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>With Trump's victory and upcoming GOP control of the Senate, the Supreme Court looms large.</li><li>Trump appointed a third of the current Supreme Court in just one term.</li></ul>During Donald Trump's first term as president, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, giving it a 6-3 conservative supermajority.His Supreme Court appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — later voted to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">overturn</a> Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had afforded women a constitutional right to an abortion.With Trump having <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wins-presidential-election-race-2024-11">won a second term</a> in office, he now has the potential to further shape the court in ways that no other president has done in modern times.<h2 id="52e7d3b8-38b3-4103-addf-05a14a7d9c87">Trump's second term gives Thomas and Alito a chance to retire</h2><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-win-senate-election-majority-election-2024-11">Republicans won a majority in the US Senate</a> alongside Trump's victory, which means that they'll be working in tandem should a vacancy arise on the court in Trump's second term.Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, are two of the most stalwart conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while there's always a chance that a justice can step down from their post, both Thomas and Alito have been institutions on the court for years.Thomas was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and has served on the body since 1991. Meanwhile, Alito was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and took his seat on the court in 2006.There's no indication that either man is retiring from the bench. But Republicans will be in the driver's seat to make an appointment should either man step down over the next four years.Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider that Thomas is a figure who might step down."If I'm Clarence Thomas, I'm thinking now is a good time to retire," he said. "He's been on the court for a long time. His legacy is frankly mixed at this point between his wife's involvement with the insurrection in 2020 and his ongoing ethics scandal."(Thomas has faced a wave of criticism after <a target="_blank" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow">ProPublica in April 2023 published</a> a report that detailed how he had taken luxury vacations funded by the billionaire mega donor Harlan Crow — and had not disclosed the trips.)<h2 id="e08ad357-0202-444a-9550-87693e9d2b8c">Or the court's makeup could stay the same</h2>While Trump will surely want to make another Supreme Court appointment, his ambitions may not necessarily align with the feelings of the justices themselves.<div type="image" title="Clarence Thomas" height="1080" width="1920" msid="115031465" hostid="261" sizebytes="62842"></div>Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told BI that it's far from a given that any particular judge — even one with a like-minded political ideology — will step down because of Trump's election."I think they're independent-minded and they're not just going to resign because of Trump," he said. "They like what they're doing."Tobias also noted that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/election-results-trump-harris-presidential-election-2024-11">the extent</a> of the GOP's Senate majority — which is still up in the air — could make a big difference in what kind of jurist could actually win confirmation."Best-case scenario it may be 55-45 but more like 52-48 or something like that," he said of the eventual Republican Senate makeup. "So they're not going to be able to do everything they want, and there are people like Lindsey Graham and [Susan] Collins and [Lisa] Murkowski who may not go along on someone that's too crazy."<h2 id="b2c291bb-c313-447a-9514-9937c508fb69">Sweeping reforms won't occur</h2>Many top Democrats have long eyed changes to the Supreme Court, whether it be expansion or some sort of ethics reform.Biden this year laid out a plan to institute a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-supreme-court-has-lost-its-legitimacy-2024-10">binding code of conduct</a> for the court and create 18-year term limits for justices. He also wanted to see lawmakers pass a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.But with Trump soon to be back in the White House and a Republican-led Senate on the way, those plans are on ice indefinitely.The GOP sees the current composition of the court as the fruit of decades of work to ensure a conservative tilt. Leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky over the years have criticized Democratic attempts to reform the court/McConnell played a leading role in blocking the 2016 nomination of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-confirms-merrick-garland-attorney-general-2021-2">Merrick Garland</a> — now the US Attorney General — to the Supreme Court. At the time, the Kentuckian was the Senate's majority leader, and a fierce opponent of then-Democratic President Barack Obama.During a Wednesday press conference in Washington, McConnell reveled in Republicans flipping the Senate."One of the most gratifying results of the Senate becoming Republican: the filibuster will stand, there won't be any new states admitted that will benefit the other side," he said. "And we'll quit beating up the Supreme Court."

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

<ul class="summary-list"><li>RFK Jr. has fought to remove his name from presidential ballots since he ended his campaign in August.</li><li>The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied his two last-ditch requests in Michigan and Wisconsin.</li></ul>It's official: <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-rfk-jr-2023-7">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a> will remain on the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan.The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied two last-minute requests from Kennedy's lawyers filed this month in an effort to remove his name from the ballot in the crucial <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harris-trump-presidential-election-swing-state-polls-sun-belt-2024-10">swing states</a>.The denial ultimately ends Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to get himself off the tickets and may be a blow to Donald Trump's campaign for reelection — which Kennedy endorsed after he <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rfk-jr-drops-out-presidential-race-2024-8">dropped out of the race</a> in August."Our polling consistently showed that by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/states-denying-rfk-jr-ballot-removal-2024-8">staying on the ballot</a> in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues," Business Insider previously reported Kennedy said at a news conference prior to endorsing Trump.The Supreme Court Justices did not issue any explanation for their ruling, as is typical for emergency decisions such as this. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a short dissent in the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a405.html">Michigan case</a>, said he would have sided with Kennedy.In previous legal challenges, Kennedy succeeded in getting his name removed from the ballot in some swing states, including Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. His name was also removed from the tickets in Florida, Ohio, and Texas.Representatives for Kennedy Jr. and the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.Kennedy, a one-time Democrat, ran most of his campaign as an Independent before forging an alliance with Trump. While Trump once described the politician and environmental activist as a "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rfk-jr-transition-team-tulsi-gabbard-2024-8">liberal lunatic,</a>" the two reconciled their differences and Trump named Kennedy to his formal transition team.During his Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden, Trump seemed to suggest Kennedy could have a spot in his administration, pledging to let the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-views-vaccines-autism-testing-debunked-2023-7">vaccine-skeptic</a> "go wild on health."

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

Is it time to change the Supreme Court, and can it happen?

<ul class="summary-list"><li>House Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Biden's Supreme Court reform proposal as 'dead on arrival.'</li><li>Biden's plan includes term limits, a binding code of conduct, and no immunity for ex-presidents.</li></ul>Joe Biden's pitch to reform the Supreme Court is off to a rough start.House Speaker Mike Johnson has already sworn to fight the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-aims-rein-in-supreme-court-saying-its-gone-rogue-2024-7#:~:text=Biden%20has%20proposed%20a%20radical,a%20conservative%2Dleaning%20court%20composition.">Biden administration's proposal to rein in the Supreme Court</a>, calling it "dead on arrival."President Joe Biden's proposal, announced in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">White House press release</a> on Monday, calls on Congress to make three major changes to the high court: setting up 18-year term limits for all justices of the court, a binding code of conduct for those justices, and approving a constitutional amendment that explicitly says former presidents aren't immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.Citing "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-ethics-questions-hanging-over-the-supreme-court-2023-5">recent ethics scandals</a>" among the court's justices and the court's recent decisions overturning "long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights," Biden wrote that these reforms are necessary to "restore trust and accountability" in both the President and the Supreme Court.The Court has been a source of frustration for Democrats, with the conservative-led court handing former President Donald Trump and his allies victory after victory — culminating in a decision that ruled sitting presidents are granted presumptive immunity from prosecution.That ruling snarled the various criminal cases against Trump, who was convicted of fraud in New York and faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.The Supreme Court's two arch-conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have also been tied up in scandals. Thomas took lavish gifts and vacations from a GOP mega-donor without disclosing them and his wife communicated to Trump aides before the Capitol riot. Meanwhile, a flag bearing symbols linked to pro-Trump movements flew over Alito's house around the time of the riot; he's since blamed his wife. Despite the push from Biden for changes to the court, Johnson threw cold water on the idea immediately."President Biden's proposal to radically overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people's faith in our system of justice," <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1817938406049296725">Johnson wrote on X</a> on Monday.He continued: "It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court's recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House."<h2 id="d2e246d1-a45e-45f6-bb30-a719be625766">Amendment on presidential immunity</h2>Biden's plan includes adding a "No One is Above the Law" amendment to the Constitution, which would dictate that no president has "immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President," according to the press release.But amending the constitution isn't easy; it's only been done 27 times, the last time of which was in 1992.There are a few <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20founders%20also%20specified%20a,making%20amendments%20is%20quite%20onerous.">ways to propose a change to the constitution</a> that the Founding Fathers outlined. The first requires two-thirds support from members of both the House and Senate — a feat that would be near impossible to accomplish with Republicans controlling the House.The GOP has largely supported the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and has rebuked Democrats' attempts to limit its power.The second option requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call a convention to propose a change to the constitution.And that's just to get the amendment proposed — in order to get it ratified, three-fourths of state legislatures must support the amendment.This would also be a tough task with 23 states controlled by Republican trifectas (meaning the GOP runs both state legislatures and the governor's office) and 10 states having divided governments; only 17 states are controlled by Democratic trifectas, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas">according to Ballotpedia</a>.<h2 id="43d2ba31-3402-49c8-9577-c9bf341d2138">Term limits and a new code of conduct</h2>Biden's plan for the Supreme Court includes term limits that would mean a new justice was chosen every two years. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Biden wrote that, "Term limits would help ensure that the court's membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come."Biden also argued in The Post that "the court's current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced," and that a binding, enforceable code of conduct should require justices "to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest."The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ethics-rules-missing-word-should-shall-2023-11">court's current ethics code</a>, implemented in November, is not binding and does not contain any enforcement mechanism.Proposing both term limits and a stricter ethics code for justices would require the Republican-controlled House to not only allow a floor vote on the issue, but also to then pass it. Even if the House approved the bill, Republicans in the Senate could filibuster the bill, stopping it in its tracks.Democrats would need to throw out the filibuster — something they already lack the votes to do — to even bring the legislation to a vote.With powerful Republicans like Johnson already pushing back, getting all three of Biden's proposals implemented in the Supreme Court looks like a losing battle. But Biden's plan has already gotten support from Vice President and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris, all but guaranteeing that Democrats will use it on the campaign trail as a way to contrast against Trump.

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival' 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court heard Nvidia's arguments against a class action securities fraud lawsuit.</li><li>Nvidia is accused of misleading shareholders about cryptocurrency mining-related sales.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case in which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-ai-employees-workers-2024-11">Nvidia</a> is trying to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. But some of the justices expressed concern over the chip giant's assertions.Nvidia petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit alleging that the company and its CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-huang-softbank-masayoshi-son-tech-stock-buyout-ai-microchips-2024-11">Jensen Huang</a> misled investors about its cryptocurrency mining-related sales to move ahead.Attorneys for Nvidia argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by a Swedish investment management firm, have not met the stricter pleading standards laid out by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit to proceed "creates an easy road map for plaintiffs to evade the Reform Act," Nvidia attorney Neal Katyal argued before the justices.The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or PSLRA was designed, in part, to curtail frivolous securities lawsuits."When a stock drops, all they have to do is find an expert with numbers that contradict the company's public statements, then allege the company keeps records that executives look at, and then argue those records would have matched the hired expert's numbers," said Katyal, who argued that the plaintiff's complaint relies on expert opinion and lacks company documents.When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what the plaintiff's complaint would look like in order to comply with the PSLRA, Katyal said it would have to answer "what did the CEO know" and "when did he know it.""I guess my concern is that you appear to be requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order to plead their case," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, adding, "part of my concern is that you seem to be wanting a bright line that says the contents of the documents are necessary."Justice Sonia Sotomayer said that she was "concerned" by Nvidia's petition to the court and told Katyal, "We often don't grant cert to error correct.""I'm not actually sure what rule we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases already say," Sotomayer said.Chief Justice John Roberts said the aspect that concerned him about both sides' arguments was that it was "a little black and white.""If I think that the positions on both sides are a little too absolute, how do you find sort of the sweet spot in terms of when the PSLRA is satisfied?" Roberts asked."It can't be just a little bit of direct evidence because that statute was intended to do something," Roberts said. "On the other hand, it seems to me, you can't insist on only the direct evidence before a complaint goes forward. So if I don't think it's black and white, how do I decide where the balance is?"A Nvidia spokesperson told BI the company "appreciated the opportunity to answer the Court's detailed questions this morning. We brought this case to the Supreme Court to protect shareholders and the economy from groundless lawsuits, and look forward to the Court's resolution of this matter."In his arguments, Deepak Gupta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the PSLRA "demands particularity.""Everyone agrees you can't circumvent the statute with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated expert opinions," Gupta said."But that's not what happened here," said Gupta. "On falsity, the Court of Appeals holding expressly rested on a combination of facts showing that a substantial part of gaming revenues came from crypto."This included accounts from former employees, detailed accounts of internal data and meetings, expert analysis, and "Huang's eventual acknowledgment of the crypto hangover, which sent the stock tumbling 28%," said Gupta.A district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.The plaintiffs allege in their brief to the Supreme Court that in 2017 when Nvidia's sales of graphic processing units (GPUs) were surging, the company and Huang "knew those record sales were due in substantial part to demand from cryptocurrency miners.""But for more than a year, Huang denied that mining-related sales were driving NVIDIA's revenue growth because he knew that the securities market looked askew at GPU sales to miners, which are notoriously cyclical," the brief says."Huang's strategy fell apart in late 2018, when cryptocurrency prices collapsed, GPU purchases by miners withered, and demand for GeForce GPUs shrank dramatically," the brief says. "NVIDIA then finally admitted that — contrary to Huang's previous denials—its record revenue growth had been largely due to mining-related demand for GeForce GPUs."Nvidia's attorneys argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that on public calls with investors, company executives "made clear that they believed crypto miners were buying both GeForce GPUs and Crypto SKUs.""This case aptly demonstrates the danger of allowing plaintiffs to guess at the pleading stage what internal company reports could have said," the petition says. "Plaintiffs speculate that internal NVIDIA sales reports would have reflected the amount of gaming segment revenue driven by sales to miners rather than to gamers."It adds, "But there is no basis in Plaintiffs' allegations to assume that this information was available to NVIDIA."In 2022, Nvidia agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $5.5 million to settle charges for "inadequate disclosures" regarding the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business. Nvidia agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's findings.A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June.

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

In a recent <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala raised a red flag regarding <keyword id="23574724" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-6A" source="keywords">Section 6A</keyword> of the <keyword id="20932920" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Citizenship-Act" source="keywords">Citizenship Act</keyword> of 1955, a provision that grants citizenship to immigrants who entered <keyword id="19911206" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="assam" source="keywords">Assam</keyword> between 1966 and 1971. While the majority ruling upheld Section 6A as constitutional, <keyword id="23584391" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Pardiwala" source="keywords">Justice Pardiwala</keyword>’s dissenting opinion suggests that the provision is both arbitrary and prone to abuse. Here’s what you need to know: <h2>What is Section 6A?</h2>Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985, following the <keyword id="20000897" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assam-Accord" source="keywords">Assam Accord</keyword>, a historic agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of <keyword id="19959299" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-immigration" source="keywords">illegal immigration</keyword> in Assam. Under this section, people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for citizenship if they meet certain residency requirements. <h2>Why does Justice Pardiwala think Section 6A is unconstitutional?</h2>Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A is problematic because of its “open-ended nature,” which lacks a clear deadline for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. He emphasised that the provision makes it easier for individuals to exploit the system using forged documents. “The open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse due to the advent of forged documents,” he wrote, adding that such documents often provide false dates of entry or inaccurate family histories. Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A has become “arbitrary and constitutionally invalid” over time. He believes the lack of a specific timeline for detecting immigrants allows for prolonged misuse, as it gives people an indefinite period to remain in Assam and potentially establish citizenship claims based on falsified information. He further explained that government records deteriorate over time, making it harder to verify or disprove these claims accurately. <h2>What did the majority ruling say?</h2>In contrast to Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A. The court ruled that the Assam Accord was intended as a political solution, and the section remains a valid legal mechanism to address Assam’s historical challenges with illegal immigration. This decision was celebrated by the All Assam Students Union (<keyword id="20938945" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AASU" source="keywords">AASU</keyword>), who consider the verdict a “historic” validation of the Assam Accord’s original intent. Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and petitioner in the case, expressed disappointment with the verdict, calling it “unfortunate.” Rahman, who has long advocated for using 1951 rather than 1971 as the cut-off year for citizenship eligibility, argued that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of Assam’s indigenous population. “You can’t make Assam a dumping ground for illegal immigrants,” he remarked, suggesting that his organisation may continue to explore legal options to challenge the decision. Justice Pardiwala’s dissent sheds light on ongoing concerns about immigration laws and their long-term effects on local communities in Assam. While the majority ruling supports Section 6A, Pardiwala’s warning raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of India’s approach to citizenship, as well as the broader implications for Assam’s demographic and political landscape. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court is kicking two major cases back down to lower courts.</li><li>The cases involved Texas and Florida laws challenging social-media companies' content moderation.</li></ul>The Supreme Court isn't willing to blow up the internet just yet.In a decision released Monday on a pair of cases concerning whether social-media companies can moderate content on their platforms, the Supreme Court kicked the cases back down to the lower courts in Texas and Florida.But, in outlining why the lower courts need to reconsider the cases, the high court essentially granted a victory to social-media giants, a legal expert told Business Insider.The Supreme Court had been weighing two cases — Texas's NetChoice v. Paxton and Florida's Moody v. NetChoice — both of which concerned laws in each state that limited social-media companies' abilities to censor posts based on users' viewpoints.The laws were introduced after Donald Trump was booted off Facebook and Twitter in 2021 following the January 6 attack on the Capitol.Republicans in both states had argued that, in moderating the kinds of content that appear on their platforms, social-media companies were discriminating against right-wing viewpoints and violating users' constitutional right to free speech.There are a few key differences in the scope of both laws.The Texas law applied to social-media companies with at least 50 million users, while Florida's involved companies with over 100 million users.Also, the Florida law specifically prohibited the companies from removing political candidates for office from the platforms, while the Texas law more generally prohibited the companies from removing any users' content based on their viewpoints.As Judge Andrew Oldham <a target="_blank" href="https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NetchoicevPaxton.pdf">wrote in his appeals-court decision</a> upholding the Texas law, the Florida law "prohibits all censorship of some speakers," while the Texas law "prohibits some censorship of all speakers."NetChoice, a trade group representing companies including Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok, sued over the laws, arguing that as private entities, the companies had a right to make editorial decisions about what kinds of content they allowed. While supporters of the state laws had argued that users have a constitutional right to free expression on the platforms, NetChoice, ironically, argued that the companies have a constitutional right to free speech in deciding how to run their platforms."Texas is trying to flip the script and saying that, somehow, the First Amendment protects Texas citizens from the actions of private entities," Clay Calvert, a media-law and First Amendment-law expert, told BI."So both sides are claiming somehow that the other is trying to harm free-speech interests," Calvert said. "But the fundamental principle is the First Amendment only protects us from government censorship."And that's partly what the Supreme Court took issue with in its decision, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that the lower appeals courts in both states had not adequately analyzed NetChoice's First Amendment challenges to the laws or the scope of what platforms the laws applied to."Today's decision is a victory for NetChoice because the court articulates very important principles that will come into play on remand ultimately in these cases," Calvert said.The first principle that Kagan outlined is that social-media companies are protected by the First Amendment when they curate content, Calvert said."Another big principle is that the government, whether it's Texas or Florida, cannot justify curtailing that editorial control and discretion and freedom under the interest of, 'We need to rebalance and level the playing field to make it more even for conservative and liberal viewpoints,'" Calvert added. "That doesn't fly."Before the cases made their way to the Supreme Court, they were battled out in the lower courts, and neither law went into effect under state attorneys general Ken Paxton and Ashley Moody.Part of the reason the Supreme Court might have agreed to hear the cases to begin with is because there was a circuit split between the states. Texas' Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the law was constitutional, while Florida's Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the law was unconstitutional.Now, those lower courts will have to reconsider the cases. Their decisions could have huge implications.Calvert told BI before SCOTUS's Monday decision that if the laws were allowed to go into effect, "The implications would be disastrous for social-media platforms as we know them today.""They would have to host all viewpoints on any topic and could not establish for themselves the types of communities, the speech-based communities, that they want to host. So it would change things radically," Calvert added.But Calvert said Monday that because the high court's decision is so favorable to the social-media companies, that's not likely to happen.

Big Tech gets a big win from the Supreme Court

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court gave former President Donald Trump a partial victory on Monday.</li><li>A majority of the high court decided that former presidents do hold some immunity.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Monday handed former <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-january-6-trial-timing-delay-2024-election-2024-4">President Donald Trump</a> a partial victory by kicking the future of his criminal case related to January 6, 2021, down to a lower court.Justices rejected Trump's claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal charges related to actions that come under the scope of the presidency. But in a 6-3 vote, most of the high court decided that former presidents hold some immunity. In fact, commentators said that in some key parts, the ruling favored Trump's side more than expected.Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that in some circumstances, presidents must know that they have immunity from criminal prosecution; otherwise, their ability to do their job could be affected."We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote for the majority. "At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute."According to the ruling, the line will be drawn at whether a president's conduct is related to official acts. Before Monday's ruling, former presidents already held sweeping immunity from civil prosecution thanks to a Nixon-era case. The question before the high court was what to do now that Trump is the first former president to face criminal indictments.The court's decision gives presidents the benefit of the doubt in some areas. Roberts wrote that when deciding whether an act was official or unofficial, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.Roberts added that judges could not find that a president's action was unofficial "merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."The extent of what is allowed under the ruling is the subject of fierce debate among the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a stinging dissent that was joined by the other liberal justices, said that a president could order US forces to kill a rival and get away with it."When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune," Sotomayor wrote. "Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."The court kicked the future of Trump's January 6-related indictment to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now decide how the court's landmark ruling will affect the special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.Roberts and the court did make clear that some areas of the indictment could not survive."Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials," he wrote.Trump's communications with the Justice Department have been a key part of the prosecutions against him after the 2020 election since the then-president sought to install a loyalist, Jeffrey Clark, as acting attorney general. Clark was supportive of Trump's unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.It's not immediately clear how quickly Chutkan will move, but it seems unlikely that the former president will face trial before the November election. In taking their time to craft this ruling, justices have essentially handed Trump another victory for his delay tactics.It's likely that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/latest-trump-hush-money-battle-how-instruct-jurors-on-law-2024-5">Trump's Manhattan criminal trial</a> will now be his only trial before the election. If he wins the election, he'll likely scuttle the January 6 case and Smith's other criminal case in Florida, related to Trump's hoarding of classified documents.The ruling largely falls on the lines that appeared present during oral arguments. Conservative justices, including the Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, said that the case before them was of far more importance than just the facts of what the former president was accused of doing after the 2020 election."We are writing a rule for the ages," Gorsuch said.At the time, more-liberal justices recoiled at the thought of permanently <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-jackson-trump-immunity-oval-office-criminial-activity-supreme-court-2024-4">placing the presidency above the law</a>."The most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments. "I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."The court's ruling came after Justice <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-justice-alito-blames-wife-pro-trump-symbol-flag-2024-5">Samuel Alito</a> refused to recuse himself from the case. Democratic lawmakers had pressed Alito to step aside after The New York Times reported that a flag had been flown upside down at Alito's Virginia home following the 2020 election, an established sign of distress that at the time was viewed as a symbol of solidarity with Trump's false claims that the election was stolen. Alito has said Martha-Ann Alito, his wife, decided to fly the flag upside down. In a letter to lawmakers, Alito said the flag was not intended to show support for the "Stop the Steal" movement.

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Some of the biggest Supreme Court cases this term remain outstanding.</li><li>A case concerning Donald Trump could become one of the nation's most important rulings.</li></ul>The Supreme Court has yet to address cases that could affect former President Donald Trump's <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-key-cases-civil-criminal-investigations-lawsuits-updates-2022-7">criminal prosecutions </a>and the future of the presidency itself, the power of federal agencies that have existed for decades, and abortion rights in a post-Roe world.The nation's highest court typically wraps up its business by the end of June, but court watchers count roughly a dozen major pending decisions. Some of those expected rulings, particularly those applying to Trump, could upend the 2024 election.With that in mind, here are five major cases that we're looking out for.<h2 id="42559479-7ec6-474c-ba1a-74e45e074ad3">Trump v. United States: The Trump immunity case</h2>The implications for Trump alone made this the most closely-watched case this term. But the high court's ruling will likely stretch far beyond him, potentially making this one of the most important cases in the nation's history. As Justice Neil Gorsuch said during <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case-january-6-2024-4">oral arguments</a>, the court may write "a rule for the ages."The former president has requested <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1">sweeping immunity</a> from criminal prosecutions that touch the outermost reaches of a president's job. Oral arguments illustrated that while Trump is unlikely to get everything he desires, some justices were receptive to his fear that leaving the door open to prosecution could hamstring presidents.In contrast, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-jackson-trump-immunity-oval-office-criminial-activity-supreme-court-2024-4">Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson </a>warned that the Oval Office could become "the seat of criminal activity in this country" if justices go too far in protecting former presidents from criminal prosecution.Trump has already likely won, no matter what the justices decide. The immunity question <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-georgia-election-interference-fani-willis-appeals-court-2024-5">has delayed</a> Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6-related prosecution against him. It's difficult to see how Smith will get a trial before Election Day.<div type="image" title="capitol riot january 6" height="1666" width="2500" msid="111207462" hostid="261" sizebytes="414688"></div><h2 id="52414116-2a27-4117-8cdc-d606d00a0896">Fischer v. United States: A potential lifeline for January 6 rioters</h2>Justices could disrupt Trump's prosecution and hundreds of others <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-obstruction-case-donald-trump-january-6-riot-2023-12">connected to January 6</a>, depending on how they rule in the case brought by a former Pennsylvania police officer.Joseph Fischer's lawyers argue that federal prosecutors have stretched a post-Enron collapse law too far in using it to charge Fischer and over 350 others in connection with the Capitol riot. At issue is whether prosecutors adequately applied the law when they charged rioters with obstructing an official proceeding due to the fact that Congress was forced to halt its constitutionally mandated certification of the Electoral College results on January 6, 2021.During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts joined some of the court's other conservatives in expressing skepticism about the Biden administration's defense that the provision of the 2002 law in question could be considered a catch-all.Smith's team has separately argued that their case against Trump should be unaffected even if justices narrow what prosecutors can charge as obstruction of an official proceeding. As The Washington Post pointed out, some already convicted of January 6-related offenses have been released early ahead of a ruling in the case.<h2 id="75aca988-a65b-4f99-bdc6-2740b130920b">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: A tiny fish could change American life as we know it</h2>The federal government has for decades regulated everything from the environment to consumer safety based on the Supreme Court's precedent that judges must defer to agencies like the EPA and FDA regarding their reasonable interpretations of vague laws.This administrative law principle, known as Chevron deference, is rooted in the Supreme Court's 1984 landmark decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which could be overturned or curtailed. Business groups have fought to kill the ruling for decades. There are potentially billions at stake depending on the outcome of the case.Justices heard oral arguments in a case brought by commercial fishermen about a rule requiring them to pay for monitors that track potential overfishing. A lower court upheld the rule for Atlantic herring based on Chevron deference.The Biden administration has warned that gutting Chevron deference entirely could spark a major shock. Justice Elena Kagan said during oral arguments that 70 Supreme Court rulings and more than 17,000 lower-court decisions have relied on Chevron.<div type="image" title="Doctors advocate against an Idaho abortion ban outside of the Supreme Court" height="683" width="1024" msid="111207464" hostid="261" sizebytes="94248"></div><h2 id="a83b0a9b-692a-4c44-82b9-a6979f5f3d73">Moyle v. United States: A major abortion rights dispute in a post-Roe world</h2>Justices are weighing whether decades-old law governing hospitals that receive federal funds supersede Idaho's near-total abortion ban. The two cases at issue mark the first time the high court has considered a single-state ban passed in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 ruling, the overturned Roe.Lawyers for Idaho argued that if the Biden administration has its way, the federal government will find ways to undermine state laws restricting abortion access."There are 22 states with abortion laws on the books," Joshua Turner, who argued in defense of Idaho's law, said at the end of his oral argument. "This isn't going to end with Idaho. This question is going to come up in state after state."The Biden administration has argued that The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, the law in question, should override Idaho's ban by allowing doctors to perform emergency abortions still. The state law only allows for abortions unless the mother's life is in jeopardy.Justice Elena Kagan highlighted how some patients have been airlifted to states where abortion remains legal as a result of the state's ban.<div type="image" title="Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton waves in a suit in front of an oversized American flag" height="2606" width="4048" msid="111207460" hostid="261" sizebytes="381566"></div><h2 id="dac18f3f-1537-4280-b13f-3e1503e26a22">NetChoice LLC v. Paxton: Red-state social media moderation</h2>Republican-led states, including Texas and Florida, have sought to restrict social media platforms from moderating political content. Industry groups sued to block the laws, arguing that tech giants have a First Amendment right to determine what to allow on their platforms.Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida's law, which is targeted in a related case, which would fine companies if they banned active candidates for office from their platforms. Florida also made it easier for users to sue social media platforms if they feel they have been targeted for moderation, according to The Washington Post.Court watchers left oral arguments predicting that justices across the ideological spectrum would strike down the laws, but the exact future of the GOP-led effort to punish tech companies on the belief that they are biased against conservatives remains uncertain.

The 5 biggest cases the Supreme Court hasn't yet decided

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Biden has proposed a radical reform of the US Supreme Court.</li><li>The plan includes term limits and a binding code of conduct.</li></ul>Citing "recent ethics scandals" involving Supreme Court justices, President Joe Biden has announced a proposal to drastically reform the workings of the court, including by establishing term limits for sitting Justices.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">The White House shared</a> the proposal early Monday, which consists of two main points:<ul><li>Eighteen-year term limits, as opposed to the current lifetime appointments, with a new justice appointed every two years; and</li><li>A binding code of conduct for Justices.</li></ul>The proposal also called for the removal of immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.In an accompanying <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/">op-ed in the Washington Post</a>, Biden wrote that the country is "in a breach" of the normal and balanced workings of the court.Citing his experience as a senator and as a past ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Biden wrote:"I served as a US senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers."But, he said, "what is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms."Biden did not name any president or justice in his reasoning, but the proposal was a clear reaction to ethics scandals and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">shock rulings</a> from the Court over the last few years.The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "dangerous and extreme" decision that undid long-settled rights, Biden wrote.Meanwhile, in June, the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-january-6-election-ruling-decision-2024-5">Supreme Court ruled</a> that a sitting president has some immunity from criminal charges relating to acts made as part of their official duties — a move beneficial to former President Donald Trump, who has been dogged by multiple criminal and civil court cases.This "means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," Biden wrote.The current composition of the Supreme Court leans heavily conservative, in part because former President Barack Obama's nomination was barred in his last year in office; while Trump appointed three justices, including one in his lame-duck period.This is a developing story. Please check back later for updates.

Joe Biden wants to rein in the Supreme Court, saying it's gone rogue after rulings on abortion, presidential immunity

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Joe Biden may propose term limits and an ethics code for the Supreme Court, The Washington Post reported.</li><li>The plan would need congressional approval, and Biden is turning to his allies for help.</li></ul>President Joe Biden may be preparing to take on the conservative-majority Supreme Court head-on, according to a new report by The Washington Post.Biden is planning to announce a proposal to establish term limits and an enforceable <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-signs-code-of-conduct-lacking-an-enforcement-mechanism-2023-11">ethics code</a> on the high court, the outlet reported, citing people briefed on the plan. Specific details of the proposal — or when it might be officially announced — were not immediately available.The Supreme Court has an existing code of conduct, rolled out last November, which outlines when a sitting Justice should recuse themselves from a case and when outside activities may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, unlike the code that binds lower court justices, the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ethics-rules-missing-word-should-shall-2023-11">Supreme Court's ethics code</a> lacks any enforcement mechanism. It requires sitting Justices to regulate themselves, with critics regarding the measures as toothless against the court's lifetime appointees.Most changes to the Supreme Court would require congressional approval to enact, so Biden is turning to his allies in the House and Senate for help, the Post reported."I'm going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I'm about to come out — I don't want to prematurely announce it — but I'm about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court," the Post reported Biden said, according to a transcript of a Saturday call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "I've been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help."Representatives for the Biden administration and Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.The proposals would appear to be an attempt to restrain the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-rulings-executive-power-grab-strengthen-judiciary-2024-7">Supreme Court's expanding power</a> and balance the polarized conservative court without adding new Justices to the bench.Biden has rejected calls to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-biden-does-not-want-to-expand-supreme-court-2022-6">expand the Supreme Court</a> for years, despite arguments to do so amid ongoing ethics concerns facing the Court.Justice Clarence Thomas has been the subject of intense scrutiny following reports that he accepted lavish gifts and vacations from Republican megadonor <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trips-justice-clarence-thomas-took-with-harlan-crow-2024-6">Harlan Crow</a>.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alito-disqualified-over-flag-incidents-in-lower-court-expert-says-2024-5">Justice Samuel Alito</a> has also been sharply criticized after it was discovered that a Revolutionary-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag, regarded as a pro-Trump symbol, was flying for weeks over his New Jersey vacation home last summer.Two Democratic Senators earlier this month called for a special counsel to investigate Thomas over allegations of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senators-request-doj-special-counsel-investigate-clarence-thomas-taxes-ethics-2024-7">tax fraud</a> and failure to disclose gifts from Crow he had been given.Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-impeachment-articles-supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling-2024-7">articles of impeachment</a> against both Thomas and Alito on ethical grounds, citing their refusal to recuse themselves from cases they may be connected to, and Thomas' undisclosed gifts. The move followed the Supreme Court's decision granting former President Donald Trump wide-reaching <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-warns-scotus-fundamentally-changed-the-country-in-immunity-ruling-2024-7">immunity</a> for acts taken during his administration.

Biden is finalizing plans to announce term limits and a new ethics code targeting the Supreme Court

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, curtailing federal regulatory power.</li><li>Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws like the Clean Air Act.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a decades-long legal precedent that has empowered the federal government to regulate the environment and other issues, unleashing a potential threat to President Joe Biden's climate policies.The court <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf">overruled the Chevron doctrine</a>, one of the most important principles guiding federal regulation for the past 40 years. It held that when the laws that Congress writes are ambiguous, courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation, as long as it's reasonable.Now, however, it could be harder for agencies to address a wide range of policy areas, including the environment, health, and labor and employment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision, joined by five conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.The ruling comes as President Joe Biden has raced to finalize a flurry of rules to combat climate change. Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has set <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-ev-emissions-rule-labor-unions-auto-industry-2024-3">stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars</a>, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure. The agency for the first time put limits <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/epa-hazardous-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-limits-2024-4">on toxic "forever chemicals,"</a> also known as PFAS, in drinking water. All of those regulations are the targets of lawsuits from Republican-led states, the fossil-fuel industry, or other businesses.Legal analysts widely expected the Supreme Court's decision. The Chevron doctrine has long been a target of business groups and conservatives who argued it allows federal bureaucrats to overstep their authority on issues related not only to the environment but also to broad swaths of the economy, such as workplace safety, telecom, and finance.The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority is similarly skeptical of federal agencies' power, as past rulings have shown.On Thursday, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf">the court put a temporary hold</a> on the EPA's plan to reduce air pollution from power plants and pipelines that blow across state lines while a lawsuit plays out in a lower court. Last year, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed how many wetlands EPA can regulate to keep them clean. In 2022, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-limits-greenhouse-gas-regulations-west-virginia-v-epa-2022-6">the court limited the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions</a> from power plants, leading the Biden administration to issue another plan under the Clean Air Act that it hopes can withstand legal challenges.<h2 id="8531e43d-b476-4020-9d67-26599c42e9a5">How did this case end up at the Supreme Court?</h2>The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases involved commercial fishermen who opposed fees they had to pay to have federal observers aboard their vessels to prevent overfishing.The lawyers representing the commercial fisherman are from the Cause of Action Institute, a nonprofit group in the libertarian network built by Charles Koch, the petrochemicals billionaire who has advocated for deregulation.They argued the Chevron doctrine injures small businesses and individuals who have little power to influence federal agencies."Today's restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they're involved in fishing, farming, or retail," Bill Bright, the fisherman and plaintiff in the Loper Bright case, said in a statement.Defenders of Chevron argued that a broad swath of health, safety, and environmental regulations protecting the public could be upended if the doctrine were overturned, causing chaos. The doctrine is cited in more than 15,000 court decisions. Chevron also recognizes that agencies are often staffed by people with technical and scientific expertise that judges don't have.<h2 id="2f5434dc-7742-4115-875e-055829b5d1f7">What did the Supreme Court justices say?</h2>Roberts, in his opinion, said Chevron defies the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires courts to decide whether a federal agency acted within its legal authority."Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do," Roberts said.He also argued that the decision to overturn Chevron doesn't call into question prior cases that relied on it. Courts that decided agency actions were lawful are still subject to "statutory stare decisis."In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan countered that abandoning Chevron will make it difficult for policymakers to issue regulations that keep air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.Kagan added: "Congress knows that it does not — in fact cannot —write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from Loper Bright because she was involved in the case as a federal appeals court judge.<h2 id="8e1625cc-57cf-4b5d-8a05-6b593601c3d7">What could be the impact on climate policy?</h2>The reversal of Chevron doesn't change EPA's legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which was affirmed in a 2007 Supreme Court decision, legal experts say. Congress in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act also affirmed that power.But the Clean Air Act was written decades ago and left a lot of room for interpretation by EPA. The specific details of the agency's climate regulations may be more legally vulnerable now.At the same time, Biden's EPA hasn't relied on the Chevron doctrine to defend its climate rules because it's been preparing for this very decision from the Supreme Court, said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who argued <a target="_blank" href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467837/usrep467837.pdf">the original Chevron case</a> on behalf of the group in 1984.Paul DeCamp, an attorney at the Washington, DC-based firm Epstein Becker Green, said the overturning of Chevron creates a lot of uncertainty."There is now a new path to challenging agency action because the heavy thumb on the scale toward agencies as a result of Chevron has been removed," he said.That doesn't mean that most regulations are invalid, he added. He predicted that most federal action would survive because agencies try to stay within their legal boundaries.

The Supreme Court discards Chevron doctrine, unleashing a threat to Biden's climate policies

<ul class="summary-list"><li>X mistakenly transferred $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, said Brazil's Supreme Court.</li><li>The court demanded a correct payment before X's ban can be lifted nationwide.</li></ul><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk">Elon Musk's</a> X just botched a $5 million payment in Brazil by transferring it to the wrong bank, according to Brazil's Supreme Court, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-x-seek-resumption-brazil-service-fines-paid-sources-say-2024-10-04/">Reuters</a> reported on Saturday.This payment issue is the latest in a string of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-x-ban-feud-content-moderation-free-speech-2024-9">complications</a> in Brazil for the company formerly known as Twitter.In late August, Brazil's Supreme Court banned the platform for failing to comply with orders related to content moderation and for not appointing a legal representative in the country.The social media platform was also slapped with a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-hit-with-last-fine-before-reinstatement-brazil-2024-9">$5.2 million fine</a>.On Friday, X's legal team submitted documents showing that they paid the fines. But the court said that the money had been sent to the wrong bank, Reuters reported. The court said that the money must be redirected to the correct account before it can consider lifting X's ban in Brazil.The company's lawyers maintain that the company has correctly paid the fines, Reuters reported, which is the last hurdle the company has to overcome before being allowed to resume operations in Brazil.Brazil was one of X's key markets, with around 21.5 million users, making it the sixth-largest user base for the platform, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/x-asks-brazils-top-court-allow-it-resume-services-source-says-2024-09-26/#:~:text=Brazil%20was%20X's%20sixth%2Dbiggest,with%20about%2021.5%20million%20users.">Reuters</a> reported last month.The platform's legal troubles in the country have stirred <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fight-free-speech-france-brazil-2024-9">tensions</a> over issues of free speech between Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was overseeing the case.Musk, who positioned himself as a defender of free speech, clashed with the court over what he saw as an overreach, refused to comply with content removal orders, and launched personal attacks on de Moraes.De Moraes responded by banning the platform in Brazil, issuing additional fines, and threatening to arrest X's legal representatives.X and the Brazil Supreme Court did not respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside business hours.X's apparent payment blunder isn't the first of its kind — or anywhere near the largest. In 2020, Citigroup <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/citibank-revlon-loan-900-million-mistake-payment-how-it-happened-2021-2">accidentally sent</a> $900 million to Revlon's creditors. The bank spent the next two years in litigation trying to recover the funds, with 10 lenders refusing to return the amount, saying that they believed they were owed the money.

You Searched For "Supreme Court" and got 13 results

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

John L. Dorman

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Is it time to change the Supreme Court, and can it happen?

Insider

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival'

Grace Eliza Goodwin

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Natalie Musumeci

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

BI India Bureau

Big Tech gets a big win from the Supreme Court

Grace Eliza Goodwin

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

Brent D. Griffiths

The 5 biggest cases the Supreme Court hasn't yet decided

Brent D. Griffiths

Joe Biden wants to rein in the Supreme Court, saying it's gone rogue after rulings on abortion, presidential immunity

Mia Jankowicz

Biden is finalizing plans to announce term limits and a new ethics code targeting the Supreme Court

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

The Supreme Court discards Chevron doctrine, unleashing a threat to Biden's climate policies

Catherine Boudreau

Musk's X paid $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, Brazil's Supreme Court said

Lian Kit Wee

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides