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

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <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>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible.

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

New Delhi: Senior AAP leader <keyword id="19909124" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Manish-Sisodia" source="keywords">Manish Sisodia</keyword> on Saturday called upon party workers and people to fight against the "dictatorship" in the country, a day after he was released from jail in the Delhi excise policy case. Targeting the BJP, he also said these people are not more powerful than the Constitution. Every person has to fight against this "dictatorship" which is not just putting leaders in jail but also harassing citizens, Sisodia said while addressing <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> (AAP) workers at its headquarters here. He claimed that while in jail, he was not worried about getting bail but was pained seeing businessmen being put in prison in "fake cases just because they did not donate money to the BJP". The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday gave Sisodia bail in corruption and money laundering cases linked to the alleged excise policy "scam" and said his long incarceration of 17 months without trial had deprived him of the right to speedy justice. On AAP supremo and Delhi Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword>, who is also in jail in the case, Sisodia said he is the symbol of honesty in the country. Conspiracies are being hatched to defame Kejriwal's work, he said and added that if opposition leaders unite against the "dictatorship", Kejriwal will come out of jail in 24 hours. Sisodia told AAP workers that "we are just horses of a chariot but our real 'saarthi' (charioteer) is in jail, he will come out soon". On his bail verdict, Sisodia said the Supreme Court used the power of the Constitution to "trample dictatorship" yesterday. He said he was hoping to get justice in seven-to-eight months but it took 17 months. But at the end truth triumphed, Sisodia said. Seeking to target the BJP over the Vinesh Phogat issue, Sisodia, without taking the wrestler's name, said she protested against its leader and people saw what happened at the Olympics. Phogat, who was disqualified from the Paris Olympics for being found 100 grams overweight ahead of her women's 50kg final, was at the forefront of a lengthy protest alleging government inaction against former Wrestling Federation of India head Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, who was accused of sexual harassment by women wrestlers.

People have to fight against dictatorship in country: AAP leader Manish Sisodia

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

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

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

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

Expressing "serious concern" over <keyword id="19902052" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="pendency" source="keywords">pendency</keyword> of a large number of <keyword id="22472776" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="cheque-bounce-cases" source="keywords">cheque bounce cases</keyword>, the <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> has said courts should encourage <keyword id="20151747" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="compounding" source="keywords">compounding</keyword> of offences under the <keyword id="20905075" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Negotiable-Instruments-Act" source="keywords">Negotiable Instruments Act</keyword> if parties are willing to reach a compromise. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the conviction of a man named P Kumarasamy in a cheque bounce case, after noting that the parties have entered into a <keyword id="21163406" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="settlement-agreement" source="keywords">settlement agreement</keyword> and Rs 5.25 lakh has been paid to the complainant. "A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so," the bench said in its July 11 order. The Negotiable Instruments Act governs all negotiable instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. Compoundable offences are those where a compromise can be reached by the rival parties. The bench said it has to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a <keyword id="22472777" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="regulatory-offence" source="keywords">regulatory offence</keyword> which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. "Considering the totality of the circumstances and compromise between the parties, we allow this appeal and acquit the appellants by setting aside the impugned order dated April 1, 2019 as well the trial court's order dated October 16, 2012. Appellant no.2 (P Kumarasamy), who was exempted from surrendering by this Court, need not surrender and his sureties are hereby discharged," the bench ordered. The bench noted that in 2006, P Kumarasamy alias Ganesh had borrowed Rs 5,25,000 from respondent A Subramaniam but did not repay the loan. To discharge the debt, the bench said, Kumarasamy gave a cheque for Rs 5.25 lakh in the name of his partnership firm M/s New Win Export. "Since the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the appellants where the trial court vide order dated October 16, 2012 convicted the appellants and imposed a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment each," it said. It noted Kumarasamy challenged the conviction before the appellate court, which reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted him and the firm. "Finally, when the matter was taken to the high court at the instance of the respondent/complainant, the high court in its order dated April 1, 2019 set aside the order of the appellate court and restored the order of the trial court, convicting the appellants," the bench noted. It noted the firm and Kumarsamy challenged the high court order before the apex court. The bench added that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes all offences under it compoundable. "In our opinion, this settlement agreement can be treated to be compounding of the offence. All the same, Section 320 (5) of CrPC provides that if compounding has to be done after conviction, then it can only be done with the leave of the court where appeal against such conviction is pending," it said. The bench said in cases where the accused relies upon some document for compounding the offence at the appellate stage, courts shall try to check the veracity of such documents. "For the same, in the present matter, this court vide order dated March 18, 2024 had asked the respondent-complainant to file an affidavit to bring on record whether or not any compromise has been reached between the parties," it said. The bench said an affidavit was filed by the complainant in compliance with the order where it was said that the accused have paid the amount to the satisfaction of the complainant, and that he has no objection if conviction of the appellants is set aside. "Now, when the accused and complainant have reached a settlement permissible by law and this court has also satisfied itself regarding the genuineness of the settlement, we think that the conviction of the appellants would not serve any purpose and thus, it is required to be set aside," it said.

Pendency of large number of cheque bounce cases a serious concern: SC

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

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

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Supreme Court will likely discard the Chevron doctrine, which empowers federal agencies.</li><li>The decision could make it easier for courts to block President Joe Biden's climate policies.</li></ul>Climate advocates and business groups are closely watching the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-cases-supreme-court-hasnt-decided-trump-immunity-2024-6">US Supreme Court</a> this week.The court could issue a ruling that sharply curtails the federal government's power to regulate the environment, including <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-vote-climate-issue-2024-election-biden-trump-guide">President Joe Biden's climate policies</a>.The case involves a group of commercial fishermen who opposed fees they had to pay to have federal observers aboard their vessels to prevent overfishing. But at the center is 40 decades of legal precedent known as the Chevron doctrine that has shaped the role of federal agencies.Business groups and conservatives argue that the doctrine allows federal bureaucrats to overstep their authority on issues related not only to the environment but to broad swaths of the economy. The lawyers representing the commercial fisherman are from the Cause of Action Institute, a nonprofit group in the libertarian network built by Charles Koch, the petrochemicals billionaire who has advocated for deregulation.Environmental groups are worried that overturning the Chevron doctrine will make it easier for courts to block regulations, especially those from the Biden administration designed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions that are warming the planet.Here's what to know:<h2 id="595da1ae-b802-4da6-8a2e-a41ff0dc70fc">What is the Chevron doctrine?</h2>Congress writes laws, and federal agencies write the rules to implement them. But Congress isn't always clear, and it doesn't regularly update old laws to reflect scientific or technological advancements.The Chevron doctrine holds that when the law is ambiguous, courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation, as long as it's reasonable. These agencies are often staffed by people with technical and scientific expertise that judges don't have.That precedent stems from <a target="_blank" href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467837/usrep467837.pdf">a 1984 court case</a> over air-pollution rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. The decision was actually a defeat for environmentalists; the Natural Resources Defense Council had sought a more expansive definition of pollutants at big industrial plants like Chevron's but lost."The doctrine was neutral," said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the NRDC who argued the original Chevron case on behalf of the group. "It originally came up in a Reagan administration effort to weaken the Clean Air Act."Doniger said that since then, the Chevron opinion has been cited more than 15,000 times by courts across the country. But he added that as the Obama and Biden administrations have pushed for stronger environmental policies, business groups and conservatives have come to see Chevron as "systematically enabling the government to do more."<h2 id="0419d5a5-8f7c-4e7c-8e07-d66aff2cd2bc">Where do the justices stand?</h2>Legal experts say the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is likely to overturn or significantly limit the Chevron doctrine.Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said in oral arguments in January that Chevron was problematic for small businesses and individuals with little power to influence federal agencies.But Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, argued that health, safety, and environmental regulations protecting the public could be upended if Chevron were overturned.<h2 id="3c75ff4e-8b79-4bb9-b62f-824850c9c80a">What could be affected?</h2>Doniger said that while reining in Chevron could make it easier to win cases aimed at rolling back Biden's climate policies, it's hard to make predictions without knowing the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling.The EPA over the past year has set <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-ev-emissions-rule-labor-unions-auto-industry-2024-3">stricter limits on emissions from cars</a>, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/epa-hazardous-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-limits-2024-4">as well as on toxic chemicals in tap water</a> — all of which are the targets of lawsuits from Republican-led states, the fossil-fuel industry, or other businesses."Lawyers will try to characterize these rules as stretching EPA authority," Doniger said.Meanwhile, he added, administrative lawyers have been preparing for this very scenario at the Supreme Court. Biden's EPA hasn't relied on the Chevron doctrine to defend its climate rules.That's a departure from the Obama years, when the EPA cited the Chevron doctrine in its attempt to set the first limits on carbon emissions from power plants. Lengthy court battles ensued, and the Trump administration ultimately shelved the plan.

You Searched For "supreme court case against twitter" and got 10 results

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

Natalie Musumeci

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

ANI

People have to fight against dictatorship in country: AAP leader Manish Sisodia

PTI

Supreme Court hands Trump a huge victory in immunity case

Brent D. Griffiths

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

Brent D. Griffiths

Pendency of large number of cheque bounce cases a serious concern: SC

PTI

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

Lian Kit Wee

The Supreme Court is poised to unleash a weapon against Biden's climate policies

Catherine Boudreau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides