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>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

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses. The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children. <div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage. The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented. In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> challenging a <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal <keyword id="19917023" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="defamation-case" source="keywords">defamation case</keyword> for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber <keyword id="21917603" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhruv-Rathee" source="keywords">Dhruv Rathee</keyword> in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior <keyword id="22757218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="advocate-Abhishek-Singhvi" source="Orion">advocate Abhishek Singhvi</keyword>, appearing for <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword>, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the <keyword id="20738764" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP-IT-Cell" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP IT Cell" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BJP IT Cell">BJP IT Cell</keyword>. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

<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

<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.

You Searched For "Supreme Court cases" and got 7 results

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

John L. Dorman

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

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

PTI

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

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

Brent D. Griffiths

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides