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>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

Expanding the scope of its hearing in the <keyword id="19980518" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali" source="keywords">Patanjali</keyword> Ayurved case, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday took a stern view of <keyword id="20610549" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="misleading-advertisements" source="keywords">misleading advertisements</keyword> by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice which takes "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health. The court passed the order after Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they have issued unqualified public apology in as many as 67 newspapers over misleading advertisements and are willing to issue additional advertisements expressing their contrition. The bench said the public apology published in newspapers were not on record and asked those to be filed within two days. It posted the matter for April 30 for further consideration. While hearing the Patanjali case, the apex court said the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act and the related rules also needed a closer examination. It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms which have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation". "We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said. The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws. It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of Ayush asking them to not initiate any action under rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The bench also asked the <keyword id="20083252" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Medical-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Medical Association" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Indian Medical Association">Indian Medical Association</keyword> (IMA), the petitioner in the Patanjali advertisements case, to "put its house in order". It said several complaints have been made about alleged unethical acts by members of the IMA who prescribe highly expensive medicines and line of treatment. The bench also ordered impleading the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a respondent in the matter for effective assistance to the court. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd managing director Balkrishna, told the bench they have issued on Monday unqualified apology for the "lapses" on their part. "Where? Why it is not filed?" the bench asked. Rohatgi said it was issued on Monday in 67 newspapers across the country. When the court asked the senior advocate why did the respondents wait for a whole week before publishing the public apology, Rohatgi said, "Its language had to be changed". The court also quizzed him about the size of advertisements. "Is it the same size of advertisements that you normally issue in newspapers?" it asked Rohatgi, who submitted "It costs tens of lakhs (of rupees)". The bench ordered that the apology published be filed on record and added it wanted to see the actual advertisement published in newspapers. "The said advertisements are not on record. It is submitted that the same have been collated and shall be filed in the course of the day with copies to counsel for the parties. Needful shall be done within two days with copies to counsel for the parties," it said. The counsel said additional advertisement shall be issued by Ramdev and Balkrishna tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part. The bench said it was necessary to implead the three central ministries in order to examine the steps taken to prevent the abuse of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act. It said these ministries shall file affidavits enunciating the action they have taken to prevent the misuse/abuse of these statutes along with the relevant data since 2018. The bench said licencing authorities of all states and UTs shall also be impleaded as co-respondents in the matter. The bench told the IMA's counsel that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali, "the other four fingers are also pointing at you (IMA)". On April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank">Google Pixel 8a may be more expensive than its predecessor, as per a new leak</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank">Best smartphones under ₹25,000 in India</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank">At 17, Indian chess prodigy D Gukesh becomes youngest challenger for World Championship</a>

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

New Delhi [India], November 24 (ANI): Hearing the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday remarked that it is easy to make allegations against anyone and opined the petitioners to show some responsibility while levelling charges against any party. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the remarks when one of the petitioners raised questions over members of the expert committee. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court about one of the members of the expert committee Somashekhar Sundaresan, noting that he has been a lawyer representing Adin various forums including in the SEBI Board. CJI DY Chandrachud raised an objection to the petitioner's submission and remarked that if one goes with the theory that a lawyer who appeared 17 years ago can now not be appointed to the committee and like this, no lawyer who has appeared for an accused should become a High Court judge. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that he is not an in-house counsel he was a lawyer and he appeared in 2006 and this conflict arose 17 years later. There has to be some responsibility for the allegations being levelled, SC remarked. During the hearing, the court also remarked that it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. "We are not giving a character certificate to anyone," SC noted. When the hearing commenced today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that SEBI is not seeking an extension of further investigation matters relating to the Hindenburg report. Out of 24 cases in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, investigations in 22 cases are over For the remaining two cases, they need information from foreign regulators and others and they have been in consultation with them, SG Mehta informed the court. The court then said that it had intervened in the matter due to the extreme volatility of the stock market and sought to know what is SEBI planning to do for such kind of volatility and planning to protect investors in cases like short selling. SG Tushar Mehta took the court through the recommendations of the Expert Committee which SEBI has agreed with in principle. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the SC that there were many factual revelations in the Hindenburg report. He raised doubts about SEBI's role in the matter and says a lot of information was available to it in 2014. Bhushan informed the SC about a letter written in 2014 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding substantial money siphoned to Mauritius. SG Mehta questioned Bhushan over this and said that DRI concluded the proceedings in 2017. The court remarked that to advocate Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. SG Tushar Mehta urged the top court to stop these kinds of allegations. The court remarked that SEBI, a statutory body looks into stock market frauds. SG Tushar Mehta said that there is a growing tendency to plant stories outside India to influence decisions within India. After hearing the matter in length, the court reserved the order on various aspects related to the issue. Earlier, the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword> (SEBI) filed a status report before the Supreme Court apprising it that out of 24 investigations arising out of the Hindenburg report, 22 are final in nature and 2 are interim in nature. The investigation was carried out in compliance with the directions of the top court's order dated March 2, 2023, SEBI has investigated 24 matters. In the mid of May, the top court gave three months more time to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report SEBI was granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe. On March 2, the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword> directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group's market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors' interests. The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as "an unethical short seller", stating that the report by the New York-based entity was "nothing but a lie". A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

