India  

Conversion Therapy Ban Stands in Washington State

Video Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories - Duration: 01:30s - Published
Conversion Therapy Ban Stands in Washington State

Conversion Therapy Ban Stands in Washington State

Conversion Therapy Ban , Stands in Washington State.

On Dec.

11, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the state's ban concerning minors, NPR reports.

.

The court's inaction upheld a lower court's ruling banning conversion therapy in Washington.

.

The court's inaction upheld a lower court's ruling banning conversion therapy in Washington.

.

The law, which went into effect in 2018, grants Washington the ability to revoke therapists' licenses if they attempt to alter the sexual orientation of a minor.

Conversion therapy advocate Brian Tingley challenged the law with the help of the "anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom," NPR reports.

.

Tingley says that the anti-conversion therapy law violates his right to free speech.

.

Tingley says that the anti-conversion therapy law violates his right to free speech.

.

While the Supreme Court declined to hear Tingley's challenge, .

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented and would have liked to hear the case.

.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented and would have liked to hear the case.

.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented and would have liked to hear the case.

.

Although the court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the court again.

, Justice Clarence Thomas, via dissent.

When it does, the court should do what it should have done here... to consider what the First Amendment requires, Justice Clarence Thomas, via dissent


You Might Like


💡 newsR Knowledge: Other News Mentions

Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas U.S. Supreme Court justice since 1991 (born 1948)

Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration in Social Media Case [Video]

Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration in Social Media Case

Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration , in Social Media Case. Attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, and other right-wing individuals, . Attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, and other right-wing individuals, . previously brought a lawsuit against the government, alleging that it had influenced what social media companies allow on their sites. In particular, plaintiffs in the case of Murthy v. Missouri questioned whether the Biden administration violated free speech protections amid the pandemic when social networks were instructed to remove COVID misinformation. In particular, plaintiffs in the case of Murthy v. Missouri questioned whether the Biden administration violated free speech protections amid the pandemic when social networks were instructed to remove COVID misinformation. On July 4, 2023, Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty agreed with the plaintiffs and restricted members of the Biden administration from interacting with social media companies in an attempt to moderate their content. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the lower court's ruling by a vote of 6-3 on June 26, 'The Guardian' reports. . The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, , Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion. ... ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion. This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of government, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion. Ultimately, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the lower court "glossed over complexities in the evidence" and "also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs and platforms each as a unified whole.". Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech, Justice Samuel Alito, via dissenting opinion. The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think, Justice Samuel Alito, via dissenting opinion

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:31Published
Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for People Charged With Domestic Violence [Video]

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for People Charged With Domestic Violence

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban , for People Charged With Domestic Violence. On June 21, the Supreme Court upheld a law that keeps people with domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning firearms, NBC News reports. . The vote was 8-1. Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one who dissented. . Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion, stating that since America was founded. "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.". The provision in the latest case "fits comfortably within this tradition," Roberts wrote. . Attorney General Merrick Garland applauded the ruling, . saying that it "protects victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who pose a threat to their intimate partners and children.". Erich Pratt, senior VP of Gun Owners of America, said that while the man who brought the case to the Supreme Court, Zackey Rahimi, is a "dangerous individual,". the decision "will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence."

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:30Published

Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court of the United States Highest court of jurisdiction in the US

Big Blow to Jailed Imran Khan! Shehbaz Sharif’s Government Set to Ban ex-PM’s PTI Party [Video]

Big Blow to Jailed Imran Khan! Shehbaz Sharif’s Government Set to Ban ex-PM’s PTI Party

The Shehbaz Sharif-led government in Pakistan has decided to ban the jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, the country's Information Minister announced on Monday. The PTI is Pakistan's largest opposition party. Attaullah Tarar, the Pakistani Minister for Information and Broadcasting, announced in a press conference that the decision to ban the PTI was made due to alleged anti-state activities. The case will be referred to the Supreme Court, according to Pakistani media. #ImranKhan #PTIBan #ImranKhanPartyBan #PTIBanNews #ShehbazSharif #PakistanPolitics #PTI #PoliticalCrisis #PakistaniGovernment #ImranKhanJailed #PMLN #SupremeCourt #PoliticalTurmoil #PakistanNews #OppositionParty #PakistaniPolitics #PTIUnderFire ~HT.97~PR.152~ED.194~

Credit: Oneindia    Duration: 03:02Published

In fresh feud, Bengal moves SC against governor for stalling 8 bills

The West Bengal government, led by Mamata Banerjee, has approached the Supreme Court against Governor CV Ananda Bose for stalling eight assembly-passed bills,..
IndiaTimes

Supreme court refuses to entertain plea on protection of doctors from violence, says existing laws sufficient

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Khanna, rejected the Delhi Medical Association's plea for doctors' protection, asserting existing IPC laws suffice. Advocate..
IndiaTimes

Excise policy case: Should Arvind Kejriwal resign as Delhi CM? Here's what Supreme Court said

Kejriwal was initially arrested by the ED on March 21 in the money laundering case and then by the CBI on June 26 in the corruption case
DNA

Samuel Alito Samuel Alito US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Tax Law on Foreign Investments [Video]

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Tax Law on Foreign Investments

Supreme Court Rejects , Challenge to Tax Law on, Foreign Investments. On June 20, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign corporate investments enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress under former President Donald Trump. On June 20, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign corporate investments enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress under former President Donald Trump. NBC reports that the case had attracted scrutiny when conservative Justice Samuel Alito refused to recuse himself despite ties with one of the challenging lawyers. The case revolved around whether an individual can be forced to pay taxes on investments in foreign-owned companies regardless of if they were a source of income. The case revolved around whether an individual can be forced to pay taxes on investments in foreign-owned companies regardless of if they were a source of income. According to the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, Congress has the power to "collect taxes on incomes.". In the case, Charles and Kathleen Moore claim they were unfairly taxed on their $40,000 investment in an India-based company called KisanKraft Machine Tools. . While the company made a profit, the Moores claim that they received no dividends and that the money was reinvested in the business. As a result, the Moores did not pay taxes between 2006 and 2017 on what the U.S. government later defined as income from their investment. . Due to a provision that was part of a major tax law enacted by former President Donald Trump in 2017, the Moores paid $15,000 in additional taxes. They later sought a refund for that payment, arguing that they had been unlawfully taxed based on an increase in the value of a capital investment not qualifying as income. The couple's challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court 7-2

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:30Published
Upside-down US flag prompts recusal calls for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito [Video]

Upside-down US flag prompts recusal calls for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Credit: FRANCE 24 English    Duration: 09:22Published

Brett Kavanaugh Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court justice since 2018 (born 1965)

Supreme Court Upholds FDA Regulation on Popular Abortion Drug Mifepristone [Video]

Supreme Court Upholds FDA Regulation on Popular Abortion Drug Mifepristone

Supreme Court Upholds , FDA Regulation on Popular , Abortion Drug Mifepristone. On June 13, the Supreme Court ruled against a group of doctors who challenged the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone. CBS reports that the case once again highlighted abortion access following the conservative majority decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The court ruled unanimously that the group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations lacked the legal right to challenge the FDA. . However, the court also did not address whether the FDA's decision to relax the rules for mifepristone's use were lawful. . The latest ruling was authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. . Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. , Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the court, via CBS. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice. Therefore, the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA's actions, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the court, via CBS. CBS reports that the ruling does not impact other challenges to the FDA's standing on mifepristone, while preserving access to the popular abortion medication. In 2016 and 2021, the FDA took steps to widen access to mifepristone, which has been taken by over 5 million patients since first being approved in 2000. Those steps included allowing the drug to be taken up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, reducing the number of in-person doctor visits and permitting it to be sold through the mail.

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:30Published

NPR NPR American nonprofit media organization

Supreme Court Rules That Some Jan. 6 Defendants Were Improperly Charged [Video]

Supreme Court Rules That Some Jan. 6 Defendants Were Improperly Charged

Supreme Court Rules That , Some Jan. 6 Defendants, Were Improperly Charged. NPR reports that the United States Supreme Court voted to limit which defendants accused of taking part in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot can be charged by federal prosecutors. The decision also casts doubt on two out of the four felony counts in former President Donald Trump's election subversion indictment. According to conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the U.S. government must prove , “that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.”. NPR reports that prosecutors relied on a key criminal statute to prosecute over 350 participants of the Capitol riot. The statute makes it a crime to alter or destroy official documents, or to otherwise obstruct or impede official proceedings. Roberts wrote that the statute was not meant to broaden the meaning of the law to make it a catchall provision. . The decision will impact other cases related to Jan. 6, many of which will have to be resentenced, retried or defendants will be released. . NYU law professor Ryan Goodman authored a study that found only 346 of the 1,417 people charged in connection with the Capitol riot were charged under the obstruction statute. The study also found that 71 people are still awaiting trial on the obstruction charge, but over half of them are also charged with another felony. NPR points out that if found guilty of other felony charges, the sentencing judge is still allowed to use the charge of obstruction to determine the length of their sentence.

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:31Published
Supreme Court Rules Against SEC's Authority to Impose Fines [Video]

Supreme Court Rules Against SEC's Authority to Impose Fines

Supreme Court Rules , Against SEC's Authority, to Impose Fines. NPR reports that the United States Supreme Court recently voted 6-3 against the Securities and Exchange Commission's policy on fraudulent conduct. . NPR reports that the United States Supreme Court recently voted 6-3 against the Securities and Exchange Commission's policy on fraudulent conduct. . Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the current rules deprive accused transgressors of their constitutional right to a jury trial. . Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the current rules deprive accused transgressors of their constitutional right to a jury trial. . The SEC relies on administrative law judges (ALJ) to make legal conclusions in cases brought before the agency. The Supreme Court's decision has the potential to send ripples through dozens of agencies, from labor rights to energy regulation. The Court did exclude from its decision those agencies dealing with federal benefits, while some conservative justices wanted the ruling to go further. The three liberal justices in dissent blasted the decision by the majority. . The case was brought by a former conservative radio host and hedge fund manager, George Jarkesy, following an SEC fraud investigation. The case was brought by a former conservative radio host and hedge fund manager, George Jarkesy, following an SEC fraud investigation. An in-house evidentiary hearing fined Jarkesy $300,000, ordered him to pay back almost $700,000 in ill-gotten profits and barred him from the securities industry. Jarkesy argued that he was entitled to a jury trial held in a federal court and that Congress lacked the power to delegate such authority to the SEC. NPR reports that Jarkesy's case was supported by a number of conservative and business groups, and individuals such as Elon Musk. NPR reports that Jarkesy's case was supported by a number of conservative and business groups, and individuals such as Elon Musk

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:31Published
Amazon Reaches $2 Trillion in Stock Market Value [Video]

Amazon Reaches $2 Trillion in Stock Market Value

Amazon Reaches $2 Trillion , in Stock Market Value. On June 26, Amazon became the 5th American company to join the $2 trillion club, NPR reports. . Amazon shares ended the day up nearly 4%, giving the company a $2.01 trillion stock market valuation. . Within the past year, Amazon's stock has gained 52%. Part of that gain can be attributed to investors' enthusiasm about the company's AI endeavors, NPR reports. . A big part of the valuation boost has been cloud and AI. Amazon is going to be a major player in the AI revolution, Dan Ives, Wedbush tech analyst, via NPR. Amazon currently has a chatbot called Q, which businesses that use AWS have access to. . Amazon currently has a chatbot called Q, which businesses that use AWS have access to. . Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently said that AI has rejuvenated the growth of AWS. The cloud computing unit is reportedly on pace to bring in $100 billion in annual revenue. Amazon recently invested in Anthropic, a California AI company, "to develop so-called foundation models that underpin generative AI systems," NPR reports. . Amazon also makes its own AI chips. The other four U.S. companies that belong to the $2 trillion club are Google, Microsoft, Apple and Nvidia. . The other four U.S. companies that belong to the $2 trillion club are Google, Microsoft, Apple and Nvidia. . The other four U.S. companies that belong to the $2 trillion club are Google, Microsoft, Apple and Nvidia. . The other four U.S. companies that belong to the $2 trillion club are Google, Microsoft, Apple and Nvidia.

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:30Published
Border Arrests Fall Over 40% Since Biden Suspended Asylum Processing [Video]

Border Arrests Fall Over 40% Since Biden Suspended Asylum Processing

Border Arrests Fall Over 40% , Since Biden Suspended Asylum Processing. The Homeland Security Department made the announcement on June 26, NPR reports. . Average daily arrests that the Border Patrol has made over a week-long period have dropped below 2,400. That is a decrease of over 40% from before the president's proclamation went into effect on June 5. That is a decrease of over 40% from before the president's proclamation went into effect on June 5. However, arrests need to drop to the 1,500 mark before asylum processing can resume. Still, the current data marks the lowest number of arrests since Jan. 17, 2021, NPR reports. . Last week, President Biden touted a 25% decrease in border arrests since the order took effect, . which means they've dropped a lot more since then. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has called the executive order a "tremendous success.". We indeed have seen a tremendous success early on, and I should emphasize that it is early on in our implementation of the president’s proclamation and our accompanying regulation, Alejandro Mayorkas, to CNN. Mayorkas will address border enforcement efforts in Tuscon, Arizona, on June 26. The area has served as "the busiest corridor for illegal crossings" recently, NPR reports.

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:31Published
Upcoming Presidential Debate Between Biden and Trump Breaks With Tradition [Video]

Upcoming Presidential Debate Between Biden and Trump Breaks With Tradition

Upcoming Presidential Debate , Between Biden and Trump, Breaks With Tradition. Upcoming Presidential Debate , Between Biden and Trump, Breaks With Tradition. On June 27, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will meet in the first presidential debate of 2024 in Atlanta. On June 27, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will meet in the first presidential debate of 2024 in Atlanta. NPR reports that the debate marks the beginning of a new phase in the presidential election, with less than five months until Election Day on November 5. According to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist polls, Biden and Trump are nearly tied following a month-long trend of national surveys with the same results. According to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist polls, Biden and Trump are nearly tied following a month-long trend of national surveys with the same results. Breaking with campaign tradition, the debate comes months earlier than usual, following a set of rules agreed to by candidates and without a live audience. The event is scheduled to start at 9 p.m. ET and is expected to run for 90 minutes. CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate the event, which will take place at the network's Atlanta studio. CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate the event, which will take place at the network's Atlanta studio. The presidential debate will also be available on CNN and the Max streaming platform. . The presidential debate will also be available on CNN and the Max streaming platform. . NPR reports that presidential debates have traditionally occurred in front of a live audience and are coordinated by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). However, both Biden and Trump have said they will not participate in the CPD's planned debates, pushing for earlier face offs ahead of the election. However, both Biden and Trump have said they will not participate in the CPD's planned debates, pushing for earlier face offs ahead of the election. The second debate is scheduled for September and will be hosted by ABC News

Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories    Duration: 01:31Published