#Latest supreme court judgments

[judgementstoday]

Why Law Students Should Keep An Eye On Supreme Court Verdicts

As a law student, there are many different kinds of sources that you rely on while researching your coursework - statutes, court cases, and even other bloggers and articles. But the one source that is the most intriguing and often the most overlooked is the Supreme Court. Though they only hear about eighty cases each year, these trials can impact our lives as Indians the most. This is why it's so important for law students to keep an eye on their Supreme Court judgements- and this article aims to show you how!

What are Supreme Court Verdicts?

The Supreme Court is the highest in the United States, and its decisions are binding on all other courts. The court hears cases on various topics, from criminal law to constitutional law.

Supreme Court cases that the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts. That means the Supreme Court is not usually the first to hear a case; instead, it is the last court of appeal. In some cases, however, the Supreme Court may choose to hear a case directly from a trial court.

The justices of the Supreme Court are tasked with considering two main questions when they review a case: first, whether or not there is a federal issue at stake; and second, whether or not the lower court's decision was correct. If the answer to both questions is yes, then the Supreme Court will issue what is called a writ of certiorari, which orders the lower court to send up the records of the case for review.

Once a writ of certiorari has been issued, both sides in the case will submit written briefs outlining their arguments. The justices will then consider these arguments along with any oral arguments that are presented before them. After deliberation, they will issue a decision in writing called an opinion.

How do Supreme Court Verdicts Affect Law Students?

As a law student, keeping up with the Supreme Court decisions is essential, as they can significantly impact your future career. For example, if the court rules favour a particular interpretation of the law, it could set a precedent that all future lawyers must follow. Supreme Court rulings can also affect how law schools teach specific topics. For instance, if the court overturns a long-standing legal principle, law schools may need to adapt their curriculum to reflect this change. By staying up-to-date on the latest Supreme Court decisions, you can ensure that you get the best possible education and prepare yourself for a successful legal career. 

How to Look for News on Supreme Court Verdicts?

There are a few places to start when looking for news on Latest Supreme Court judgments. The first is the Supreme Court's website, which has a section dedicated to recent decisions. Another good resource is the website of the National Law Journal, which regularly covers Supreme Court cases and decisions. Finally, law students can stay up-to-date on Supreme Court verdicts by following legal news sources such as Judgements Today.

[beardedmrbean]

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to prevent a hospital withdrawing life support from a 12-year-old boy with catastrophic brain damage, rejecting a bid by his parents to extend his treatment.

The parents of Archie Battersbee had aske Supreme Court justices to block a lower court’s ruling that the Royal London Hospital can turn off the boy’s ventilator and stop other interventions that are keeping him alive.

Archie’s treatment had been due to end at noon Tuesday, but the hospital said it would await the decision of the Supreme Court.

Justices at the U.K.'s top court said Archie had “no prospect of any meaningful recovery,” and even with continued treatment would die in the next few weeks from organ and heart failure. The judges agreed with a lower court that continuing treatment “serves only to protract his death.”

Archie's mother, Hollie Dance, said the family would “fight until the end," but it was unclear what legal options they have left.

Archie was found unconscious at home with a ligature over his head on April 7. His parents believe he may have been taking part in an online challenge that went wrong.

Doctors believe Archie is brain-stem dead and say continued life-support treatment is not in his best interests. Several British courts have agreed.

The family appealed to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and wanted the withdrawal of treatment put on hold while the committee examines the case.

“We do not understand what the rush is and why all of our wishes are being denied,” Dance said.

The case is the latest in the U.K. that has pitted the judgment of doctors against the wishes of families. In several cases, including this one, the families have been backed by a religious pressure group, Christian Concern.

Under British law, it is common for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. In such cases, the rights of the child take primacy over the parents’ right to decide what’s best for their offspring.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal said that "every day that (Archie) continues to be given life-sustaining treatment is contrary to his best interests and, so, a stay, even for a short time, is against his best interests.”

A panel of three Supreme Court judges said it could only overturn that ruling “if it is satisfied that the Court of Appeal has made an error of law or principle." It said it “is not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the Court of Appeal has so erred.”

“The panel reaches this conclusion with a heavy heart and wishes to extend its deep sympathy to Archie’s parents at this very sad time,” the court said.

[follow-up-news]

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the U.S. following a lawsuit by women who had serious pregnancy complications. The unanimous ruling from the court, whose nine justices are all elected Republicans, is the latest decision to uphold Texas’ abortion ban, which critics say does not offer enough clarity over when exceptions are allowed. The court said that the exceptions, as written, are broad enough and that doctors would be misinterpreting the law if they declined to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the court wrote in the order signed by Republican Justice Jane Bland. Last summer, state District Judge Jessica Mangrum had granted a temporary injunction preventing Texas from enforcing the ban against doctors who in their “good faith judgment” ended a pregnancy that they determined was unsafe because of complications. But that was immediately blocked by an appeal from the Texas attorney general’s office to the state’s Supreme Court. More than 20 women in Texas joined the lawsuit, including Amanda Zurawski, who had been told that she had a condition that meant her baby would not survive. The Austin woman said she was forced to wait until she was diagnosed with a life-threatening case of sepsis before being provided an abortion.

[foreverlogical]

Well-known political expert, author, journalist, and CEO David Rothkopf is blasting conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court after their disastrous rulings last week, warning the Court is now a “threat to democracy” and suggesting some justices should be “considered” for impeachment.

Rothkopf, also a national security and foreign policy commentator, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and the author at least seven books, including American Resistance.

“Watching debates about Supreme Court here and elsewhere is the latest study in GOP efforts to normalize the unconscionable, the corrupt, and the contra-constitutional. This is a court in which a majority of those on the right took their seats under questionable circumstances,” Rothkopf said at the start of a lengthy thread on Twitter.

“Of them, a cloud of corruption hangs over Thomas & Alito. Kavanaugh took [his] seat despite allegations against him that were not properly investigated. Questions surround his payoff of personal debts. Gorsuch’s ascension is also clouded by questions surrounding Kennedy’s departure,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Treacherous March of Normalization’: ABC News Slammed for ‘Puff Piece’ Profile on Moms for Liberty

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for months over his relationship with billionaire GOP donor and businessman Harlan Crow, who reportedly has had business before the high court. The far-right wing justice and his wife, Ginni Thomas, (who has been accused of working to undermine the 2020 presidential election results,) may have received gifts totaling over $1 million in luxury vacations, travel, food, lodging, and clothing. Experts say Thomas was required to disclose portions of those gifts and that he did not.

Justice Samuel Alito is also the beneficiary of luxury travel, including a fishing trip to Alaska courtesy of another billionaire, and a trip to Rome during which he delivered a highly-criticized speech just days after delivering his opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. That trip was reportedly paid for by a religious liberty organization whose leader reportedly bought Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Indiana home.

Indeed, Rothkopf also skewers Justice Barrett, or at least her confirmation.

“Barrett received her seat in a rush to judgment that was unlike any we have ever seen and completely contrary to the way the GOP Senate treated prior Dem nominees (Garland). In the time since the majority took over, they have cast aside one core principle after another,” he observes.

READ MORE: ‘Tyranny’: Legal Expert Says Ruling in Favor of Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Makes It ‘Impossible’ to Respect Supreme Court

“Stare decisis went out the window. (Precedents were ignored without any sound justification.) Promises to honor past decisions as established law (like Roe) proved worthless. Past claims that the right valued originalism and condemned judicial activism were wholly ignored,” Rothkopf charges.

“When precedent went against them, absurd arguments drawing on ancient and irrelevant legal decisions were used to supersede the clear intent of the framers and decades, sometimes centuries of legal precedent.”

Last week, he says, we saw “a decision on affirmative action that ignored precedent, reality, and justice and contained, in its carve-out for military academies, a sub-decision that refuted the logic of the main opinion. In the case of reversing the Biden student loan decision,” Rothkopf writes, “a brand new doctrine was presented out of whole cloth. The decision regarding the ‘right’ of a website designer to refuse to do work for a ‘gay’ couple was based on both a lie and a hypothetical, should never have been taken on as a case and was grossly wrong on the law,” he adds.

Rothkopf appears to believe the conservative justices will not stop.

“These judges are acting with impunity because they believe a GOP controlled Senate will never challenge them and that a fundamental flaw in the way the Constitution grants power to underpopulated states assures that the document that was created to evolve never will,” he writes.

And he suggests some of the Supreme Court’s justices might need to be impeached.

“They also know that Senate rules essentially mean they can act with impunity despite their wholesale corruption and the fact that several of them should, in all likelihood, be seriously considered for impeachment.”

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams ‘Embarrassing’ SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Decision That Marks ‘Gays and Lesbians for Second-Class Status’

Pointing to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, he adds: “This is, as [she] has said a constitutional crisis. This is an illegitimate, rogue institution that is seeking to reverse decades of progress and impose the will of a white, wealthy, Christian, male, straight minority on the majority of Americans.”

“This is a moment that calls for action on the part of Democrats in power to use their ability to call Senate hearings and to challenge this extremist cluster of judicial terrorists wherever possible. But more than that, it demands absolutely clarity from the voting public,” he says.

Rothkopf warns conservatives in the Court are poised to do even more damage to democracy and the American people.

“Unless Democrats win the presidency, hold and increase their majority in the Senate and retake the House, this tiny band of malevolent and dangerous actors will gut many of the most important provisions of the past century and a half of American law.”

“They will destroy lives and put millions of others at risk. Next year’s election must be in part, about this threat to democracy even as it is also about the threat posed by GOP presidential candidates. Stop. Consider the consequences.”

He warns minority Americans will continue to see their civil rights “stripped” away.

“Consider the basic rights that will be stripped away from women, people of color, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, voters, and all who believe in the ideals that have guided American leaders as we have struggled to perfect our nation,” he says. “The only people who can save us are you and your fellow voters. The only way to do so is to mobilize, be active, donate to candidates and remain committed to defending our country against the threat posed by the MAGA GOP in our legislature and our judiciary. Starting right now.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

President Biden speaks on the border deal, promising to sign the agreed Senate measure as soon as it lands on his desk and making clear that the only thing that stands in the way of the border security revamp becoming law is Donald J Trump.

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 26, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 27, 2024

[There is a description of rape in paragraph 8.]

This afternoon a jury of nine Americans deliberated for less than three hours before it ordered former president Trump to pay writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of raping her in the 1990s. In May 2023 a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in an assault the judge said is commonly known as rape, and for defaming her. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million. 

Despite the jury’s 2023 verdict, Trump has continued to attack Carroll. Indeed, he repeatedly attacked her on social media posts even during this month’s trial. Today’s jury found that Trump acted with malice and awarded Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, $11 million in compensatory damages for a reputation repair program, and $7.3 million in compensatory damages outside of the reputation program.

Trump immediately called the jury verdict “Absolutely ridiculous!” and said he would appeal. “THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” he posted on social media.

Conservative lawyer George Conway responded. “Not so. The United States of America is about the rule of law, something you couldn’t care less about. Today nine ordinary citizens upheld the rules of law. You have no right to maliciously defame anyone, let alone a woman you raped. In America, we call this justice.” 

In June 2023 the court required Trump to move $5.5 million to a bank account controlled by the court to cover the jury’s judgment while he appeals it. For this larger verdict, Trump could do the same thing: pay $83.3 million to the court to hold while he appeals, or try to get a bond, which would require a deposit and collateral and would also incur fees and interest. Any bank willing to lend him that money would likely take into consideration that he has other major financial vulnerabilities and charge him accordingly.

This was not, actually, the case that looked like it would incur staggering costs. More threatening is the other case currently underway in Manhattan, where New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron is considering appropriate penalties for the frauds that Trump, the Trump Organization, the two older Trump sons, and two employees committed in their business dealings. New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the case, has asked Engoron to impose a $370 million penalty, as well as a prohibition on the Trump Organization from doing business in New York. 

Judge Engoron has said he hopes to have a decision by the end of the month. 

Former president Trump is under pressure on a number of fronts. As legal analyst Joyce White Vance pointed out tonight in Civil Discourse, two separate juries have now found that Trump acted with malice, and it is becoming harder for him to argue that so many people—two entirely different juries, prosecutors, and so on—are unfairly targeting him. Vance speculates that this latest judgment might hurt his political support. “How do you explain to your kids that you’re going to give your vote in the presidential race to a man who forced his fingers into a woman’s vagina and then lied about it and about her, and exposed her to public ridicule and harm?” she asked.

On the political front, much to his apparent frustration, Trump has not been able to bully former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley out of the race for the Republican nomination, and she is needling him about his mental deterioration. The Republican National Committee has been considering simply deciding Trump is the nominee rather than letting the process play out. The Haley camp responded to that idea with a statement saying that if Ronna McDaniel, the RNC chair, “wants to be helpful she can organize a debate in South Carolina, unless she’s also worried that Trump can’t handle being on the stage for 90 minutes with Nikki Haley.” Ouch. 

Trump’s congressional allies’ attacks on President Biden took another hit today after a business associate of Hunter Biden said in sworn testimony yesterday that President Biden “was never involved” in any of their business dealings. 

John Robinson Walker said: “In business, the opportunities we pursued together were varied, valid, well-founded, and well within the bounds of legitimate business activities. To be clear, President Biden—while in office or as a private citizen—was never involved in any of the business activities we pursued…. “Any statement to the contrary is simply false…. Hunter made sure there was always a clear boundary between any business and his father. Always. And as his partner, I always understood and respected that boundary.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s attempts to destroy the bipartisan border deal, in which Democrats appear to have been willing to give away more than the Republicans out of desperate determination to fund Ukraine, are being called out for cynical politics. The news is awash today with stories condemning the Republicans for caving to the demands of a man who is, at least for now, a private citizen and who is putting his own election over the interests of the American people as he tries to keep the issue of immigration alive to exploit in the 2024 campaign. 

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) told his colleagues: “I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy…. It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.” Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) told Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V of NBC News, “I think it’s crap…. We need to get that deal done to secure the border. If they want to keep it as a campaign issue, I think they need to resign from the damn Senate.”

But while Trump is apparently telling Republicans he will “fix” the border if he gets back into the White House, Greg Sargent noted yesterday in The New Republic that when Trump was in office, “[h]e too released a lot of migrants into the interior, and he couldn’t pass his immigration agenda even with unified GOP control.” And, of course, he never got Mexico to pay for his wall, as he repeatedly claimed he would, while President Joe Biden, in contrast, got Mexico to invest $1.5 billion in “smart” border technology and to beef up its own border security. 

The White House has refused to abandon negotiations even as Trump trashed them. In a statement today, Biden said that negotiators have been “[w]orking around the clock, through the holidays, and over weekends,” to craft a bipartisan deal on the border, and he called out Republicans who are now trying to scuttle the bill. 

“What’s been negotiated would—if passed into law—be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” he said. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.

“Further, Congress needs to finally provide the funding I requested in October to secure the border. This includes an additional 1,300 border patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers, and over 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop fentanyl at our southwest border. Securing the border through these negotiations is a win for America. For everyone who is demanding tougher border control, this is the way to do it. If you’re serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it.”

Biden seems to be signaling that if the Republicans kill this measure, they will own the border issue, but he is not the only one making that argument. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which slants toward the right, wrote: “[G]iving up on a border security bill would be a self-inflicted GOP wound. President Biden would claim, with cause, that Republicans want border chaos as an election issue rather than solving the problem. Voter anger may over time move from Mr. Biden to the GOP, and the public will have a point. Cynical is the only word that fits Republicans panning a border deal whose details aren’t even known.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board went further, articulating what Republicans are signing up for if they continue to prevent funding for Ukraine. Recalling the horrific images of the April 1975 fall of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, to North Vietnamese forces, when desperate evacuees fought their way to helicopters, the board asked: “Do Republicans want to sponsor the 2024 equivalent of Saigon 1975?”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[theculturedmarxist]

The Garmon rule, and other preemption doctrines, are two-way streets. Sometimes they prevent states from issuing regulations that labor unions and employees might prefer—such as statutes that prevent the state from discouraging union activity. Or a union may want to sue an employer in state court for outrageous conduct during an organizing campaign to deter still worse behavior. Either way, whether it strengthens or weakens unions, these are matters for federal law. 

So how did the Glacier Northwest strike end up in the Supreme Court? At issue is the meaning of the phrase “arguably protected.” One might think the word “arguably” would make that standard quite broad. But writing for the Court’s conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett places undue focus on the word “protected.” She also tries to conclude whether this conduct should be protected instead of deferring to the NLRB. Not surprisingly, there are NLRB cases that deny protection for strikes that are “arguably” worse than what happened here, such as security guards leaving federal buildings unprotected. The point of the Garmon doctrine is to allow the board to determine what is protected, not jurists who want to impose their judgment.  

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, it is possible the board might find the employees’ conduct in Glacier Northwest would be protected. In fact, the NLRB issued a complaint and a notice for a hearing against the contractor, alleging that their firing of the employees was an unfair labor practice.  

The Court’s decision sends the parties back to state court to adjudicate Glacier Northwest’s tort claims against the Teamsters local. Such tort claims against unions are common; employers often use them—or the threat of them—to extract concessions from workers. Glacier Northwest might even embolden employers to use tort claims to avoid bargaining in the first place.  

Fortunately, the Court did not overrule the Garmon preemption doctrine. But dark clouds shadow the opinion, particularly those left by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas in their concurrence. They clearly want to get rid of Garmon preemption entirely. What effect would killing it have? It would undoubtedly lead to the kind of satellite litigation we saw in the Glacier Northwest case. There were many other reasons to affirm the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in this case. (I was proud to join an amicus brief in the case.) Nonetheless, eight justices voted to reverse the decision and return the case to trial court. 

Ultimately, it fell to the newest justice to articulate a vigorous defense of the Garmon preemption doctrine and its intellectual foundation—the administrative state. “[C]onsistent with a statutory scheme that gives primacy to the [NLRB’s] expertise, a court’s task under Garmon is unmistakably modest,” wrote Jackson in her solo dissenting opinion. Misapplying Garmon preemption “threatens to both impede the Board’s uniform development of labor law and erode the right to strike,” her dissent warned. 

In its nearly two decades, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has yet to rule in favor of a union when it was a party (see also Knox, Friedrichs, and Janus). But Glacier Northwest was also part of a larger attack on the New Deal and the administrative state, as we’ve seen in environmental cases where a conservative majority has curtailed the long-established regulatory functions of the EPA. The decision shows that the Roberts Court will continue to invite cases that weaken the NLRB and the labor movement.  

[minions-of-belial]

Backstabber Watch

Focused on the Cult of Belial: the cult of the devil.

For the LORD is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the LORD,” he says, “and there is no other." Isaiah 45:18 (NLT)

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom. For judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? James 2:12-14 (BSB)

If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 (NLT)

This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 (NIV)  

Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. 3 John 1:11 (NIV) 

You must not swear falsely by My name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:12 (BSB)

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave anyone unpunished who takes His name in vain. Exodus 20:7 (BSB)

[market-news-24]

Today’s Current Affairs: Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover. The court emphasized the importance of following mandatory procedures for compulsory acquisition and granting fair compensation to owners. The judgment highlighted the right to property as a constitutional and human right, stressing the need for proper procedure and respect for citizens’ rights before depriving them of their property. The verdict laid down seven basic procedural rights that the state should uphold, including the right to notice, fair compensation, and efficient acquisition processes. The ruling serves as a crucial safeguard for property owners against unconstitutional acquisition practices. [ad_2] Download Latest Movies in HD Quality Downloading In 15 seconds Scroll Down to End of This Post const downloadBtn = document.getElementById('download-btn'); const timerBtn = document.getElementById('timer-btn'); const downloadLinkBtn = document.getElementById('download-link-btn'); downloadBtn.addEventListener('click', () => downloadBtn.style.display = 'none'; timerBtn.style.display = 'block'; let timeLeft = 15; const timerInterval = setInterval(() => if (timeLeft === 0) clearInterval(timerInterval); timerBtn.style.display = 'none'; downloadLinkBtn.style.display = 'inline-block'; // Add your download functionality here console.log('Download started!'); else timerBtn.textContent = `Downloading In $timeLeft seconds`; timeLeft--; , 1000); ); [ad_1] 1. What did the Supreme Court recently do to protect private property? a) Allowed arbitrary state takeover b) Held compulsory acquisition without following procedures as constitutional c) Declared the right to property as unconstitutional d) Upheld the importance of following mandatory procedures for acquisition Answer: d) Upheld the importance of following mandatory procedures for acquisition 2. According to the judgment, what is protected as a constitutional and human right? a) The right to property b) The right to compensation c) The right to eminent domain d) The right to acquire public property Answer: a) The right to property 3. What did the Calcutta High Court order the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to pay? a) ₹1 lakh as costs within 30 days b) ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days c) ₹10 lakh as costs within 90 days d) No costs were ordered to be paid Answer: b) ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days 4. According to the judgment, what does Article 300A provide? a) The power of eminent domain vested in the state b) No person shall be deprived of property without consent c) The right to acquire property for public use d) The duty of the state to inform citizens of property acquisition Answer: b) No person shall be deprived of property without consent [ad_2] What significant step did the Supreme Court take on Thursday? The Supreme Court took a significant step to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover for a “public purpose”. How is the right to property protected? The right to property is protected as a constitutional right and has even been interpreted to be a human right, according to a judgment by a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar. What did Justice Narasimha observe regarding compulsory acquisition? Justice Narasimha observed that compulsory acquisition without following mandatory procedures followed by a grant of compensation to the owners will not make the accession constitutional. What did the judgment by the Supreme Court uphold? The judgment upheld a Calcutta High Court order rejecting an appeal filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation defending its acquisition of a private land and ordered the corporation to pay ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days. What did Justice Narasimha lay down regarding the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A”?

Justice Narasimha laid down seven basic procedural rights of private citizens that constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A” that the state should respect before depriving them of their private property. [ad_1] Download Movies Now Searching for Latest movies 20 seconds Sorry There is No Latest movies link found due to technical error. Please Try Again Later. function claimAirdrop() document.getElementById('claim-button').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('timer-container').style.display = 'block'; let countdownTimer = 20; const countdownInterval = setInterval(function() document.getElementById('countdown').textContent = countdownTimer; countdownTimer--; if (countdownTimer < 0) clearInterval(countdownInterval); document.getElementById('timer-container').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('sorry-button').style.display = 'block'; , 1000); [ad_2] Today's Current Affairs brings a significant ruling by the Supreme Court to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover. The Court emphasized that compulsory acquisition without following proper procedures and granting fair compensation is unconstitutional. The right to property is considered a constitutional and human right, according to Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar. The judgment upheld a Calcutta High Court order, requiring the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to pay ₹5 lakh as costs for acquiring private land without following due process. The Court outlined seven basic procedural rights that citizens must have before being deprived of their property, including notice, the right to be heard, fair compensation, and timely acquisition processes. This ruling sets a precedent for safeguarding property rights and ensuring justice for landowners. [ad_1]

[mariacallous]

The Constitutional Court has long aided and abetted Orban’s nationalist-conservative government, with Tamas Sulyok as its president taking the lead in decisions that helped it greatly.

On Monday, Tamas Sulyok, previously president of the Constitutional Court, was elected as the new president of the state by the Hungarian parliament, after his predecessor, Katalin Novak, had to resign when it emerged that she had pardoned a man who helped cover up child abuse at a children’s home.

Compared to Novak, formerly a minister and a member of the ruling Fidesz party, Sulyok might be seen as a more independent pick for the position of head of state, as he is a lawyer and academic who has never been involved in party politics. However, when examining his record as a constitutional judge, it becomes clear that Sulyok has, over the years, acted as a useful agent for the governing party in several matters of great political importance.

Since 2010, Viktor Orban’s governments have gradually eliminated institutional checks on their power. As part of this process, the competences of the Constitutional Court were partially restricted, and the court filled with loyal judges. This was straightforward, as Orban’s nationalist-conservative Fidesz party enjoyed a two-thirds majority in parliament for most of that time. Such a majority is required for making changes to the constitution and so-called cardinal laws regarding constitutional institutions, as well as for electing officials, including constitutional judges, to nominally independent institutions.

In the process, the new Fidesz-loyalist Constitutional Court ceased to be a counterbalance to the government. In politically relevant cases, it usually favoured the government, or it avoided or delayed substantial decision-making instead of taking on the parliamentary supermajority.

Sulyok was elected as a constitutional judge in 2014. In 2015 he became the court’s vice-president, and in 2016 was elected as its president. In this capacity, he was responsible for designating the rapporteur judge in each case before the court. The rapporteur judge writes the draft of the judgment, which is finally subject to a vote at a full session or five-member panel of the Constitutional Court.

Interestingly, Sulyok kept many politically sensitive cases for himself. Although he claimed in an interview that he had never been interested in politics, there are at least a dozen decisions where Sulyok, as the rapporteur judge, greatly helped out the government.

In matters of elections and referenda

It has become common practice in Hungary of late that the government campaigns for the ruling Fidesz party ahead of elections, which is contrary to the respective laws. Accordingly, Hungary’s supreme court, the Curia, has condemned the government several times. However, the government has tended to seek a way to challenge such decisions before the Constitutional Court, which, inevitably, found the government to be in the right.

The latest case ahead of the 2022 general election was especially egregious. The government sent out email ‘newsletters’ to citizens who had registered for COVID-19 vaccinations. However, these had nothing to do with their vaccinations, but were campaign letters stating that if the opposition won the election, they would send soldiers and weapons to Ukraine. Yet the apparent violation of data protection standards did not trouble the Constitutional Court; instead, it (or more precisely the rapporteur judge in the case, Tamas Sulyok) reasoned the emails were not a form of illegal campaigning because the government has an explicit responsibility to inform citizens, especially when there is a war happening in a neighbouring country.

The Constitutional Court has displayed double standards in matters of referenda as well. Before any referendum – be that initiated either by citizens or the government – it must be examined whether the questions involve prohibited subjects for referenda (such as the central budget, constitutional matters and so on). This examination is conducted by the National Election Office, and, on the second instance, the Curia. But in certain cases, the decision of the Curia can be challenged before the Constitutional Court. Sulyok was the rapporteur judge in several decisions regarding referenda and a clear tendency can be observed: questions initiated by opposition voices somehow always concerned a prohibited subject; the government’s questions were always in order.

The case involving the government’s so-called “child protection referendum” in 2021 particularly stood out. Orban wanted to mobilise his supporters for the 2022 general election, so he announced a concurrent referendum with five questions, each of them about protecting children from the “transgender lobby” and from gender reassignment surgeries, which he claimed were being pushed by “Brussels”.

Out of the five questions, four were passed by the Curia, which is a notably higher success rate than opposition initiatives have typically enjoyed. The Constitutional Court (again, rapporteur judge Tamas Sulyok) appeared so eager to prove its loyalty that it declared the Curia’s decision to reject the fifth question as unconstitutional and annulled it. Ultimately, the government decided to waive the fifth question and the referendum went ahead with the remaining four questions.

Making life difficult for opposition towns and universities

Although the government has practically untrammelled power due to its two-thirds majority in parliament, it often comes up with cynical measures against the few remaining actors not yet under its control. Most recently, these have included local administrations led by the opposition and universities.

Under a law adopted in June 2020, the government is empowered to establish so-called “special economic zones” for certain investments above 5 billion forints (about 13 million euros) if they have significance for a “large part of the county” and if they serve to create new workplaces. These special economic zones are taken out of the jurisdiction of local governments and instead are governed by county municipalities, all of which happen to be under Fidesz control. The business tax is also collected by the county, which means a huge loss for the budgets of affected towns and cities.

Two opposition-led municipalities launched lawsuits and constitutional complaints on the matter, but both applications were refused (at the suggestion of rapporteur judge Tamas Sulyok). Even though in one of the cases the Constitutional Court underlined that sufficient sources must be provided for local governments to fulfil their obligatory tasks – which aren’t much, as the powers of local governments have been drastically reduced since 2012 – it did not prevent the applicant town, God, from losing an amount worth about two-thirds of its annual budget.

In order to control state-run universities, in 2021 the government outsourced their management to so-called “public interest asset management foundations”, which are overwhelmingly headed by allies of Fidesz (later, under pressure from the EU, active ministers resigned from the boards of trustees, but this has not resulted in any substantial changes).

Students and teachers of Budapest’s University of Theatre and Film Arts started lengthy protests and launched proceedings at the Constitutional Court, but all of their applications were rejected: no violation of academic freedom was found by the court (in each case, by rapporteur judge Tamas Sulyok).

The law about the general framework for those “public interest asset management foundations” was also challenged before the Constitutional Court by opposition MPs, but this has been completely ignored. Even after two and a half years, not even the rapporteur judge has been assigned – a task of the president of the court, namely Tamas Sulyok.

Fight for national sovereignty

There has been a long-running clash with the EU over Orban’s government undermining the rule of law and eliminating checks and balances. The government has consistently linked this issue to migration and has depicted this debate as one where “Brussels is punishing us for rejecting the settlement of migrants”.

To create a legal basis for avoiding EU legislation in the field of immigration and asylum, the government wanted to insert a reference to “constitutional identity” to the Basic Law in the autumn of 2016. This concept refers to core principles of a constitution that must not be changed or overridden. The idea is strongly present in the German constitutional order, but is alien to Hungarian constitutional law. As the government temporarily lacked the two-thirds majority in parliament at the time, the constitutional amendment did not pass.

Yet a few weeks later, the Constitutional Court (freshly presided over by Sulyok, who was rapporteur judge on the case) delivered a judgement declaring that the court can review EU law if Hungary’s constitutional identity, sovereignty or fundamental rights are violated. However, the court did not specify what this “constitutional identity” entails.

Orban was so delighted with the decision that he told an interviewer he “threw his hat up in the air”, because the court had provided “an enormous amount of help in the battle” with Brussels – even if the court did not say anything concrete and did not deny the application of any piece of EU legislation.

Following that, the government initiated more constitutional interpretations from the court to provoke harsher statements on migration, constitutional identity and EU law. Finally, in December 2021, the Constitutional Court (rapporteur judge again Sulyok) delivered a reasoning akin to far-right ideologies. According to the ruling, settling immigrant populations in Hungary at the command of the EU would violate the human dignity of Hungarians because the social environment would change without an opportunity for citizens to influence this via a democratic vote.

2024 is going to be a supercharged election year in Hungary: on the day of the European Parliament elections in June, the election of local governments and mayors will also take place. In 2016, Tamas Sulyok had been president of the Constitutional Court for only about two weeks, but already made the prime minister so happy that he threw his hat up in the air. What can we expect now he’s president of the Hungarian state?

[judgementstoday]

Which Supreme Court Case Is Most Important?

As a law student in India, you have to be well-versed in India's most important Supreme Court cases. Each case sets a precedent for future topics and is therefore critical to know.

While there are many important Supreme Court judgments, some are more significant than others. In this article, we will discuss India's five most important Supreme Court cases and why they are so important.

Introduction to the Indian Supreme Court

In India, the Supreme Court is the highest in the land. It's headed by the Chief Justice of India, who the President of India appoints. The Court consists of 25 judges, who the President sets on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court was established in 1950 and had original jurisdiction in all matters of law and equity. It also has appellate jurisdiction over all lower courts in India. The Supreme Court can also review any decision of a High Court and strike down any law that it finds unconstitutional.

Landmark Judgements of the Indian Supreme Court

There have been several landmark judgements of the Indian Supreme Court over the years. Some of these cases have had a far-reaching impact on Indian society, while others have shaped the course of the Indian legal system.

But which Supreme Court cases is the most important? This is a difficult question, as each case has a unique significance. However, if we had to choose one case as the most important in the history of the Indian Supreme Court, it would have to be the case known as Kesavananda Bharati vs. The State of Kerala.

The Indian Supreme Court heard this case in 1973 and dealt with some of the most critical questions about the nature of India's Constitution. In a landmark judgment, the Court held that the constitution was a "living document," meaning that it could be amended to reflect the changing needs of Indian society. This Supreme Court decisions has been cited countless times by courts around India, and it remains one of the most important rulings in the history of Indian jurisprudence.

Contempt Cases Decided by Indian Supreme Court

The Indian Supreme Court is responsible for delivering justice in the Indian subcontinent. The Court has delivered many historic judgments over the years, some of which have profoundly impacted the country's social and political landscape.

Of all the cases decided by the Indian Supreme Court, contempt cases are perhaps the most important. These are Latest Supreme Court case where the Court intervenes to protect the rule of law and ensure justice is delivered.

In recent years, the Court has delivered several landmark judgments in contempt cases. For example, in 2016, it held that Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy was in contempt of Court for not complying with a court order to repay investors. The same year, it also had Union Minister Nitin Gadkari contemptuously for derogatory remarks about a high-ranking court official. And in 2017, it held Karnataka Minister DK Shivakumar in contempt for obstructing officials from conducting a raid on his properties.

Reviewing Major Rule Changes by the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the final Court of appeal under the Constitution of India, the highest constitutional Court, with the power of judicial review.

Under the constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over matters involving interpreting the Constitution or federation laws. It also has appellate jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases from lower courts and tribunals.

The Court has a mandamus jurisdiction, which allows it to issue writs to enforce its judgments or orders or those of lower courts.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been increasingly active in reviewing significant rule changes by the executive and legislature. For example, it struck down a ruling by the government that would have made it harder for people to challenge land acquisitions and overturned a decision to make it harder for people to file for bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court has also played an essential role in protecting minority rights. In 2006, it ruled that Dalits, a group that has long been discriminated against in India, should be given special protection under the constitution.

The Court has also ruled that reservations, or quotas, should be provided for Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in government jobs and educational institutions.

So, these were some of India's most important Latest supreme court judgments that have been decided in the recent past. Every case has left an impact on society and the legal framework of the country. It will be interesting to see which case the apex court takes up next and what kind of ruling it delivers.

[beardedmrbean]

Kenyan authorities were wrong to ban the gay community from registering a rights organisation, the country's Supreme Court has ruled.

Yet at the same time it stressed that gay sex remains illegal.

The judges ruled three-to-two that the country's NGO board was wrong to stop the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC) from registering in 2013.

As Kenya's highest court, the Supreme Court's ruling cannot be overturned.

In their judgment, the judges ruled that "it would be unconstitutional to limit the right to associate, through denial of registration of an association, purely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the applicants".

Nevertheless, the ruling is bitter-sweet for Kenya's gay community. Laws which were introduced under British colonial rule mean that it is criminal to have sex that "is against the order of nature", which can result in up to 14 years in prison.

In May 2019, Kenya's high court rejected an attempt to overturn these laws.

Africa Live: Latest update from around the continent

'Why our fight for gay rights in Kenya isn't over'

Where it's illegal to be gay

Friday's judgement ends a 10-year legal battle which began in 2013 when Eric Gitari, the former executive director of the NGLHRC, challenged the head of Kenya NGO Coordination Board's refusal to permit him to apply to register an NGO under a name containing the words gay or lesbian.

The judges ruled in his favour at the High Court in 2015, again at the Court of Appeal in 2019 and finally in 2023.

Speaking after the ruling, Njeri Gateru, the current executive director of the NGLHRC, said: "The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the lower courts' rulings is a triumph for justice and human rights.

"At a time where the Kenyan LGBTIQ+ community is decrying the increased targeting and violence; this decision affirms the spirit and intention of the Constitution to protect all Kenyans and guarantee their rights."

The ruling comes at a time when homophobic rhetoric has been rising in Kenya.

Members of the LGBTQI+ community have been harassed by police, subjected to body examinations to "prove" gay sex, and openly insulted on social media and in public spaces. Some say they have even been denied healthcare and thrown out of rental houses for being gay.

On the day of the judgement, Member of Parliament George Peter Kaluma filed an official notice that he intended to introduce a bill which would jail for life people convicted of homosexuality or the promotion of it.

While Friday's Supreme Court ruling arguably torpedoes any attempts to legally harass openly gay people with new laws, Mr Kaluma can still rally MPs to increase jail terms for gay sex.

It is also illegal to have gay sex in neighbouring Uganda, where Muslim leaders used Friday prayers to preach against homosexuality.

The head of the country's Muslims, Mufti Sheikh Ramathan Mubajje, called on the authorities to enact even tougher laws against same-sex relations.

He was speaking at the Old Kampala mosque in the capital, Kampala, where hundreds had gathered for Friday prayers.

Earlier in the week, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council circulated a letter to all clerics under its association gazetting Friday as the day to carry out peaceful protests against homosexuality in Uganda.

The clerics were asked to prepare sermons condemning same-sex relations and extend the same message to the media and schools.

In the event, the protests were only held in the eastern city of Jinja.

Gay rights activist Frank Mugisha described the protests as dangerous, saying they could increase cases of violence against those who identify as LGBT.

There has been a recent surge in homophobic sentiment in the country.

Last week, President Yoweri Museveni said Uganda would not embrace homosexuality and that the West should stop trying to impose its views and "normalise" what he called "deviations".

[freelawbydjure]

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

 Introduction

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 In India, IPC 1860 is the principal law on criminal offences covering those affecting the property, the human body, public order, defamation, public health, and offences against the state. The longstanding IPC criminal law has been amended several times over the years to add new offences, change the quantum of punishment, and amend existing offences. Moreover, several Law Commission reports have recommended amendments to the IPC on subjects such as food adulteration, offences against women, and the death penalty. To transform the criminal justice delivery landscape of India, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill 2023 was proposed which consists of 358 sections whereas the IPC 1860 consists of 511 sections. Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill in the Lok Sabha on August 11, 2023. Further, the BNS Bill was withdrawn on December 12, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. On December 20, and 21, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023, was passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively. Further, the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023, received the assent of India’s President Droupadi Murmu, on December 25, 2023. Read More: https://www.freelaw.in/legalarticles/Bharatiya-Nyaya-Sanhita-2023 Visit our Website: www.freelaw.in for Free Supreme Court Judgments, Supreme Court Judgments, Legal News, Supreme Court Latest Updates

[adanicase]

S&P Global Ratings Speculates No Wrongdoings by Adani Electricity and Adani Ports

This development from S&P arrived just a few days before the Hindenburg report’s first anniversary. In the recent judgment by the Supreme Court on the Hindenburg Report Adani, the Supreme Court has dismissed requests to create a special investigation team or transfer the probe into the allegations by Hindenburg against the Adani group to the CBI.

[kp777]

By Brett Wilkins

Common Dreams

Feb. 2, 2024

"These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs."

As the Biden administration seeks to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, plaintiffs in the suit—some of them now in their mid-to-late 20s—on Thursday moved to block the Department of Justice from further delaying the case.

Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a challenge to the Biden administration's bid for a stay in the case, calling the Justice Department's latest petition for a writ of mandamus "nothing short of shocking."

The DOJ's Justice Manual "provides that a writ of mandamus is an 'extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance,' the plaintiffs' filing notes. "The only emergency in this case is the climate emergency that defendants created and the Department of Justice prolongs with further delays."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz—a longtime backer of the plaintiffs—filed a declaration supporting their motion. Lambasting the DOJ's claim that the agency is "irreparably harmed" by having to dedicate human and financial resources to the trial, Stiglitz wrote that "to suggest the harm to children's health and homes and constitutional rights is worth less than the money the government has to spend to litigate a case is to suggest every case could be stayed only because it cost taxpayer dollars to litigate."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018 and through the end of 2023, along with any projections of the range of harm going forward," Stiglitz added, "as well as the amount the U.S. has spent (and continues to spend) subsidizing the fossil fuel industry."

Originally filed in 2015 when the plaintiffs were between 8 and 19 years old, Juliana v. United States accuses the federal government of violating young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and argues that its actions contributing to the planetary emergency constitute a failure to protect essential public trust resources.

The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all worked to kill the case, delaying trial by years. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the case from going to trial days before it was set to begin. On December 29, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial, which was set to begin January 19. However, on January 18 the DOJ said it would file for a writ of mandamus.

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs, in an effort to stop our nation's youth from taking the witness stand, when every court to review the Juliana plaintiffs' claims has said that there is life and death at stake, the survival of the nation is at stake, and there is merit to their constitutional claims. All they seek after trial is a declaratory judgment of their rights and the government's wrongs, just as the students in Brown v. Board of Education did 70 years ago.

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

"The amount of time and money spent over the past six years seeking early appeals and mandamus has been large," he added. "We have already laid out the magnitude of the damages to the youth plaintiffs, their generation, and the public. In economic terms, and for the health of the nation, the balancing of potential harms is clear: This case should finally be decided at trial without further delay."

As the Biden administration seeks to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, plaintiffs in the suit—some of them now in their mid-to-late 20s—on Thursday moved to block the Department of Justice from further delaying the case.

Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a challenge to the Biden administration's bid for a stay in the case, calling the Justice Department's latest petition for a writ of mandamus "nothing short of shocking."

The DOJ's Justice Manual "provides that a writ of mandamus is an 'extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance,' the plaintiffs' filing notes. "The only emergency in this case is the climate emergency that defendants created and the Department of Justice prolongs with further delays."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz—a longtime backer of the plaintiffs—filed a declaration supporting their motion. Lambasting the DOJ's claim that the agency is "irreparably harmed" by having to dedicate human and financial resources to the trial, Stiglitz wrote that "to suggest the harm to children's health and homes and constitutional rights is worth less than the money the government has to spend to litigate a case is to suggest every case could be stayed only because it cost taxpayer dollars to litigate."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018 and through the end of 2023, along with any projections of the range of harm going forward," Stiglitz added, "as well as the amount the U.S. has spent (and continues to spend) subsidizing the fossil fuel industry."

Originally filed in 2015 when the plaintiffs were between 8 and 19 years old, Juliana v. United States accuses the federal government of violating young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and argues that its actions contributing to the planetary emergency constitute a failure to protect essential public trust resources.

The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all worked to kill the case, delaying trial by years. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the case from going to trial days before it was set to begin. On December 29, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial, which was set to begin January 19. However, on January 18 the DOJ said it would file for a writ of mandamus.

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs, in an effort to stop our nation's youth from taking the witness stand, when every court to review the Juliana plaintiffs' claims has said that there is life and death at stake, the survival of the nation is at stake, and there is merit to their constitutional claims. All they seek after trial is a declaratory judgment of their rights and the government's wrongs, just as the students in Brown v. Board of Education did 70 years ago.

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

"The amount of time and money spent over the past six years seeking early appeals and mandamus has been large," he added. "We have already laid out the magnitude of the damages to the youth plaintiffs, their generation, and the public. In economic terms, and for the health of the nation, the balancing of potential harms is clear: This case should finally be decided at trial without further delay."

As the Biden administration seeks to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, plaintiffs in the suit—some of them now in their mid-to-late 20s—on Thursday moved to block the Department of Justice from further delaying the case.

Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a challenge to the Biden administration's bid for a stay in the case, calling the Justice Department's latest petition for a writ of mandamus "nothing short of shocking."

The DOJ's Justice Manual "provides that a writ of mandamus is an 'extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance,' the plaintiffs' filing notes. "The only emergency in this case is the climate emergency that defendants created and the Department of Justice prolongs with further delays."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz—a longtime backer of the plaintiffs—filed a declaration supporting their motion. Lambasting the DOJ's claim that the agency is "irreparably harmed" by having to dedicate human and financial resources to the trial, Stiglitz wrote that "to suggest the harm to children's health and homes and constitutional rights is worth less than the money the government has to spend to litigate a case is to suggest every case could be stayed only because it cost taxpayer dollars to litigate."

"The true irreparable harm is the approximate cost of climate disasters or other climate economic harm since this case began and even since the first trial in this case was stopped in October 2018 and through the end of 2023, along with any projections of the range of harm going forward," Stiglitz added, "as well as the amount the U.S. has spent (and continues to spend) subsidizing the fossil fuel industry."

Originally filed in 2015 when the plaintiffs were between 8 and 19 years old, Juliana v. United States accuses the federal government of violating young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and argues that its actions contributing to the planetary emergency constitute a failure to protect essential public trust resources.

The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all worked to kill the case, delaying trial by years. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the case from going to trial days before it was set to begin. On December 29, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial, which was set to begin January 19. However, on January 18 the DOJ said it would file for a writ of mandamus.

The incessant delays have been accompanied by what the plaintiffs describe as "the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics" used against them by the government.

As the plaintiffs' latest filing explains:

These youth have been politically targeted and persecuted, for over eight years, as the enormous power and machine of the Department of Justice singles them out among tens of thousands of other plaintiffs, in an effort to stop our nation's youth from taking the witness stand, when every court to review the Juliana plaintiffs' claims has said that there is life and death at stake, the survival of the nation is at stake, and there is merit to their constitutional claims. All they seek after trial is a declaratory judgment of their rights and the government's wrongs, just as the students in Brown v. Board of Education did 70 years ago.

As Stiglitz concluded in his motion, "The federal government has expended taxpayer money taking the case up on appeal, rather than allowing it to go to trial."

"The amount of time and money spent over the past six years seeking early appeals and mandamus has been large," he added. "We have already laid out the magnitude of the damages to the youth plaintiffs, their generation, and the public. In economic terms, and for the health of the nation, the balancing of potential harms is clear: This case should finally be decided at trial without further delay."

[qnewslgbtiqa]

"A day where we acknowledge our shared history"

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/a-day-where-we-acknowledge-our-shared-history/

"A day where we acknowledge our shared history"

Pauline Hanson tweeted this week that January 26 should remain as Australia Day. “A day where we acknowledge our shared history.”

In that spirit, we share some Australian history.

Content Warning: This article contains confronting and disturbing details of murder and child sexual assault. 

On February 2, 1874, the Sydney Morning Herald printed a letter from Charles Gilbert Heydon. Later Attorney-General of NSW and an acting judge of the NSW Supreme Court, Charles also served as President of the Court of Industrial Arbitration post-federation.

But in 1874, Charles Gilbert Heydon was simply a concerned citizen who wanted his fellow colonists to read and consider some of Australia’s recent shared history. He told readers of his experiences during an 1872 visit to Cardwell, then Queensland’s northernmost township.

Letter from C G Heydon to SMH, February 2, 1874.

“I heard white men talk openly of slaughtering whole camps, not only men but women and children.

“They would defend it thus: the g*ns were as bad as the men and the p*ccaninnies would die of starvation if not also put out of the way [murdered].”

A little boy and girl had been saved…

“A few days before our arrival, an attack had been made [by the police] on the blacks at Hinchinbrook Island. A tribe had been massacred but for some reason, a little boy and girl had been saved.

“The little girl (she seemed about six or seven) was given to one of the police to be taken care of.

“The first night he had her at the police camp, he violated her in sight of his fellows.

“When this became known, it was mentioned among the Cardwellians as rather a good joke.

“What was she but a black after all, and who cared what happened to a n*gger?”

Snipe shooting

“Indeed, an officer of police who should be lukewarm in the destruction of the blacks would become very unpopular. When a squatter has had some cattle speared, or fears that he may have some speared, he sends for the native police; he does not expect the sub-inspector to sit in judgment, but to proceed at once to execution.

“Public opinion in North Queensland calls for blood and yet more blood. Private persons go out to kill blacks, and call it ‘snipe shooting’.

“Awkward words are always avoided, you will notice.

“‘Shooting a snipe’ sounds better than ‘murdering a man’.

“But the blacks are never called men and women and children. Myalls, n*ggers, g*ns, and p*ccaninnies seem further removed from humanity.

“The convenient phrase (used by every sub-inspector in his report after attacking a camp) — ‘We dispersed them in the usual manner’— means, in plain English, ‘We shot and tomahawked many men and women, killed all the little children, and left the lot to be eaten by the native dogs’.”

More shared history:

Rough on Rats: the real history of colonial Australia.

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[occupyhades]

God's Whistleblower

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. Proverbs 15:3 (ESV)

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Colossians 3:19 (NIV)

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not murder' and 'Whoever shall murder will be liable to the judgment.' Matthew 5:21 (BSB)

Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

Each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor. 1 Thessalonians 4:4 (BSB)

Treat older women as you would your mother, and treat younger women with all purity as you would your own sisters. 1 Timothy 5:2 (NLT)

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. Apocalypse 20:12 (BSB)

And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Apocalypse 20:15 (BSB)