US short-seller <keyword id="20016892" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hindenburg-Research" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Hindenburg Research" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Hindenburg Research">Hindenburg Research</keyword> has alleged that it suspects <keyword id="19901201" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sebi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Sebi" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Sebi">SEBI</keyword>'s unwillingness to act against <keyword id="19955648" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Adani-Group" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Adani Group" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Adani Group">Adani Group</keyword> may be because of its head Madhabi Puri Buch had stakes in <keyword id="20311680" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="offshore-funds" source="keywords">offshore funds</keyword> linked to the conglomerate - an allegation that the SEBI head called "baseless" and an attempt of "character assassination". Hindenburg alleged that Buch and her husband had undisclosed investments in <keyword id="22746661" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="obscure-offshore" source="keywords">obscure offshore</keyword> funds in Bermuda and Mauritius, the same entities allegedly used by <keyword id="20283220" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vinod-Adani" source="keywords">Vinod Adani</keyword> - the elder brother of group chairman Gautam Adani - to round-trip funds and inflate stock prices. SEBI in October 2020 began a probe into the shareholding structure of Adani Group companies after red flags were raised over high concentration of foreign holdings in the conglomerate's listed companies. Investigation was launched to determine if the foreign investors are genuine public shareholders or acting as fronts for the promoters. SEBI last year had told a Supreme Court-appointed panel that it was investigating 13 opaque offshore entities that held between 14 per cent and 20 per cent across five publicly traded stocks of the conglomerate. It hasn't stated if the two incomplete probes have since been completed, something which Hindenburg used to attack the market regulator. Madhabi and her husband Dhaval Buch in a joint statement strongly denied the "baseless allegations and insinuations made in the report". The same, they said, "are devoid of any truth". "Our life and finances are an open book," they said. "It is unfortunate that Hindenburg Research against whom SEBI has taken an enforcement action and issued a show cause notice has chosen to attempt character assassination in response to the same." While the statement did not talk on the questions Hindenburg raised over SEBI probe, the duo promised to come out with a detailed response. Hindenburg on Saturday stated that the Madhabi and her husband invested in offshore entities that were allegedly part of a fund structure managed by India Infoline and in which Vinod Adani also had investments. These investments reportedly date back to 2015, well before her appointment as a whole-time member of SEBI in 2017 and the subsequent elevation as chairperson in March 2022. It said Bermuda-based Global Opportunities Fund, which allegedly was used by entities connected to Adani Group to trade in shares of group companies, had sub-funds. Buch and her husband were investors in one of these sub-funds in 2015. Citing "whistleblower documents", Hindenburg said, "<keyword id="22743118" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Madhabi-Buch" source="keywords">Madhabi Buch</keyword>, the current chairperson of SEBI, and her husband had stakes in both obscure offshore funds used in the Adani <keyword id="22743230" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="money-siphoning" source="keywords">money siphoning</keyword> scandal." SEBI, it claimed, has "shown a surprising lack of interest in Adani's alleged undisclosed web of Mauritius and offshore shell entities." The Buchs may have first opened their account with IPE Plus Fund 1 on June 5, 2015 in Singapore. IPE fund is a small offshore Mauritius fund set up by Vinod Adani through India Infoline (IIFL), a wealth management firm with ties to the Wirecard embezzlement scandal. "Vinod...used this structure to invest in Indian markets with funds allegedly siphoned from over invoicing of power equipment to Adani Group," claimed Hindenburg. Latching on to the Hindenburg allegations, Congress said the revelations only reinforced its demand for setting up a "joint parliamentary committee to investigate the full scope of the Adani mega scam" while the Trinamool Congress said the SEBI chairperson must resign. In January last year, Hindenburg accused Adani Group of pulling "the largest con in corporate history" by using a web of companies in tax havens to inflate its revenue and manipulate stock prices, even as debt piled up. After the Hindenburg report, the SC asked SEBI to complete its investigation and set up a separate expert panel to look into regulatory lapses. The panel did not give any adverse report on Adani and the apex court too stated that no other probe other than one being done by SEBI was required. On June 26 this year, SEBI in a show cause notice charged Hindenburg of "deliberately sensationalising and distorting certain facts" as well as working with a New York hedge fund to make its bet. Hindenburg had responded to that saying it made just USD 4.1 million from its declared positions on Adani stocks and criticised the regulator for not focusing its investigation into the January 2023 report "providing evidence" of the group creating "a vast network of offshore shell entities" and moving billions of dollars "surreptitiously" into and out of Adani public and private entities. Gautam Adani, who was the world's third-richest man before Hindenburg, in an epic comeback strategy raised USD 15 billion in equity and debt, sold some assets, repaid loans that was raised pledging shares, reined in expenses and refocused energies on core business. Adani is now ranked 12th richest in the world. The group has also made some acquisitions, buying cement company Sanghi Industries and the news agency IANS. Hindenburg on Saturday alleged that just weeks before Buch's appointment to SEBI, her husband requested the transfer of their investments into his sole control, potentially to avoid any scrutiny related to her new regulatory role. The couple's investments were reportedly funnelled through a complex, multi-layered offshore structure, raising questions about their legitimacy and purpose. On March 22, 2017, just weeks ahead of Buch's appointment as SEBI whole-time member, Dhaval wrote to Mauritius fund administrator Trident Trust. That communication was regarding his and his wife's investment in the Global Dynamic Opportunities Fund (GDOF), the US firm alleged. "In the letter, Dhaval requested to "be the sole person authorised to operate the Accounts", seemingly moving the assets out of his wife's name ahead of the politically sensitive appointment," Hindenburg alleged. Dhaval is a senior advisor at Blackstone and at Alvarez &amp; Marsal. He also serves as a non-executive director on the Board of Gildan.

After Adani, Hindenburg targets SEBI chief, she calls allegations baseless, character assassination

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="12954246" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="novavax" source="Orion">Novavax</keyword> and <keyword id="11901412" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="moderna" source="Orion">Moderna</keyword> shares were under pressure Friday after the Supreme Court struck down a vaccine mandate for private companies. </li><li>The ruling blocked the Biden administration's vaccine-or-testing mandate at private companies with more than 100 employees. </li></ul>Shares of Novavax and Moderna trimmed losses Friday after the Biden administration's vaccine-or-testing mandate for certain private companies was blocked by the Supreme Court. In a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-testing-mandate-covid-19-2022-1">6-3 ruling issued Thursday afternoon</a>, the court's conservative majority wrote in an unsigned <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">opinion</a> that the administration likely didn't hold the authority to impose its policy. <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/nvax-stock">Novavax</a> shares slumped 10% to $101.10 then pared the loss to 5%. <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/mrna-stock">Moderna</a> declined 3.5% to $202.88 before narrowing the pullback to 2.8%. Novavax stock closed Thursday's session down by 13.7% at $112.38, the lowest closing price since December 2020. For Moderna, its 5.7% fall in the previous session to $210.17 marked the lowest close since June 2021. Shares of vaccine maker <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/pfe-stock">Pfizer</a> were down by a more modest 0.6%. The stock finished Thursday with a 2% loss. "Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the court wrote.The mandate had been put in place for private companies with a workforce of more than 100 employees. The court's liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor held the dissenting opinion of the majority's ruling. The court did allow the Biden administration's requirement for vaccines for healthcare workers at federally funded facilities to take effect.

Moderna and Novavax pare losses after Supreme Court strikes down Biden's vaccine mandate for private employers

<ul class="summary-list"><li>After months of fighting with the country's courts, Elon Musk abandoned his free speech battle in Brazil.</li><li>But the billionaire hasn't picked the same fight in other countries where the legal risks are higher.</li></ul>After months of refusing to comply with court orders and being slapped with hefty fines, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk">Elon Musk</a> folded in his <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-brazil-free-speech-battle-over-2024-9">free speech battle in Brazil</a> — and a corporate law expert says he'll have to be choosy about where he picks his fights in the future.Access to Musk's social media platform, X, should be restored in Brazil within the next week once the company appoints a legal representative to respond to government requests to restrict or remove content on the site following local laws, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/21/world/americas/elon-musk-x-brazil.html">The New York Times</a> reported. X had been <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-judge-orders-elon-musk-x-stop-operations-2024-8">blocked across the country</a> since late August, and over the last several weeks, Brazil's Supreme Court imposed substantial fines on X and Starlink — a subsidiary of Musk's SpaceX — for refusing to obey the court's demands.Musk framed the months of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-x-ban-feud-content-moderation-free-speech-2024-9">legal back-and-forth</a> as a principled battle for free speech, painting Brazilian Supreme Court judge <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/x-closes-brazil-office-elon-musk-alexandre-de-moraes-2024-8">Alexandre de Moraes</a> as an overstepping tyrant bent on censoring his political opponents.The Brazilian high court last week <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-free-speech-content-moderation-fines-seizure-2024-9">seized over $3 million</a> from X and SpaceX to settle the fines levied against X, and earlier this month telecom regulators in the country threatened to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-starlink-sanctions-amid-feud-elon-musk-x-2024-9">revoke Starlink's license</a> to operate in Brazil. The Times reported that a loss of revenue in one of X's largest markets could have contributed to the company's decision to comply with court orders now.But an expert on corporate law told Business Insider that there's a reason the billionaire isn't taking his <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-free-speech-argument-brazil-x-twitter-2024-9">battle of free speech principles</a> to, say, France.<h2 id="b512bc7f-5eb3-4cec-a150-50dd314c0f99">Pavel Durov's arrest was a warning</h2>"All you have to see is what happened to Telegram, with Pavel," Anat Alon-Beck, a researcher focused on corporate law and governance at Case Western Reserve University's School of Law, told BI.In August, Telegram CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrested-french-airport-2024-8">Pavel Durov was arrested</a> in France and charged with six crimes related to illegal content being hosted on his messaging platform, including "complicity" in the distribution of child sexual abuse material and drug trafficking on <a target="_blank" rel="" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pavel-durov-arrest-france-what-is-telegram-explained-2024-8">Telegram,</a> as well as refusing to cooperate with an official investigation into the platform.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-charges-questions-free-speech-censorship-2024-8">Durov's arrest</a> raised international questions about tech executives' responsibility for the content hosted on their sites. Telegram, in a statement released shortly after his arrest, said Durov has "nothing to hide" and called the CEO's detainment "absurd."Outside the US, Alon-Beck noted, there's more privacy protection for consumers, more enforcement of content moderation laws, as well as different types of regulation, which forces tech executives to reconsider their approach to content moderation on their platforms to mitigate the risk of overstepping local laws and facing legal consequences — as Musk did in Brazil, and Durov did in France."In those markets, you have to comply. Nobody is above the law — not even Elon Musk," Alon-Beck said, adding that it doesn't matter what Musk feels about international laws, or how they compare to American regulations: "The point is, when you have global businesses and you're operating outside the US, you do have to listen to those laws or pay the price. If Elon wants to be able to travel freely, he'll have to comply, just like others will have to."Musk has previously complied with content moderation requests from other governments, including the increasingly authoritarian nations of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-censorship-elon-musk-throttled-tweets-turkey-presidential-election-2023-5">Turkey</a> and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-twitter-no-actual-choice-censorship-governmental-request-free-speech-2023-5">India</a>. In 2023, he indicated he would abide by the European Union's rulebook on content moderation, known as the Digital Services Act, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-twitter-will-respect-eu-content-moderation-rulebook/">Politico</a> reported.Alon-Beck said Durov's arrest served as a warning by French authorities to all tech executives who try to skirt local regulations, especially those related to content moderation on social media."I think that point was very well taken — or should be taken — by others," Alon-Beck said.After the Telegram CEO was arrested, Musk quickly chimed in on the situation with a series of posts on X, including adding a "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrest-france-free-speech-2024-8">FreePavel</a>" hashtag to a clip of Durov being interviewed by Tucker Carlson.Alon-Beck told BI that, in countries like France with strict laws around content moderation, Musk is no different than Durov, and she would expect he could be arrested if he continues to push the boundaries of local content moderation laws."It doesn't matter whether it's Instagram, or X, or Telegram — they're all platforms in those countries that are doing things differently than what we do here in the US," Alon-Beck said. "It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. The point is, they have those enforcement systems — and as you can see, they're strict about them."Representatives for X, Telegram, and the Brazilian Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Elon Musk has to be picky about where he fights for free speech, corporate law  expert says     

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s early life was overshadowed by the murder of his father.</li><li>He later struggled with a drug addiction.</li></ul>Robert F. Kennedy's children have spent a lifetime trying to add their marks to their slain father's legacy. They made history in public service, followed his footsteps into Congress, and contributed to an Academy Award-nominated documentary. Like their relatives born into the generation after Camelot, some struggled to shake <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-family-tragedies-curse-assassinations-plane-crashes-2023-3">the tinge of tragedy and scandal</a> that continues to hang around the famous family.Robert F. Kennedy's namesake has seen all elements of this journey.The first Kennedy to run for the presidency in decades,<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-rfk-jr-2023-7"> Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a> is doing so without the family's well-documented loyalty. Instead, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kennedy-family-members-who-oppose-rfk-jr-campaign-2024-2024-4">some of his siblings </a>have begged him to drop out. For years, they have worried, in increasingly public ways, that he's eroding the foundation of why the nation reveres them so much in the first place.<h2 id="bbfa73a4-629f-45ee-a9a7-1f394f9295e7">The son of the expected next Kennedy president.</h2>Born into privilege in 1954, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was raised between Massachusetts and suburban Virginia estates. He took an early interest in the outdoors, an affinity aided by the menagerie of animals kept at Hickory Hill, the family's McLean, Virginia mansion. He was the third of the 11 eventual children born to RFK and<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rfk-widow-says-assassin-sirhan-sirhan-should-not-get-parole-2021-9"> Ethel Kennedy.</a>He was asleep in his dorm at Georgetown Preparatory School on June 5, 1968, when a priest awoke him. He wasn't told what was happening, only that a ride would soon take him back to Hickory Hill. At the family home, he was told his dad had been shot the night before. He, Kathleen, and Joseph P. II flew out on Vice President Hubert Humphery's plane in a rush to be by their father's side.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was later a pallbearer at his father's funeral, joined by Astronaut John Glenn and former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.<div type="image" title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (front right) helps carry his father's casket" height="686" width="1024" msid="110340066" hostid="261" sizebytes="53690"></div>The 14-year-old never returned to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/georgetown-prep-school-brett-kavanaugh-neil-gorsuch-2018-8">Georgetown Prep</a>, which now counts two Supreme Court justices and multiple lawmakers among its influential alumni. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bounced between three private schools before graduating from high school. At Millbrook School in New York, he briefly kept a lion cub gifted to him by former "Tonight Show" host Jack Paar. Kennedy was forced to find a new home for the animal, aptly named Mtoto Mbaya, "Boy Boy" in Swahili, after a string of incidents, including when it bit the backside of the school's zoo keeper, according to "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Dark Side of the Dream," an unauthorized 2015 biography. It wasn't the animal that got him kicked out.Kennedy had begun to use drugs and not just marijuana, according to the 2015 book. Officials became increasingly concerned that they would be held responsible if another Kennedy died on their watch. Years later, Kennedy would tell Oprah that the source of his drug problems didn't truly matter. He viewed his problems more as being a product of the 1960s. Whatever the reason, his drug use would lead to repeated brushes with the law.<h2 id="1c32ab07-7e3c-4741-924b-27f9890e54ef">Kennedy graduates from Harvard, but drug use continues to hang over him.</h2>After graduating from high school, Kennedy attended Harvard, the alma mater of his father, uncle, and grandfather. Like JFK, RFK Jr. would see his senior thesis turned into a book. Unfortunately for him, reviewers reacted harshly to the tome about federal judge Frank M. Johnson Jr., whose rulings played a major role in the Civil Rights movement.After briefly attending the London School of Economics, Kennedy graduated from the University of Virginia Law School. While in Charlottesville, Kennedy met his first wife, Emily Black. Their wedding in Black's native Bloomington, Indiana, received international coverage as the Midwesterner joined the nation's foremost political family. The couple had two children together.<div type="image" title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is seen on his first wedding day" height="690" width="1024" msid="110340067" hostid="261" sizebytes="29434"></div>He filed for divorce in 1994 in the Dominican Republic, taking advantage of a local law that allows foreigners to file for divorce there and potentially trying to avoid media scrutiny.In March 1982, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, whom JFK had previously appointed to lead the famous Southern District of New York, hired RFK Jr. as an assistant district attorney. The famous son's first brush with politics in New York, the state his father represented in the US Senate, did not go well. Kennedy struggled to pass the bar exam. He resigned in July 1983.Months later, Kennedy would spark his largest legal scandal. While on the way to receive treatment in South Dakota for his addiction, a fellow passenger found him sick in an airplane's bathroom. Local authorities later found a small amount of heroin in his belongings. He faced up to two years in prison, according to The New York Times. Kennedy was sentenced to probation and community service.<h2 id="fd42bb34-5aa3-47c5-ab6e-4b6d3d6503c6">Kennedy found a new advocacy after his lowest moment.</h2>Kennedy's lowest moment led to his greatest reinvention. As part of his community service, he worked for the Natural Resources Defense Council and was later connected with the Hudson River Fishermen's Association. Robert Boyle, founder of the New York environmental group, began to mentor Kennedy. The organization already had notched major legal victories, but Kennedy's star power would help take it to new heights.He was so committed to his new career that in 1994, he married Mary Richardson, a longtime friend of his sister Kerry Kennedy, aboard a ship on the Hudson River.<div type="image" title="Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poses for a photo with actress Glenn Close in front of the Hudson River" height="717" width="1024" msid="110340068" hostid="261" sizebytes="62120"></div>But his relationship with Boyle did not last. His mentor later recalled that he was less than thrilled about the celebrities Kennedy soon brought onto the organization's board. He also chafed at his former protegé's other actions, particularly Kennedy's decision to hire a scientist named William Wegner. Kennedy defended hiring Wegner, who had served time in federal prison, saying that giving him a second chance was the right thing to do. Boyle was incensed given that Wegener was sentenced over his connections to a<a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-rfk-riverkeeper-egg-smuggler/"> bird smuggling ring</a>. Boyle and seven other officials later resigned from Riverkeeper's board in protest."I think he's a despicable person," Boyle told Kennedy's unauthorized biographer in 2014. Boyle's children recently told The Washington Post that his father later couldn't even bear looking at the Hudson as it was too much of a reminder of Kennedy's betrayal.As for Kennedy, his environmental advocacy became the foundation of his fame. In 1999, Time Magazine named Kennedy one of its "Heroes for the Planet" as part of a series of reports on leading environmentalists.While gaining fame, Kennedy began to notice problems with his voice. He recently told The Los Angeles Times that he was 42 when he first noticed the problem. Kennedy was later diagnosed with <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-rfk-jr-voice-raspy-cause-spasmodic-dysphonia-2023-8">spasmodic dysphonia</a>, a rare neurological condition that affects muscles in one's voice box.In 2010, Kennedy filed for divorce from Richardson, the mother of four of his six children. Two years later, she died by suicide at the couple's former Bedford estate.<h2 id="0bc52c2f-eeb4-43c1-b871-bc5e8352a934">After years of environmentalism, Kennedy became the face of anti-vaccine advocacy.</h2>After decades of environmental advocacy, Kennedy prepared to make his most controversial turn. In his retelling, mothers began to approach him at events to question whether vaccines had affected their children.In 2005, Kennedy wrote a piece for Salon and Rolling Stone that is now regarded as establishing him as a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/kennedy-vaccine-book/">major player in spreading vaccine skepticism</a>. Despite his claims of a major conspiracy over a mercury-based preservative that had already been "removed from all childhood vaccines except for some variations of the flu vaccine in 2001," according to STAT. Within days, Salon, which published the piece online, issued five corrections. In 2011, the site decided to retract the article entirely.In 2014, Kennedy married the actress <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/robert-kennedy-jr-net-worth-cheryl-hines-15-million-2023-8">Cheryl Hines,</a> best known for her co-starring role in the Larry David-led "Curb Your Enthusiasm."One year later, Kennedy joined the World Health Defense Fund. He continued to be involved with Riverkeeper, but his anti-vaccine advocacy overwhelmed his public persona.Kennedy's name fueled his rise in the movement, which drew on the credibility of his environmentalism and his famous family. In turn, the now-presidential hopeful began to cobble together what the Associated Press would later deem <a target="_blank" href="https://apnews.com/article/how-rfk-jr-built-anti-vaccine-juggernaut-amid-covid-4997be1bcf591fe8b7f1f90d16c9321e#">"an anti-vaccine juggernaut"</a> that he deployed when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived.

How RFK Kennedy Jr. turned from tragedy and tumult to environmentalism before becoming the face of vaccine skepticism

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> heard challenges to two <keyword id="11908406" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="biden-administration" source="Orion">Biden administration</keyword> <keyword id="12024971" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="vaccine-mandates" source="Orion">vaccine mandates</keyword> for private companies and health care workers.</li><li>The Biden administration says it has the authority to impose policies to help get the <keyword id="11896136" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="pandemic" source="Orion">pandemic</keyword> under control.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Friday heard challenges to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/">federal vaccine requirements</a> for around 100 million workers nationwide in a pair of cases that test a crucial part of the Biden administration's response to the pandemic.Last fall, President <keyword id="99719" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="joe-biden" source="Orion">Joe Biden</keyword> rolled out two COVID-19 <keyword id="11894310" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="vaccine" source="Orion">vaccine</keyword> mandates for private companies and healthcare employees in a bid to get more workers protected against the virus, keep the economy open, and bring the pandemic under control. But Republican officials and businesses immediately put up a fight, claiming the rules are government overreach. The showdown has now reached the Supreme Court."This is the deadliest pandemic in US history and workers are dying because of their exposure to the virus at work," US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court on Friday on behalf of the Biden administration. "It's a bureaucratic power move that's unprecedented," Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill told the court, arguing against the vaccine mandate imposed on healthcare workers.The cases were brought to the highest court on an emergency basis. Typically, the court responds by handing down decisions without a full briefing or oral arguments. But the court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/us/politics/osha-vaccine-mandate-supreme-court.html">decided</a> to speed up the cases and scheduled a special session to hear arguments on them. The move comes as the highly contagious Omicron variant drives a surge in COVID-19 infections and vaccine mandates remain a politically divisive topic.<h2>Vaccine mandates apply to 100 million workers</h2>One of Biden's policies, issued by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), orders large private companies with over 100 employees to get their workers vaccinated or tested weekly. The rule applies to roughly 84 million workers and allows religious exemptions.The other mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, requires vaccinations for healthcare workers at federally funded facilities. The rule makes exemptions for medical and religious reasons.Biden announced the measures on November 4 to increase the nationwide vaccination rate and prevent further COVID-19 infections. The <keyword id="11896084" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="white-house" source="Orion">White House</keyword> said in a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/">statement</a> at the time that while most American adults have gotten their shots, millions still haven't, so "more vaccinations are needed to save lives, protect the economy, and accelerate the path out of the pandemic."Several Republican-led states, a coalition of businesses, and other opponents challenged the regulations. They argue that the Biden administration does not have the legal authority to impose such sweeping policies and that the rules represent an infringement on individual rights. They also express concerns that the requirements could prove counterproductive, harming staffing levels and potentially closing businesses if workers refuse to comply. <div type="image" title="Supreme Court" height="2006" width="4013" msid="88765081" hostid="261"></div>The Biden administration has rejected both arguments, claiming the executive branch has the power to issue the mandates, and that workplaces where vaccines are already required have seen an increase in vaccination rates and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/health/vaccine-mandate-state-lawsuit.html">little fallout</a>. More generally, the federal government says vaccine requirements will prevent unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths. A federal appeals court sided with the challengers and <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/bidens-workplace-vaccine-or-test-rule-halted-by-fifth-circuit">blocked</a> the OSHA policy on November 6. But another federal appeals court <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/appeals-court-allows-biden-vaccine-mandate-for-large-businesses-2021-12">reinstated</a> the measure on a December 17, so the challengers brought their case to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration set a January 4 deadline for the rule to take effect, but <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/biden-administration-suspends-enforcement-of-business-vaccine-mandate.html">postponed</a> it to January 10 amid the legal battle. Lower courts have been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/biden-vaccine-policies-supreme-court/2021/12/30/9574ede6-69ab-11ec-96f3-b8d3be309b6e_story.html">divided</a> on the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. One federal appeals court dismissed a challenge. But two other courts blocked the requirement from taking effect in about half of US states, prompting the Biden administration to appeal.<h2>'Why doesn't Congress have a say?' </h2>The court on Friday heard roughly 3 1/2 hours of oral arguments for each mandate.On the OSHA policy, the justices appeared split along ideological lines. The court's conservatives seemed skeptical, while the liberal justices said it's an appropriate response to a once-in-a-century pandemic. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, questioned if states or Congress should decide vaccine requirements instead of federal agencies. "Why doesn't Congress have a say in this?" Roberts asked. "Why isn't this the primary responsibility of the states?"Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer, the most senior liberal on the court, said, "It would be unbelievable to be in the public interest to stop these vaccinations.""What else should be done?" liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked. "It is obviously the policy geared towards preventing the most sickness and death and the agency has done everything but stand on its head to show, quite clearly, that no other policy will prevent sickness and death to anywhere like the degree this one will."<div type="image" title="Justice Elena Kagan" height="1551" width="3102" msid="88765083" hostid="261"></div>Kagan also commented on the historic nature of the public health crisis."This is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died," she said. "This is the policy that is most geared to stop all this."However, some of the court's conservatives seemed more receptive to the Biden administration's mandate on healthcare employees who work at facilities that receive federal funding.Justice Brett Kavanaugh called the situation "very unusual" given that states are challenging the mandate and that the hospitals and health care facilities affected by the policy "are not here complaining about" it."What are we to make of that?" he asked.The reality of the pandemic also seeped into Friday's proceedings. One justice, Sonia Sotomayor, participated in the arguments remotely, but the court did not elaborate why. Two lawyers challenging the mandates <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lawyers-supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate-positive-covid-19-2022-1">argued remotely</a> as well after testing positive for COVID-19. Justice Neil Gorsuch was only justice in the courtroom who didn't wear a mask.<h2>Supreme Court has upheld other vaccine mandates</h2>The vaccine challenges come before the court as COVID-19 cases surge nationwide. Over 100,000 people are currently hospitalized with the virus, and more than 800,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, according to federal health <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html">data</a>. Public health experts say that vaccination is key to preventing severe illness and death from coronavirus.The Supreme Court has upheld <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-wont-stop-maine-vaccine-mandates-for-health-workers-2021-10">multiple vaccine mandates</a>, including a statewide requirement for healthcare workers in Maine, a New York City requirement for public school teachers, and an Indiana University requirement for staff and students.Yet the cases before the court right now are different because they consider whether the executive branch overstepped its authority. The court is also made up of 6-3 conservative majority, which has previously struck down a Biden administration pandemic policy — the CDC eviction moratorium — because of its executive overreach.The court could hand down its decisions on the vaccine mandate challenges on an expedited basis, meaning in weeks or days.To be sure, the justices are reviewing whether the mandates can take effect while litigation continues. It's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-vaccine-mandates-what-to-watch-for-according-to-expert-2022-1">unclear</a> whether the Supreme Court will issue a broad ruling that considers if the mandates are lawful. Either way, should the court agree with the challengers, the outcome could dramatically alter the Biden administration's response to the pandemic.

Biden's vaccine mandates are challenged at the Supreme Court as COVID-19 cases spike nationwide

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="11908406" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="biden-administration" source="Orion">Biden administration</keyword>'s federal <keyword id="12024971" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="vaccine-mandates" source="Orion">vaccine mandates</keyword> are heading to the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday.</li><li>Justices will decide whether the mandates can proceed or if they'll be blocked amid ongoing legal battles.</li></ul>As the pandemic approaches its two-year mark, the Supreme Court on Friday is set to review emergency challenges to two federal <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/vaccine-mandate">vaccine mandates</a> announced by the Biden administration last year.The first measure being considered is an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/osha-to-begin-issuing-vaccine-mandate-fines-january-10-2021-12">Occupational Safety and Health Administration</a> mandate targeting private companies with more than 100 workers that requires employees to be vaccinated or tested regularly and wear masks. The second measure is a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services vaccine mandate that requires inoculations for all healthcare workers employed by operations that receive specific federal funding."They are very different issues," Brian Dean Abramson, an adjunct professor of vaccine law at Florida International University and author of "Vaccine, Vaccination, and Immunization Law" told Insider. "But it's actually common for the Supreme Court to bundle issues that touch on common areas of law."When <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/">President Joe Biden announced the measures in November</a>, he said the mandates, which affect nearly 100 million American workers, were meant to increase inoculation rates and end the pandemic "for good." But several legal challenges have popped up along the way. Litigants in the cases include several businesses, religious groups, and GOP-led states. The mandates come to the Supreme Court on Friday following a slew of rulings, and overturned rulings among divided district court justices in recent months. As the top court commences on Friday, the justices are not expected to rule on the constitutionality of federal vaccine mandates. Instead, they will review whether current stays on the mandates issued by lower level courts should be upheld or dismissed. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the mandates will be allowed to proceed or if they will be blocked as legal battles wage on.According to Abramson, it's unusual for the top court to hear oral arguments on matters of staying an issue, the likes of which are usually relegated to their "shadow docket.""The fact that there is a hearing on whether to stay means multiple justices want to hear this out," Abramson said. Ahead of the hearings, Abramson told Insider what he'll be carefully watching for. <h2>Narrow vs. Broad Decision</h2>A big question surrounding Friday's hearings is whether the justices are looking to make a narrow decision — a ruling that would be applied only to these particular mandates — or a broad decision — one that could set a new legal precedent moving forward. Paying attention to their lines of questioning could offer hints about which way justices are leaning, Abramson said.If they spend a good amount of time examining the procedural aspects of the mandates, it could indicate that the justices are more interested in issuing a narrow decision applied only to these specific mandates.Questions are likely to arise around the Emergency Temporary Statute process under which OSHA issued its mandate. Typically the agency is required to follow several steps when making a new rule, including offering time for public notice, comment, and proceedings. But the agency's Emergency Temporary Statute allows OSHA to skip the normal process in favor of establishing a rapid, temporary rule in the midst of a public emergency.The primary question surrounding the OSHA mandate is whether or not the pandemic is a dire enough emergency to allow the normal process to be skipped, according to Abramson.The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate is slightly different, in that the agency doesn't have its own emergency process to create a new rule, but instead, has applied its general authority to protect patients and healthcare workers under what's known as an "interim final rule," which is a statute that is meant to eventually become permanent, Abramson said.On the other hand, if justices focus their questions on issues of constitutionality and the limits of federal power, they may be more interested in ruling broadly and looking toward establishing future "ultimate law" on a hypothetical federal mandate down the line. <div type="image" title="Anti-vaccine protest" height="512" width="1024" msid="88749349" hostid="261"></div><h2>Temporary or Permanent Mandates?</h2>As the pandemic enters another year, timelines in place for COVID-19 procedures like masks and lockdowns have become more and more nebulous. The emergency measures were put in place to help end the pandemic quickly and effectively, but were understood to be temporary measures when first implemented. As the pandemic rages on, justices are now tasked with ruling on whether governmental efforts to combat the pandemic will give way to permanent changes, and according to Abramson, some justices in courts across the country are beginning to express concerns about those uncertain timelines. The 6-month OSHA vaccine mandate, for example, is set to expire in April, but it's unclear whether the agency plans to re-up the requirement or let it expire.While Friday's hearings are primarily focused on the stays, Abramson said some lower courts have started to examine questions of constitutionality related to federal mandates, even as they deliberate on the smaller issue of stays. It's unclear whether the Supreme Court will do the same."They might want to address whether this action is proper partly on…whether this is perceived to be a permanent change or an emergency measure to temporary situation," Abramson said.<h2>What comes after the SCOTUS ruling?</h2>There are at least four possible outcomes from Friday's hearings, and the two mandates, though similar in nature, are nuanced enough that different results for each could be possible, Abramson said. The unlikeliest of the four options, according to Abramson, is that the court rules that vaccine mandates are flatly unconstitutional. If that happens, vaccine mandates are probably done for, though they would make one more appearance at the Supreme Court for final trial ruling following the conclusion of ongoing challenges currently taking place in the lower courts.Conversely, the stays could be dismissed completely and the temporary mandates upheld. If this happens, the Biden administration has said it will start enforcing compliance with the healthcare mandate next week. In states where the requirement has not been blocked, vaccination for workers is required by February 28. The OSHA mandate was set to take effect earlier this month, but the agency pushed back the date because of the pending litigation. But even if the stays are dismissed completely, there will still be district and appellate court proceedings regarding the mandates, and businesses that disagree with or find certain aspects of the statute challenging, could still bring forth individual challenges, Abramson said. Another possibility is that the stays are upheld, but on a narrow, procedural basis. The mandates would be blocked in this case, but OSHA could theoretically promulgate a new rule under its normal rule-making process to mandate vaccines before April. Historically, however, the OSHA rulemaking process often takes years to complete.Similarly, if the stays are upheld because the court finds that Congress didn't have the power to give agencies the authority to mandate vaccines, Congress could feasibly produce a quick piece of legislation granting themselves that power, Abramson said.The fourth potential outcome would be a partial stay of some sort, which could mean the court rules that the mandates can't be imposed with respect to certain businesses or situations. A partial, narrow ruling would likely lead to logistical changes in the way the standards are carried out moving forward, Abramson said.<div type="image" title="booster vaccine" height="2750" width="5500" msid="88749351" hostid="261"></div><h2>Abramson's predictions</h2>It's unclear how long the court might take to come to a ruling, though Abramson doubted it would stretch on too long.The expert told Insider that he expects there to be at least three opinions out of the Supreme Court hearings: a majority determination, a dissenting opinion, and conceivably differing majority or dissenting opinions as well. "I think it's kind of three judges in the middle who will make the difference on how broadly or narrowly these mandates are approached, and how pragmatic the decision is," he said, citing Justices John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh as possible wildcards."If I had to flip a coin on it, I would think there will be some way in which these mandates are allowed to go forward," he added. "But I wouldn't be stunned if the stays were continued either."

What to watch for as the Supreme Court reviews challenges to Biden's federal vaccine mandates on Friday

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Labor Department said that it would delay its vaccine-or-testing rule for large businesses until Feb. 9.</li><li>The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Friday <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0287p-06.pdf">ruled</a> that the mandate could stand.</li></ul>The <keyword id="11908406" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="biden-administration" source="Orion">Biden administration</keyword> will give employers additional time to abide by a federal requirement that workers get vaccinated against <keyword id="11893994" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="covid-19" source="Orion">COVID-19</keyword> or be subject to testing after a federal court reinstated the rule.<a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osha/osha20211218">In a statement</a> issued on Saturday, the Department of Labor granted the extension after the Ohio-based US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Friday allowed the requirement to proceed. A three-judge panel <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0287p-06.pdf">ruled</a> that the <keyword id="12063660" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="osha" source="Orion">OSHA</keyword> requirement was within the agency's purview."The record establishes that Covid-19 has continued to spread, mutate, kill and block the safe return of American workers to their jobs," wrote Judge Jane B. Stranch. "To protect workers, OSHA can and must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve."According to the department, employees who haven't been fully vaccinated won't have to adhere to the requirement until February 9 — more than four weeks after the initial January 4 deadline.The Labor Department in a statement said that no "citations for noncompliance" will be issued before February 9 for testing rules "so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard."In the Biden mandate — which would affect 80 million individuals — private business that employed at least 100 people were to have ascertained the vaccination status of all workers and mandated that unvaccinated staffers wear face coverings by a December 6 deadline.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the workplace-safety agency overseeing the implementation of the rule, lauded the court's decision."OSHA is gratified the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dissolved the Fifth Circuit's stay of the Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard," <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osha/osha20211218">per the agency's statement</a>. "OSHA can now once again implement this vital workplace health standard, which will protect the health of workers by mitigating the spread of the unprecedented virus in the workplace."Several GOP-led states have challenged the vaccine rule — arguing that it it exceeds the authority of OSHA — but the court on Friday disputed that argument."The claim that COVID-19 exists outside the workplace and thus is not a grave danger in the workplace is equally unavailing. As discussed above, OSHA routinely regulates hazards that exist both inside and outside the workplace," Stranch wrote. "More to the point, OSHA here demonstrated with substantial evidence that the nature of the workplace — commonplace across the country and in virtually every industry — presents a heightened risk of exposure."David Michaels, an assistant secretary of labor for OSHA during the Obama administration and an epidemiologist at the George Washington University School of Public Health, told USA Today that the spread of the omicron variant should push employers to "ramp up workplace protections as quickly as possible."A coalition of twenty-seven business groups quickly responded to the court's decision on Friday, filing an appeal with the US <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> to block the vaccine requirement."It will impose substantial, nonrecoverable compliance costs on those businesses. Those businesses will be faced with either incurring the costs of testing for the millions of employees who refuse to be vaccinated — and passing those costs on to consumers in the form of yet higher prices at a time of record inflation — or imposing the costs of testing upon their unvaccinated employees, who will quit en masse rather than suffer additional testing costs each week," the appeal says.As of December 17, more than 806,000 people have died of the coronavirus in the US, with nearly 50.8 million confirmed cases, <a href="https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/">according to Johns Hopkins University</a>.

You Searched For "supreme court about vaccine price" and got 10 results

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

Natalie Musumeci

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

PTI

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

ANI

After Adani, Hindenburg targets SEBI chief, she calls allegations baseless, character assassination

PTI

Moderna and Novavax pare losses after Supreme Court strikes down Biden's vaccine mandate for private employers

Carla Mozée

Elon Musk has to be picky about where he fights for free speech, corporate law expert says

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

How RFK Kennedy Jr. turned from tragedy and tumult to environmentalism before becoming the face of vaccine skepticism

Brent D. Griffiths

Biden's vaccine mandates are challenged at the Supreme Court as COVID-19 cases spike nationwide

Oma Seddiq

What to watch for as the Supreme Court reviews challenges to Biden's federal vaccine mandates on Friday

Erin Snodgrass

Biden extends deadline for businesses to meet COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement

John L. Dorman

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides