to Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, Gorsuch indicated he believed that subordinates' liability was a helpful deterrent that would thwart presidents from committing crimes."If the president gives an unlawful order, call in the troops, all the examples we've heard, every subordinate beneath him faces criminal prosecution, don't they?" Gorsuch asked Sauer.Sauer, citing historical arguments from the Constitutional Convention, agreed that "co-agitators" of the president "could be prosecuted" as long as the conduct fit a criminal statute."Oh, we've got lots of statutes," Gorsuch replied. "The criminal law books are replete. But, I mean, do you agree, is that one check that's available?"As the thinking goes: Because the president's employees don't want to go to jail, it's hard for presidents to commit crimes, because their subordinates would refuse to do their unlawful bidding."The idea is, generally, if a president is doing something criminal, they're doing it through some kind of principal-agent relationship, they're not doing the deed themselves," Anthony Michael Kreis, a Constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, told Business Insider. "And so probably more often than not, there's going to be some kind of conspiracy-based crime."George Terwilliger, an attorney representing Meadows, told Business Insider that Gorsuch was speaking about "orders from the president that could be discerned as unlawful on their face," which he said wasn't relevant to the amicus brief.He pointed to another exchange from the hearing between Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben and a different Trump appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett said a potential form of immunity could protect former presidents from state prosecutions rather than leaving too much discretion at the hands of the Justice Department."A lot of the protections that you're talking about are internal protections that the federal government has, protections in the Department of Justice, which obviously are not applicable at the many, many, many, many state and local jurisdictions across the country," Barrett said.<div type="image" title="trump gorsuch" height="1399" width="2000" msid="109666874" hostid="261" sizebytes="145202"></div>The issue came up a few other times in Thursday's hearing — all in instances where the justices seemed unsympathetic to the idea that government employees would have immunity for breaking the law.They discussed a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case-january-6-2024-4">hypothetical scenario where a president ordered the military to assassinate a rival politician</a>. Sauer said the president could be immune from criminal prosecution in such cases — a scenario the justices seemed uncomfortable with.Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative appointee, said that SEAL Team Six would be "bound" by military rules "not to obey unlawful orders.""One might argue that it is not plausibly legal to order SEAL Team Six — and I don't want to slander SEAL Team Six because, seriously, they are honorable," Alito said.Fulton County prosecutors have alleged that Trump, Meadows, and more than a dozen other political allies played parts in a far-reaching conspiracy to convince Georgia state officials to hand Trump a false victory in the 2020 election.The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/georgia-trump-indictment-unsealed-read-full-text-charges-2023-8">indictment</a> specifically alleges that Meadows met with Georgia state and Republican party officials and Trump campaign lawyers while planning to stop the certification of Biden's win.On one day, Meadows even traveled to Georgia to observe an audit even though the process was closed to the public, according to the indictment. A few days later, he texted an election official offering the assistance of the Trump campaign, the indictment says.In the US Constitution, the president has no role in certifying electoral votes. And by appearing to act on behalf of the Trump campaign — rather than the White House — Meadows appeared to be acting in a private capacity rather than in his role as chief-of-staff, Kreis said.Kreis told Business Insider that Meadows's request for "trickle-down immunity" was inconsistent with precedent, and with past cases where employees in the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/halobit.htm">Richard Nixon</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/prosecutions.php">Ronald Reagan</a> administrations have been criminally convicted for actions they took while in office."I think as a society generally, too, we don't find it consistent with the rule of law to just say, 'I was just following orders, I didn't know,'" he said. "That's just not consistent, again with the rule of law, but it's also not consistent with past practices in history."

You Searched For "vodafone idea agr supreme court hearing" and got 6 results

The Supreme Court may have a shot to strike down Section 230 after a child's death was blamed on a 'blackout challenge' seen on TikTok

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Vodafone Idea approaches Supreme Court over AGR dues

IANS

Supreme Court adjourns AGR case hearing to August 14

IANS

Houston's basic-income participants plan to spend the $500 a month on rent and groceries but the Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked the program

Allie Kelly,Noah Sheidlower

How 3 big Supreme Court cases could derail the government

Ayelet Sheffey

Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to recognize his 'just following orders' defense. A right-wing justice wasn't buying it.

Jacob Shamsian

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides