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

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <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>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Elon Musk's SpaceX has warned employees not to travel to Brazil for work or personal reasons.</li><li>Non-Brazilian employees are also being relocated from the country, according to reports.</li></ul>Elon Musk's other companies are getting swept up in his escalating <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-x-ban-feud-content-moderation-free-speech-2024-9">feud with a Brazilian judge</a> over X.SpaceX has warned its employees not to travel to Brazil for either work or personal reasons, according to an internal email seen by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-04/spacex-warns-employees-not-to-travel-to-brazil-amid-musk-fight?srnd=phx-latest">Bloomberg</a>.In the email, which was sent at the end of last week, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell wrote to employees to "convey the seriousness of this situation" and told them to "avoid any travel — for work or personal reasons — to Brazil."SpaceX is also attempting to relocate its few non-Brazilian employees who work in the country, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.wsj.com/business/telecom/spacex-brazil-elon-musk-supreme-court-2acb87e3">The Wall Street Journal </a>reported.Reports did not specify what risk SpaceX believed its employees faced in Brazil, but the move comes as the clash between Elon Musk and the nation's Supreme Court <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/brazil-starlink-sanctions-amid-feud-elon-musk-x-2024-9#:~:text=It's%20the%20latest%20escalation%20in,fines%20that%20currently%20exceed%20%243">continues to intensify</a>.On the weekend, Brazil's Supreme Court upheld a decision by one of its members, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, to suspend access to the billionaire's social media platform X.Moraes said X had failed to comply with court orders about content moderation and refused to pay fines exceeding $3 million.The social media platform had not appointed a new legal representative to respond to government requests about removing content supporting <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supporters-of-brazils-former-president-jair-bolsonaro-storm-congress-2023-1">former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro</a>.Moraes has headed efforts to crack down on "fake news," including tightening free speech regulations, since 2019, when he opened an investigation into disinformation generated during Bolsonaro's government.He issued an order to ban certain X accounts that helped spread election misinformation in April, which Musk <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776989005848207503">vocally opposed</a>.<div type="image" title="Brazil's Justice Minister Alexandre de Moraes leaves the Justice Palace in Brasilia, Brazil February 6, 2017. REUTERS/Adriano Machado" height="524" width="799" msid="113095705" hostid="261" sizebytes="21742"></div>The billionaire has <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1829308905177956551">taken to X</a> to lambast Moraes, calling him "an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge."Brazil's court has also taken action against Starlink, the satellite internet service owned by SpaceX that provides connectivity to over 200,000 Brazilian customers.Starlink's bank accounts have been frozen, and the company has been prevented from conducting financial transactions in Brazil.Starlink said in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/Starlink/status/1831053118265843722">a post on X</a> that it was doing everything possible to keep customers in Brazil connected and had begun legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court to reverse the sanctions."We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre's recent orders violate the Brazilian constitution," the company said.The social media company Telegram was also banned in Brazil last year for failing to cooperate with requests to block certain profiles.SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside regular US working hours.

SpaceX tells employees not to travel to Brazil, as Elon Musk's fight with its Supreme Court over X intensifies

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Several important Supreme Court decisions this term dealt with questions of executive power.</li><li>In two rulings, SCOTUS expanded presidential power and limited the rest of the executive branch.</li></ul>With its rulings this term, the Supreme Court created a perfect storm for the lower courts to be inundated with legal challenges on everything from the applications of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-climate-policy-supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-federal-regulations-2024-6">regulatory laws</a> to the scope of the presidency's power.In doing so, the high court has set up a political chessboard through which the judicial branch can claw power away from the established executive authority.Meanwhile, some members of lower courts — such as US District Judge Aileen Cannon, in her Monday decision to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-case-dismissed-judge-2024-7">toss out Donald Trump's classified documents case</a> — are, intentionally or not, creating ways to assist SCOTUS in methodically shrinking the executive branch's power.<h2 id="297304dc-86ee-4c7b-bd78-2c06bdda177a">The Supreme Court's attack on executive power</h2>Taken together, two specific Supreme Court decisions this term — on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — combined to create a window for an array of new lawsuits to challenge once-settled law and be reinterpreted by a deeply polarized court. And in the cunning way the high court's conservative majority phrased its decisions, the justices kept the power to clean up the mess for themselves.In a ruling on June 28, the court overturned 40 years of precedent and rolled back the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-chevron-doctrine-bidens-climate-policies-at-risk-2024-6">Chevron doctrine</a>. Once considered a victory among conservative lawmakers because it had upheld a deregulatory interpretation of policy by the Reagan administration, the Chevron doctrine gave the Environmental Protection Agency — and federal agencies more broadly — the power to interpret ambiguous regulatory language in laws enacted by Congress, as long as the agency's interpretation was reasonable.By rolling Chevron back, the Court decided it should no longer defer to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-says-biden-isnt-using-his-executive-powers-enough-2022-2">executive branch</a> interpretations of the laws involving its agencies. It has now limited the power of presidentially appointed officials to determine how their agencies should be run under existing laws."So that is, in theory, taking power away from unelected officials," Justin Crowe, a professor of political science at Williams University who researches the Supreme Court, told Business Insider. "But, where is that power going? It's not exactly going to the people or to elected officials. In some roundabout sense it might be going to Congress, but in reality, it's going to courts and judges, and giving courts and judges the ability to second-guess agency decisions."Under the new rules, federal agencies wouldn't be the authority on the regulations they enforce. That means a plaintiff could challenge regulatory rules and enforcement methods by agencies like the EPA, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/securities-and-exchange-commission">Securities Exchange Commission</a>, or Department of Health and Human Service, and the Court would be allowed to interpret the legal regulations, potentially siphoning even more power from the executive branch.<h2 id="b2822377-27ec-4a45-a744-9026d8f1498d">A one-two punch against regulation</h2>Corner Post was decided on July 1, receiving less media attention than Loper did several days prior. But, when combined with the outcome of the Loper decision, Corner Post "almost encourages the targets of administrative regulation to sue," according to Jonathan Entin, a retired constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University."Loper says no deference to the agency; the courts are supposed to interpret regulations. But the Corner Post case, which was a challenge to a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/what-is-the-federal-reserve">Federal Reserve Board</a> regulation about card swiping fees, may encourage loads of legal challenges," Entin, who clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was in the DC Circuit, said.In the Corner Post case, Entin told BI, the Court expanded the six-year time limit for plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-decisions-chevron-sec-federal-government-regulations-2024-6">federal agencies</a> over their regulatory rules. The new limitations are no longer based on when the rule was implemented, as a lower court had determined. Instead, the high court decided the countdown begins when a plaintiff says they were injured by the rule — which "opens up every rule for renewed challenges by just anybody," Entin said.This means that a plaintiff could sue over a rule enacted decades ago if they can make a case that they were hurt by the regulation within the last six years — like a newly created gas station suing over emissions regulations that it claims hinder its business, giving the current court a window to reinterpret old law.With Corner Post, Entin said, the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-rules-trump-disqualified-from-2024-primary-ballot-2023-12">Supreme Court</a> created a statute of limitations that, from the standpoint of federal agencies, never really expires.<h2 id="35a4e83c-8788-4d29-b479-5fd7ca8a9ed0">A 'tsunami of lawsuits'</h2>In her dissent in the Corner Post case, <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> noted that taken together, the Loper and Corner Post decisions would open up a "tsunami of lawsuits" from plaintiffs who have grievances with various federal regulations — from the Federal Reserve Board's fees for debit card processing to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act and beyond. Those inevitable legal challenges will offer the Court ample opportunities to weigh in — and flex its power — in the future.But the Court didn't stop at giving itself the reins to interpret regulations that federal agencies are beholden to.The most striking example might be the Supreme Court's ruling in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-january-6-election-ruling-decision-2024-5">Trump v. United States</a>, in which the court granted widespread immunity to sitting presidents for official actions taken in office. But an insidious element of the Trump case is that it gave the judiciary the power to decide what exactly constitutes an official, protected, action, compared to an unofficial — and thereby unprotected — one.In the Trump case, the Supreme Court offered Trump broad immunity for some of his acts concerning his January 6 <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/law-review-brett-kavanaugh-clue-scotus-trump-immunity-2024-4">election interference case</a>. It also kicked some decisions back down to DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine whether other elements of the charges against the former president would be protected by the "official act" immunity or if he could still be prosecuted for them.Additional challenges from the Trump camp on Chutkan's decisions could land the case back on the Supreme Court's desk for more specific interpretation.Similarly, Judge Cannon's Monday decision to toss out the former president's classified documents case will almost certainly find its way to the Supreme Court after appeal.Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, ruled that the appointment of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cannon-suggests-special-counsel-should-have-taken-her-more-seriously-2024-7">Special Counsel Jack Smith</a> to prosecute the former president was unconstitutional because Smith was not approved by Congress to fill the role like other legal officers of the US who have the power to impanel grand juries and bring indictments.Smith was assigned to the job by Attorney General Merrick Garland — a presidentially appointed position. Special counsels have historically been used for major cases in which Justice Department officials may have a conflict of interest, such as the Ronald Reagan-era Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton's Whitewater controversy, and the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-may-lose-trial-politics-appeals-2024-6">criminal investigation into Hunter Biden</a>.Clarence Thomas signaled in his opinion in the Supreme Court's immunity case ruling this month that he believes many types of special counsels are unconstitutional. It was only weeks after Thomas's opinion that Cannon made her ruling.While other conservative justices have not so clearly stated their opinion on special counsels, a future ruling preventing their use would erode the right of the Attorney General's office to appoint special prosecutors, removing that power from the executive branch.The pattern is not limited to the immunity case or those involving business regulations — it's part of a trend of the Supreme Court <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-decisions-chevron-sec-federal-government-regulations-2024-6">dismantling</a> the non-presidential powers of the executive branch, rolling back laws, and reversing lower court rulings involving <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-tosses-ban-bump-stocks-guns-alito-congress-2024-6">guns</a>, emergency <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-opinion-allowing-emergency-abortions-in-idaho-was-posted-early-2024-6">abortions</a>, and where <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-homeless-camp-removal-without-adequate-shelter-beds-2024-6">homeless people are allowed to sleep</a>.In the July 6 episode of Slate's Supreme Court analysis podcast "Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick," Senior Court Reporter Mark Joseph Stern said the Court spent this term expanding its power and "restructuring representative democracy to make it less representative and less democratic."And it can keep happening no matter who is in the White House."It strikes me that this is a court that does not have a modest view of its own role," Entin told BI. "It has reached out to decide things that it didn't necessarily have to decide, and by doing so, it encourages other potential litigants to try to swing for the fences. And whether the court got these cases right or not, I think we're going to see more cases raising these sorts of issues come along."

The Supreme Court is sending some mixed signals about executive power

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Biden announced an additional $4.5 billion in student-debt cancellation for 60,000 borrowers in public service.</li><li>It's a result of fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program over the past few years.</li></ul>Another batch of student-loan borrowers in public service has been approved for billions of dollars in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-student-loan-forgiveness-borrowers-save-plan-pslf-debt-cancellation-2024-4">debt relief</a>.On Thursday, President Joe Biden and the Education Department announced that 60,000 borrowers are getting $4.5 billion in student-loan forgiveness following fixes to the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-borrowers-debt-cancellation-pslf-back-processing-applications-2024-7">Public Service Loan Forgiveness program</a>, which forgives student debt for government and nonprofit workers after 10 years of qualifying payments.According to the White House, this brings the number of borrowers approved for debt relief through PSLF to 1 million under the Biden administration."If you ever wonder if change is possible, if you ever wonder if what's broken can be fixed, if you ever wonder whether the government can turn a promise broken into a promise kept, just look at what President Biden and Vice President Harris did for these 1 million public servants across the country today," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters on a Wednesday press call.Under the Trump administration, the majority of borrowers in public service <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-debt-cancellation-payment-pause-borrowers-disabilities-defrauded-2021-6">were not approved</a> for relief through PSLF due to flaws within the program, including rejections due to paperwork errors and processing backlogs. The Biden administration <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/attorneys-general-biden-extend-pslf-waiver-student-debt-confusion-harm-2022-8">took steps to reform the program</a>, including reevaluating borrowers' accounts to determine if payments they previously made would bring them to the threshold for relief.These fixes have resulted in incremental batches of relief over the past few years; in July, for example, the Education Department approved another <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-pslf-borrowers-getting-debt-cancellation-biden-relief-2024-7">35,000 in PSLF for $1.2 billion in debt cancellation</a>.Still, this latest relief comes at a moment of uncertainty for millions of federal borrowers. Earlier this year, a group of GOP state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-lower-monthly-payments-save-plan-courts-2024-6">block Biden's new SAVE income-driven repayment plan</a>, intended to give borrowers more affordable monthly payments with a shorter timeline for loan forgiveness. A federal court blocked the entirety of the plan pending a final decision on its legality, leaving 8 million enrolled borrowers in limbo.Additionally, Biden's second attempt at broader student-loan forgiveness <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-borrowers-first-lawsuit-broad-debt-cancellation-biden-relief-2024-9">is also stalled in court</a>. After the Supreme Court struck down his first try at broad debt relief last summer, the Education Department announced a Plan B that would forgive student debt for borrowers under the Higher Education Act of 1965, expected to benefit <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-announces-new-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-who-qualifies-relief-2024-4">over 30 million borrowers</a>.While the department has not yet released a final rule for the relief, a federal court placed a preliminary injunction on the plan following a lawsuit from GOP attorneys general who said the department was violating administration procedure by planning to implement the relief ahead of schedule.A senior administration official told reporters on the Wednesday press call that the Education Department will continue moving forward with targeted forms of debt relief for borrowers while its broader plans remain on hold as the legal process progresses."From day one of my Administration, I promised to fight to ensure higher education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity," Biden said in a Thursday statement. "I will never stop working to make higher education affordable – no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us."

60,000 student-loan borrowers in public service are getting $4.5 billion in debt cancellation while Biden's broader relief remains blocked in court

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling restricting the removal of homeless encampments.</li><li>Governments can now bar people from sleeping on the street, even when shelter beds aren't available.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that it's constitutional for local governments to make it illegal to sleep in public places, even when there aren't sufficient shelter beds.The case — <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf">City of Grants Pass v. Johnson</a> — is the most consequential the court has decided dealing with homelessness in decades. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by the Court's five other conservatives. The three liberal justices dissented.The case comes out of Grants Pass, Oregon, where local officials <a target="_blank" rel=" nofollow" href="https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/12/us-supreme-court-takes-grants-pass-oregon-case-homeless-policies/">were prevented from clearing a homeless encampment</a> by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/04/01/15-35845.pdf">Martin v. Boise</a> and <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/28/20-35752.pdf">Johnson v. Grants Pass</a> requiring local governments to have sufficient shelter beds available before forcing unhoused people off the streets.The appeals court — which controls nine western states, including California — decided in both cases that barring people from sleeping in public spaces without providing alternative shelter violates the <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-8/">Eighth Amendment's</a> protections against cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court's conservative majority disagreed. Gorsuch argued that policy responses to homelessness should be left up to policymakers and voters, writing that "a handful of federal judges" cannot "begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' a pressing social question like homelessness."In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, called criminalizing unhoused people for sleeping outdoors "unconscionable and unconstitutional." They argued that not having a place to call home is a state of being, rather than a choice."Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option," wrote Sotomayor, who read her dissent from the bench. "The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless."State and federal court cases on the legality of clearing homeless encampments reflect a debate between some governments who say they need more authority to protect public safety and address homelessness and advocates who argue authorities are exacerbating the problem by criminalizing homelessness.<div type="image" title="Homeless rights activists held a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the day the court heard oral argument in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson." height="846" width="1280" msid="111346291" hostid="261"></div>While conservatives have led the charge in pushing to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision, some prominent Democratic leaders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, also pushed to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling. California — which is home to 12% of the US population — has struggled to deal with rapidly rising homelessness and is now <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/california-homelessness-crisis-homegrown-unhoused-are-californians-2023-6">home to 30% of people experiencing homelessness</a> and half of the unsheltered population in the US.In <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-175/280288/20230922163648635_Amicus%20Brief%20for%20Governor%20Newsom%20-%20Grants%20Pass_Final.pdf">an amicus brief</a> filed with the Supreme Court, Newsom argued that the 9th Circuit ruling forces local elected officials "to abandon efforts to make the spaces occupied by unhoused people safer for those within and near them."An increasing number of cities and states across the country have passed laws — often anti-camping ordinances — similar to that in Grants Pass. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis <a target="_blank" href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/21/florida-camping-ban-homeless-public-spaces/73048034007/">signed legislation in March</a> that bans people from camping in public places. Critics say the state isn't providing enough funding for services, including shelters and addiction treatment.Critics say criminalizing homelessness doesn't address its root causes — and actually makes the problem worse."If you are living outside and are impoverished, a ticket or a fee is probably something you can't afford, and then you have unpaid tickets, which impacts your credit rating, which makes it harder to find a place to live," Jesse Rabinowitz, communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center, previously told Business Insider. "Or you get arrested and then you have a criminal record, which both makes it harder to get a job and harder to get an apartment."There are several proven pathways to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cities-fight-homelessness-nationwide-spike-chicago-new-york-seattle-philadelphia-2024-2">alleviating homelessness</a>, including, most importantly, building more housing. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/despite-a-national-spike-in-homelessness-some-us-regions-are-finding-solutions/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=293074558&amp;utm_source=hs_email">Researchers say</a> other key policy solutions include removing barriers to shelter construction and tenants' rights, creating crisis response systems that don't involve the police, strengthening housing and employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated people, and increasing government support of public spaces.

The Supreme Court just made it easier for governments to remove unhoused people from public spaces

After a full day of meetings at Julie, a startup that sells a morning-after pill, CEO Amanda E/J Morrison jumped a flight from New York to Boston and headed to a small, private college, where a trivia night awaited her. Dozens of students shuffled into a classroom with plates of chicken tenders, Texas toast, and bright blue boxes of the emergency contraceptive.Morrison had worked with the Planned Parenthood Generation Action club at Suffolk University to sponsor the event, part of Julie's efforts to win a new generation of consumers. However, she had another, more pressing reason for being there. Julie is doing more campus events to clear up some of the confusion about emergency contraception — namely, that it isn't medication abortion.Standing at the head of the classroom, Morrison read off a projector screen, "Emergency contraceptives like Julie are legal in how many states? 25, 48, 50, 37." Students tapped their answers into a quiz app. "It's 37," Lily, a spirited sophomore, whispered to her teammates.In a minute, the correct answer appeared on screen, and the quiet chatter rose to a clamor. Half the teams said 37 states."Fifty states, guys. It's everywhere," Morrison said.When asked why she said 37, Lily said, "Just the way things are going."In states that outlaw abortion, some patients and politicians worry that contraception could be in legal jeopardy, too. There's no federal law preserving access to birth control, rather, a patchwork of state laws and court decisions holding it in place. Another Trump term <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/29/trump-birth-control-contraception-00159555">could change that</a>.For Julie, "that's the million dollar question of this election," Morrison said.<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460252" hostid="261" sizebytes="193282"></div>"We're not worried about some big ban happening in the first hundred days. But how those decisions trickle down — what is presented in Congress as a bill, how the Supreme Court reacts, what trickles down to the states — becomes a real secondary concern," she said.Founders of women's health startups feel doubly invested in this election, one of the closest presidential races of the century. Half a dozen founders and investors of women's health companies, all women, told Business Insider that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, it's business as usual. They said another Trump victory creates uncertainty for reproductive health startups, from period trackers to online abortion clinics to embryo banks.<div type="image" title="TK" height="1610" width="2147" msid="114460254" hostid="261" sizebytes="109206"></div>While Harris's presidential campaign has been marked by unrelenting support for reproductive healthcare, including contraception and abortions, Trump's position has been a moving target.The former president suggested <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/29/trump-birth-control-contraception-00159555">in May</a> that he was "looking at" restrictions on birth control, then walked that position back in a social media post later that day. During the September presidential debate, he called himself a "leader" on IVF, a move that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/12/trump-ivf-gop-roe-abortion-00178760">angered</a> parts of his base that have sought to restrict fertility treatments. He said <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-he-would-veto-federal-abortion-ban/">in October</a> that he'd veto a national abortion ban after deflecting the question for months but would support states ordaining their own abortion bans.Trump's waffling on reproductive rights has put founders of women's health startups on notice. "It is one of the major issues that we're discussing and that our CEOs are focused on — how to continue to provide care to women, especially women of childbearing age," said Trish Costello, founder of Portfolia, an investing platform that pools money from female accredited investors.The day after the presidential debate, Mika Eddy was vibrating with the weight of the election. The race's outcome could drastically change reproductive rights, foreign policy, gun safety, and climate law — all issues close to Eddy, a 35-year-old Californian and mother of two.But Eddy also has skin in the game as the chief executive officer of Malama Health, a startup helping women with gestational diabetes access better care. Its doula network assists patients on Medicaid with applying for benefits such as diabetes-friendly meals and medical transport.Eddy worries that if Trump wins, he would restrict access to the coverage and benefits that her users rely on, weakening one of Malama Health's key services."There is this common misperception that, 'we're in California, we're in a liberal state, and so we're safe.' And I don't think that's the case," Eddy said.For some founders of women's health startups, this election is more than a political contest; it has ramifications for their livelihoods. With so much at stake, they're planning how to handle a scenario where states or courts might impose more limits on reproductive rights.<div type="image" title="US Vice President Kamala Harris taking pictures with some young teen girls." height="3000" width="4000" msid="114460257" hostid="261" sizebytes="755478"></div><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-telemedicine-startup-hey-jane-roe-v-wade-2022-10">Hey Jane</a> is a telehealth startup that connects patients to medical providers who offer online appointments and delivers abortion pills to their doorsteps. A year after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion, Hey Jane started selling birth control and treatments for urinary tract infections, yeast infections, and herpes, both oral and genital. The new products cushion the business against a "plan E" scenario of a national abortion ban, said Carli Sapir, a Hey Jane investor and founding partner of Amboy Ventures."We're thinking about how to make sure those other verticals are in a good place to continue carrying the company forward," said Sapir.This time last year, one of Hey Jane's rivals, Choix, shut down <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/vcs-backing-online-abortion-sites-say-its-good-business-2021-9">after three years in service</a>. The company said in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/choix-closes-virtual-doors-launches-130300919.html">press release</a> that "the stigma and politics surrounding abortion care posed significant fundraising challenges." It raised a $1 million seed round in 2022.While direct providers of abortion, like Hey Jane, could see major restrictions or shutdowns to their core businesses if Trump returns to the White House, a wider range of companies expect to feel the ripple effects. Startups that seem removed from the front lines, such as those involved with period tracking and fertility treatments, are also preparing for potential challenges.<div type="image" title="Then-President Donald Trump addresses the anti-abortion &quot;March for Life&quot;" height="750" width="1000" msid="114460247" hostid="261" sizebytes="53678"></div>If a national abortion ban were to occur, apps like Flo Health or Clue might face increased scrutiny, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-lux-capital-deena-shakir-wrote-childrens-book-2024-9">Deena Shakir</a>, a general partner at Lux Capital. These apps track when women have their periods and when they miss them. In today's post-Roe America, privacy experts worry that such data could be used to suggest that someone has had or is thinking about having an abortion, potentially putting women at risk of prosecution in certain states.The stakes could be equally high for companies involved with fertility treatments.The demand for services like in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and surrogacy has been climbing for years as people have kids later in life and infertility rates increase. That's birthed a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fertility-startups-booming-despite-market-downturn-2023-6">global fertility market</a> that includes companies that operate clinics to provide services like egg freezing and IVF, companies that run labs and tests, and firms that help people pay for the procedures.However, the industry's future is uncertain following attacks on abortion access. The end of Roe v. Wade opened up the legal terrain for states to interfere with access to other reproductive care, said Lauren Berson Sugarman, founder and chief executive officer of Conceive, a startup that offers personalized fertility guidance, including text support from nurses and peer groups.In Alabama, the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children. That put patients and fertility clinics on edge that they could be criminally charged for destroying extra embryos. A handful of Alabama clinics paused IVF treatments while patients throughout the South began moving their embryos to jurisdictions with more stable legal protections."We see a lot of patients come to us and say, should I move my embryos out of a red state? Because what happens if they come after IVF?" said Berson Sugarman.The push for "embryo rights" could have wide-reaching repercussions for startups like Maven Clinic or Carrot Fertility, which offer fertility benefits for employers, and TMRW Life Sciences, a biotech company creating robots for the safe storage of frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos.Moreover, it could influence the type of research that startups conduct and where. Alice Zheng, a principal at women's health investor RH Capital, explains how the shifting legal landscape might affect companies like Vitra Labs. As a biotech startup working on developing eggs from stem cells for IVF, "they're doing really cutting-edge research for fertility, but they need to think very carefully about where they set up shop," Zheng said. "Some of their research might involve certain types of tissue, which is more closely scrutinized in some areas than others."<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460250" hostid="261" sizebytes="243576"></div>Two years ago, in the hours after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion, Morrison's phone started ringing and didn't stop. Investors wanted to know if the ruling would kill Julie's launch in Walmart stores that fall. Job candidates wondered if the company would still exist in six months. Morrison's mom called, concerned for her daughter's future."For probably two weeks straight, I was just doing reassurance calls," Morrison said.While emergency contraception is not the abortion bill and is currently legal in all 50 states, it is continuously confused with the abortion pill, which can have damaging consequences. In June, the medical journal JAMA Network Open published a <a target="_blank" href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820370?%20utm_source=For_The_Media">study</a> that found retail pharmacy fills of Plan B, a leading morning-after pill brand, fell by 65% in states with near-total abortion bans the year after the Dobbs decision, partly due to clinic closures and confusion about its legal status.That confusion could threaten Julie's sales, and puts the onus of the company to better educate consumers. It sponsors events like trivia nights and sorority house brunches. It has enlisted TikTok influencers to share videos of their drugstore hauls showing how easy it is to buy Julie. In one video, a young woman going back-to-school shopping walks off with a two-count pack of the emergency contraceptive pill. The caption reads, "double majors, not double strollers."Other startups are urging consumers to fight for reproductive rights at the polls. Eddy's Malama Health has reminders to register to vote in its app and will tell users where their nearest polling station is closer to election day. The company asks for their ZIP codes during onboarding, Eddy explained."When you have a baby, you're like, 'I want to vote, but I don't know where to go,'" Eddy said. She hopes the emails will get more pregnant women and new moms to head to the polls. Eddy added that the emails won't support a candidate and are meant as a "nonpartisan resource."<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460255" hostid="261" sizebytes="192114"></div>Julie's content isn't political, either. It's not trying to change any minds about abortion rights. The goal is simply to spread awareness among young adults that emergency contraception helps prevent pregnancy, not end it. This way, Morrison said, a woman who is anti-abortion and has unprotected sex can feel confident taking Julie knowing that she isn't compromising her abortion stance.It was past 9 o'clock on a weekday, and the competition at trivia night was heating up. Students in teams of two or three screamed with delight as they watched their names climb the leaderboard. They competed to win prizes like sex toys and T-shirts with the phrase, "A Better Morning After.""Morning-after pills end pregnancy. True or false," the club president called out.Thirty seconds later, the screen showed that every team had answered correctly.Morrison pumped both fists in the air, beaming her approval.<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/melia-russell">Melia Russell</a> is a senior correspondent at Insider covering startups and venture capital. She can be reached via the encrypted messaging app Signal at +1 603-913-3085 and email at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:mrussell@businessinsider.com">mrussell@businessinsider.com</a>.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/rebecca-torrence">Rebecca Torrence</a> is a correspondent at Business Insider writing about healthcare startups and venture capital. Send her an email at <a target="_blank" class="" href="mailto:rtorrence@businessinsider.com">rtorrence@businessinsider.com</a>.

'The million-dollar question of this election': Women's health startups are confronting a shifting legal landscape   

<ul class="summary-list"><li>President Biden's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to allow the SAVE plan to go through.</li><li>It follows the 8th Circuit blocking the SAVE student-loan repayment plan in its entirety.</li></ul>President Joe Biden's administration is asking the nation's highest court to allow its <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-millennial-worried-cheaper-student-loan-payments-relief-2024-7">new student-loan repayment plan</a> to go through.On August 9, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-cheaper-student-loan-payments-relief-new-ruling-2024-8">officially blocked the SAVE income-driven repayment plan</a>, intended to give borrowers lower monthly payments and a shorter timeline for debt relief.It followed a legal rollercoaster for the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-student-loan-payments-paused-no-debt-cancellation-2024-7">8 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE</a>. Earlier this year, two separate groups of GOP state attorneys general <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-states-lawsuit-block-save-student-loan-income-driven-repayment-2024-4">filed lawsuits to block parts of SAVE</a>, and a flurry of court decisions ultimately led the Education Department to place all enrolled borrowers on forbearance until the legal process is resolved.Now, Biden's Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to lift the 8th Circuit's block on the plan and allow the administration to move forward with SAVE's implementation."The Eighth Circuit's injunction has severely harmed millions of borrowers and the Department by blocking long-planned changes and creating widespread confusion and uncertainty," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A173/322358/20240813143712014_24A_Missouri_Appl%20and%20Appl%20App_FINAL.pdf">filing</a>. "Indeed, as the Eighth Circuit acknowledged, the injunction has forced the Department to place the affected borrowers into temporary forbearance -- a result that is unambiguously worse for all involved."Prelogar asked the Supreme Court to lift the 8th Circuit's block on SAVE and, if not, take on the case and expedite it in the fall.This is in response to the lawsuit led by Missouri's attorney general, which said that allowing SAVE to go through would harm student-loan company MOHELA's revenue. Prelogar argued that the 8th Circuit's ruling was "overbroad" and, at the very least, should not apply to borrowers who are not serviced by MOHELA.She also said that permanently blocking SAVE would cause harm to the Education Department and the millions of enrolled borrowers because the department would be required to recalculate monthly payments and retrain servicer staff."Many borrowers are now experiencing intense confusion from being told that their payments must be recalculated and from being placed in forbearance -- which will delay any eventual loan forgiveness, including under programs not challenged here, like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program," Prelogar said.She added that "borrowers would suffer additional harm if they are eventually sent higher bills and told that they can no longer count on the forgiveness that they were promised at the end of their repayment periods."The Supreme Court asked the GOP states to respond to file a response by August 19.Business Insider <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-boomer-student-loans-trump-vote-democratic-election-2024-7">previously spoke to borrowers</a> enrolled in SAVE who have experienced confusion and uncertainty as to the future of their student-loan payments. One 61-year-old borrower said she's a "nervous wreck" each time there's a new lawsuit update."I want to be able to just breathe, but retiring and having to pay for student loans when I'm not even working anymore and paying most of my Social Security to student loans, it's ridiculous," she said. "It's extremely stressful. I feel like they're getting ready to pull the rug out from under us again."

Student-loan borrowers on Biden's new repayment plan are now waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether cheaper payments and debt cancellation can resume

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Millions of student-loan borrowers have faced legal whiplash over the past 24 hours.</li><li>A Missouri judge blocked Biden from carrying out his broader debt relief plan just hours after receiving the case.</li></ul>It's been a tumultuous 24 hours for <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-repayment-issues-debt-relief-broken-industry-2023-9">millions of student-loan borrowers</a> — and confusion is rife.Borrowers woke up on October 3 to the news that a federal court may have given President Joe Biden's administration <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-borrowers-broader-debt-relief-case-transfer-missouri-biden-2024-10">a small legal victory</a>. After a group of GOP state attorneys general <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-borrowers-first-lawsuit-broad-debt-cancellation-biden-relief-2024-9">filed a lawsuit in early September</a> in Georgia to block Biden's second attempt at a broad plan to cancel student debt — expected to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-announces-new-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-who-qualifies-relief-2024-4">benefit over 30 million borrowers</a> — a federal judge ruled that Georgia was the improper venue to file the case and declined to continue blocking the relief.The Georgia judge ended up transferring the case to Missouri, which he determined was the proper venue for it. That's because the lawsuit argued the relief would hurt the revenue of student-loan company MOHELA, which is based in Missouri. Just hours later, the Missouri judge issued <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-biden-debt-cancellation-education-department-relief-2024-10">a preliminary injunction on the relief</a>, blocking the Education Department from implementing the plan before the final rule for the relief had even been finalized.The ruling officially stomped out any glimmer of hope borrowers may have received just hours earlier when the Georgia judge declined to block the relief. It also spurred criticism from the Biden administration and some lawmakers for blocking a plan that was still in progress."The Department of Education is extremely disappointed by this ruling," a department spokesperson told Business Insider."This lawsuit was brought by Republican elected officials who made clear they will stop at nothing to prevent millions of their own constituents from getting breathing room on their student loans," the spokesperson continued. "We will continue to vigorously defend these proposals in court. We will not stop fighting to fix the broken student loan system and provide support and relief to borrowers across the country."Prior to the latest ruling, a temporary restraining order from the Georgia-based judge had been in place on the relief, and it was set to expire on October 3. Judge Matthew Schelp of the Eastern District of Missouri, appointed by former President Donald Trump, replaced the temporary restraining order with the preliminary injunction hours after the case was transferred to his district.Schelp wrote in his ruling that the order prevents the Education Department from "mass canceling student loans, forgiving any principal or interest, not charging borrowers accrued interest, or further implementing any other actions under the Rule.That means broader student-loan forgiveness is blocked until a court issues a final decision on whether the relief can move forward. This ruling is also not related to the SAVE income-driven repayment plan, which is <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-cheaper-student-loan-payments-relief-new-ruling-2024-8">blocked following separate legal challenges</a>.<h2 id="d6315ff3-fc12-4052-a543-49d5d0879cd2">The relief doesn't even exist yet</h2>After the Supreme Court struck down Biden's first attempt at broad student-loan forgiveness last summer under the HEROES Act of 2003, which allowed the education secretary to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency like the pandemic, his Education Department began <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-will-take-cancel-student-debt-higher-education-act-2023-7">pursuing a new route for relief</a> using the Higher Education Act of 1965.A key difference with this new route is that it required the department to undergo a process known as negotiated rulemaking, which had a lengthy timeline that included a series of negotiation sessions with stakeholders and a period for public comment before the rule could be finalized.Notably, the rule still hasn't been finalized, and the lawsuit partly hinges on the timing of that rule. The group of GOP attorneys general argued that, based on communications between the department and loan servicers they obtained as part of the legal proceedings, the department was preparing to implement relief before finalization, which they claimed was in violation of administrative procedure, and so the plan should be thrown out.However, the Education Department wrote in response to the lawsuit that "all the steps it has taken to date, including the Department's work with third parties, were merely preparatory and did not indicate that any discharge of student debt would occur before the issuance of a final rule."The department refuted the claims that it was preparing to implement relief in violation of administrative procedure, instead saying that it was typical for the department to prepare servicers for any changes, regardless of whether a rule has been finalized.Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, one of the plaintiffs on the lawsuit, lauded the court's decision, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1841958025466413332">writing</a> on X that the back-and-forth legal rulings was "a huge -and quick - win for every American who won't have to pay for someone else's Ivy League debt."However, some lawmakers criticized the ruling on a plan that was not yet finalized — suggesting that the lawsuit is on shaky legal ground and may not succeed in permanently blocking the relief."President Biden has the legal authority to cancel student debt under the Higher Education Act," Sen. Elizabeth Warren <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1841972922094584177">wrote</a> on X on Thursday. "What's lawless and unprecedented is for a judge to block a rule that doesn't even exist. This is another unfounded decision by a Trump judge to block relief for millions of Americans."

Inside the 24-hour legal whiplash that sent 30 million student-loan borrowers into limbo

The government has officially announced October 1, 2024, as the starting date for <keyword id="23245808" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Vivad-Se-Vishwas-2-0" source="keywords">Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0</keyword>, the direct tax dispute resolution scheme. If you're involved in a tax dispute, this scheme might be your chance to resolve it efficiently. Originally introduced during the 2024-25 Union Budget, the scheme is designed to handle <keyword id="22518437" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="income-tax-disputes" source="keywords">income tax disputes</keyword> that are currently tied up in appeals. Confirming the news, the <keyword id="19900485" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Ministry" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Finance Ministry" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Finance Ministry">finance ministry</keyword> said in its notification: "The central government hereby appoints the 1st day of October, 2024 as the date on which the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 shall come into force." <h2>The scope of the disputes</h2>To give you an idea of the scale, about 2.7 crore direct tax demands are currently being contested, amounting to a staggering Rs 35 lakh crore. These disputes are scattered across various legal forums, and Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0 aims to help clear this backlog. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113444994" title="In the long run, rate cut by Fed will be favourable for most US banks: Moody&amp;#39;s" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>In her Budget speech, <keyword id="19912360" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Minister-Nirmala-Sitharaman" source="keywords">Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman</keyword> highlighted the government’s dedication to simplifying taxes and minimising litigation. She said, "The government will continue its efforts to simplify taxes, improve <keyword id="20404572" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="taxpayer-services" source="keywords">taxpayer services</keyword>, provide tax certainty and reduce litigation while enhancing revenues." <h2>Who can avail the scheme?</h2>If you have any pending disputes or appeals, including writs and special leave petitions, whether filed by you or the tax authorities, as of July 22, 2024, you are eligible to take advantage of this scheme. The list of eligible cases includes those pending before the Supreme Court, high courts, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and Commissioner/Joint Commissioner (Appeals). It also covers cases before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and revision petitions awaiting a decision from the Commissioner of Income Tax. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417255" title="Individuals earning over Rs 10 cr rise by 63% in India; financial assets of high net worth individuals to nearly double by 2028" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>However, the window to decide whether or not to participate in the scheme is limited. As Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Partner at <keyword id="20006170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Deloitte-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Deloitte India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Deloitte India">Deloitte India</keyword>, said: "Given the limited time window, an informed decision on opting for the scheme should be made promptly." The rules and forms for the scheme are expected to be published "imminently in the coming week." <h2>Success of the original Vivad Se Vishwas</h2>For those who are wondering about the potential impact, the first Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, introduced in 2020, resolved a significant number of cases. More than 1 lakh taxpayers participated, and the government collected about Rs 75,000 crore in taxes. With this track record, the expectations from Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0 are high. With October 1 just around the corner, now is the time to prepare if you are considering resolving your tax dispute through Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0. As the rules and forms are expected shortly, it’s wise to consult your <keyword id="23245810" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tax-advisor" source="keywords">tax advisor</keyword> and make a decision soon. This scheme could provide the relief you’ve been waiting for while contributing to a more efficient tax system for all. (With inputs from PTI)

New Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0 tax resolution scheme to start on Oct 1 — what you need to know

Chennai, Tamil Nadu's ruling <keyword id="19897149" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dmk" source="keywords">DMK</keyword>, a key constituent of the INDIA bloc, in its manifesto released on Wednesday promised to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 if the opposition alliance wins the <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="keywords">Lok Sabha</keyword> polls. Restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and holding polls there, scrapping the New Education Policy 2020, slashing fuel prices, annulling Article 361 of the Constitution that provides protection to governors from legal action and appointment of Governors following consultation with Chief Ministers, were among the key promises made by the DMK. The recommendations of the M S Swaminathan committee will be adopted to ensure that MSP for agricultural products "is set at total production cost plus 50 per cent," the DMK said. Also, it announced that if voted to power, the INDIA bloc will withdraw the Agnipath scheme and reintroduce "permanent recruitment service" in the Indian Armed forces. "From now on, population census, including caste-wise census and census concerning people below the poverty line, will be conducted by the Union government once every five years simultaneously." The DMK will firmly insist on the removal of Article 356, which allows the dismissal of duly elected state governments and imposition of President's rule. The Congress party's ally in Tamil Nadu said that "new constraints" on States' borrowing capacity, imposed by the union government beyond the limits in each state's FRBM-equivalent Act will be eliminated. "A recommendation to share cess revenues with states will be made. It will be proposed that the Finance Commission increase the horizontal devolution of tax revenue (to all States together) from 42 per cent to 50 per cent." The Union government's financial contributions to states will be based on the income tax and GST collected in those states. Thus, financial contributions will be assured based on the taxes collected within each state. The finance provided to states will be permanently determined based on the 1971 population. A 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and legislative assemblies will be implemented immediately. "DMK will insist that the Union government enact a law providing menstrual leave to women, emphasizing the journey towards gender equality." Petrol and diesel prices "will be set at Rs 75, Rs 65 (per litre)" and cooking gas cylinders shall be made available at Rs 500 (per cylinder). "The introduction of the Uniform Civil Code will be strictly prevented" to preserve India's secular nature as stated in the Constitution's preamble. "The 2019 CAA law will be repealed, and all minorities will be treated equally without any discrimination. The recommendations of the Sachar Committee for the improvement of the lives of Muslims and other minority communities will be implemented." Facilitation will be provided for <keyword id="21027983" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sri-lankan-tamil" source="keywords">Sri Lankan Tamil</keyword> refugees to get Indian citizenship. Assistance will be provided to those who wish to return to Sri Lanka. Also, the manifesto said efforts will be made to implement reservation for minorities at the all-India level, similar to Tamil Nadu. "The financial assistance previously provided to minority educational institutions has now been stopped. Action will be taken to resume this assistance." For "political" reasons, funding from foreign countries to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has currently been stopped. "The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act will be properly amended, and measures will be taken to ensure these financial aids continue to reach NGOs without any problems." The proposal of 'One Nation, One Election' will be abandoned, and for the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states, the current practice, based on the 1971 census will continue. All "people-unfriendly" laws introduced by the BJP government over the last 10 years will be reviewed immediately by the INDIA alliance government. The "labour-hostile laws" introduced by the BJP government will be "reformed." Through the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), the Union government will ensure a minimum pension of Rs 5,000 per month. The number of working days under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act will be increased from 100 to 150 days. "A wage of Rs 400 will be provided across states/ union territories nationwide." Disbanding the current NITI Aayog, set up by the BJP regime and establishing again the Planning Commission to draft plans based on the requests of state governments is another assurance the DMK has made. "Measures will be taken to reclaim Kachchatheevu to ensure India's security and to protect the welfare of the fishermen." A mandatory "cooling-off period" of 2 years will be introduced for retired judges and secretaries before they could join private companies or political parties, the manifesto said. Waiving loans and interests for farmers in nationalised and scheduled banks, waiver of educational loans for students, monthly entitlement of Rs 1,000 for all women in every state and formation of <keyword id="21027984" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-development-council" source="keywords">State Development Council</keyword> by including Chief Ministers were among the promises made by the DMK. Exemption for Tamil Nadu from the NEET exam and complete removal of toll booths on national highways, forms part of poll promises of the Dravidian party. Further, the DMK said amendments will be made to relevant laws to ensure that state governments, elected by the people, appoint Vice-Chancellors to state-run universities, rather than Governors. Stopping government's divestment from public sector enterprises, implementing the Sethusamudram project, law to ban online gambling, setting up a <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> branch in Chennai, providing statehood for <keyword id="19901639" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="puducherry" source="keywords">Puducherry</keyword>, equal funding for all state languages including Tamil, were among the host of other promises made by the DMK. Establishment of Tamil departments in varsities and stopping construction of <keyword id="19950851" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mekedatu" source="keywords">Mekedatu</keyword> dam were also promised by the DMK. "The <keyword id="19996334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="vishwakarma-scheme" source="keywords">Vishwakarma Scheme</keyword>, introduced by the BJP government to encourage caste-based occupations, will be restructured on the basis of social justice."

DMK vows to repeal CAA if INDIA bloc is voted to power

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Biden released new details for his second attempt at student-loan forgiveness.</li><li>While it likely won't go into effect until the fall, an earlier Supreme Court decision could put the relief at risk.</li></ul>New details for <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/when-is-bidens-new-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-coming-relief-2024-4">President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan</a> are out — and it's already shaping up to be a rocky road to implementation.The same day the Supreme Court <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-strikes-down-debt-cancellation-2023-5">struck down Biden's first attempt at broad debt relief</a> at the end of June 2023, the Education Department announced its plan B: relief for borrowers using an authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965.In contrast to the HEROES Act — the law Biden used for his first attempt at relief — the HEA requires the administration to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-will-take-cancel-student-debt-higher-education-act-2023-7">undergo a process known as negotiated rulemaking</a>. The process requires a series of negotiations with stakeholders before drafting the regulatory text for the rule, which then enters a period of public comment before the relief can be implemented.The Education Department <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loans-where-does-biden-debt-cancellation-stand-negotiations-relief-2024-2">completed negotiations on the relief</a> in February. It released <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-announces-new-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-who-qualifies-relief-2024-4">new details of the rule</a> on April 8 — but senior administration officials previously said the actual draft text would be published in the coming months, with the implementation of the relief set to begin in the fall, at the earliest.Not only does this timeline coincide with the presidential election, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-will-presidential-election-impact-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden-2023-10">which could imperil any relief</a> should Biden lose — it also puts the relief under the shadow of Supreme Court rulings set to arrive by June.<h2>How a Supreme Court ruling on fisheries could affect student-debt relief</h2>Cary Coglianese, an administrative law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told Business Insider that "there's a larger context within which this plan would be evaluated if it eventually goes to court, which I would expect it will."And that larger context, Coglianese said, is "possibly the rolling back of deference to agencies altogether in their interpretation of statutes."Coglianese is referring to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-supreme-court-what-are-major-cases-administrative-state-2023-11">a rule known as the Chevron doctrine</a>, the fate of which is currently awaiting a Supreme Court ruling. In a case known as <a target="_blank" rel=" nofollow" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,</a> a group of fisheries challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation of a law requiring some fisheries to pay or subsidize the salaries of some federal agents who come on fishing expeditions to collect data.The fisheries argued against that interpretation, calling into question the Chevron doctrine, which allows federal agencies to interpret a law how they see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with Congress' language.So, if the Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, federal agencies would no longer have the authority to decide on laws related to their responsibilities — meaning the Education Department would not be able to interpret its student-debt relief authority under the Higher Education Act."That would, it seems to me, just provide another sort of quiver in the arsenal, if you will, to send the Biden debt-relief plan packing again," Coglianese said."In other words, we have a Supreme Court in which, in general, they're skeptical of agency action, at least of a certain kind of agency action, and with one student-debt relief case they've already sent a signal that they thought that was going out farther than Congress specifically authorized," Coglianese said. "And if they eliminate Chevron deference, it suggests that they're very serious about not giving agencies much leeway."<h2>Lawsuits to likely target the law's broadness</h2>While the regulatory text for Biden's new student-debt relief plan has not yet been published, its newly released details targeted different categories of borrowers the Education Department plans to make eligible for relief. It includes up to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-this-fall-borrowers-unpaid-interest-debt-cancellation-2024-4">$20,000 in relief for borrowers with unpaid interest</a>, along with loan forgiveness for those who have been in repayment for at least 20 years.The Education Department has maintained it has the authority to enact this relief <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-there-another-way-to-cancel-student-debt-hea-heroes-2023-3">under the HEA's compromise and settlement authority</a>, which states that the department can "enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand" related to federal student debt."However, Luke Herrine — an assistant law professor at the University of Alabama — told BI that any legal challenge will likely take issue with the department's interpretation of the HEA's authority for debt relief and argue that Biden's plan is too broad."The fight is primarily going to be, I assume, over whether a clause that on its face looks very broad is actually as broad as it looks, which is partly a matter of, who gets to resolve the ambiguity with that clause? Do you defer to an agency to make that determination for the agency? And increasingly, it's the case that the conservative judiciary does not believe in any sort of deference to administrative agencies," Herrine said.Herrine said he expects <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-debt-relief-cancellation-lawsuit-2023-1">the same groups who brought the cases</a> against Biden's first debt relief plan to challenge this second one. Some of them have already filed lawsuits <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-states-lawsuit-block-save-student-loan-income-driven-repayment-2024-4">challenging Biden's new SAVE income-driven repayment plan</a> — including Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who <a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1777446745405821263">wrote</a> on X that he would see Biden in court after the release of new details for the debt relief.Ultimately, it comes down to how courts interpret the Education Department's authority, and should legal challenges arise, Coglianese said it's likely the arguments will be very similar to the cases that ended up striking down the first student-loan forgiveness plan."The administration is certainly still facing a very skeptical Supreme Court," Coglianese said. "Even though it's a different statute, it's still a skeptical Supreme Court. It's still a pretty big program even though it's a smaller one.""So it's a risk that the court will, in the end, not allow the administration to go forward with this for the same reasons it didn't allow it to go forward the first go around," he continued. "Clearly, though, it's a risk the administration wants to take on behalf of the American public and the large segment of the American public that's been burdened with a lot of student loans."

You Searched For "supreme court legal services committee" and got 11 results

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

BI India Bureau

SpaceX tells employees not to travel to Brazil, as Elon Musk's fight with its Supreme Court over X intensifies

Polly Thompson

The Supreme Court is sending some mixed signals about executive power

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

60,000 student-loan borrowers in public service are getting $4.5 billion in debt cancellation while Biden's broader relief remains blocked in court

Ayelet Sheffey

The Supreme Court just made it easier for governments to remove unhoused people from public spaces

Eliza Relman

'The million-dollar question of this election': Women's health startups are confronting a shifting legal landscape

Melia Russell,Rebecca Torrence

Student-loan borrowers on Biden's new repayment plan are now waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether cheaper payments and debt cancellation can resume

Ayelet Sheffey

Inside the 24-hour legal whiplash that sent 30 million student-loan borrowers into limbo

Ayelet Sheffey

New Vivad Se Vishwas 2.0 tax resolution scheme to start on Oct 1 — what you need to know

BI India Bureau

DMK vows to repeal CAA if INDIA bloc is voted to power

PTI

How an unrelated Supreme Court decision could jeopardize Biden's new student-loan forgiveness plan before it even goes into effect

Ayelet Sheffey

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides