“Supreme Court” · 60
IndiaPunjab govt to move SC against HC order on graft allegations
The Punjab government has announced its intention to file a Special Criminal Appeal (SCA) against a High Court (HC) order related to graft allegations. The decision comes after the HC issued an order that the government claims undermines its authority and fails to address corruption charges effectively. The government argues that the HC's ruling lacks sufficient evidence and does not align with established legal procedures. This development highlights ongoing tensions between state authorities and judicial bodies regarding the handling of corruption cases. The next steps will involve filing the appeal with the Supreme Court, which could lead to further legal scrutiny of the case.
United StatesJustice Alito on Originalism
In a recent Wall Street Journal article based on his forthcoming book, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito discusses his views on constitutional originalism. He argues for a 'populist' version of originalism, emphasizing the original public meaning of the Constitution as understood by ordinary people rather than legal elites. Alito imagines everyday colonists discussing the First Amendment in a tavern, suggesting that their interpretation would reflect common understanding rather than philosophical or legal expertise. However, he acknowledges potential drawbacks of the populist approach, including the risk of misunderstanding technical legal terms and challenges in addressing modern issues unforeseen by the Founding Fathers. While Alito leans toward populism, he suggests a hybrid approach combining elite and popular interpretations could be optimal.
Christa Pike survived lethal injection. How your state carries out executions
Christa Pike, a woman convicted of murdering a classmate over three decades ago, survived two lethal injection doses during her scheduled execution in Tennessee, sparking renewed debate over execution protocols across the United States. This incident has raised questions about the reliability and safety of lethal injection, which accounts for approximately 89% of all executions since 1976. While lethal injection is the most commonly used method, other states employ alternatives such as electrocution, lethal gas, and firing squads. Tennessee’s case highlights variations in execution procedures, with some states allowing inmates to choose their method. The Supreme Court mandates that the death penalty be reserved for the most severe crimes, yet the controversy surrounding Pike’s survival underscores ongoing concerns about the ethics and effectiveness of capital punishment.
Dozen Bengal Tribunal judges flag their EC portal: ‘Can’t serve notices, hold hearings or restore deleted voters’
Judges from over a dozen tribunals in West Bengal, established under Supreme Court orders to process appeals related to deleted voters (including 27 lakh cases), have reported significant shortcomings in the digital portal provided by the Election Commission of India (EC). These include the inability to serve legal notices, upload necessary documents, conduct virtual hearings, or restore deleted voters. The issues were documented in a meeting on August 11 and shared with the EC and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Despite previous reports highlighting similar problems with ECINET, the EC has yet to respond to these concerns. The lack of functionality undermines due process for affected voters.
Did not clear Form 6 change… can annul unilateral decisions: Supreme Court sends notice to Election Commission
The Supreme Court of India has sent a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), seeking clarification on whether changes to Form 6, used for candidate nominations, were cleared properly. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that any decisions made unilaterally by the ECI could be annulled. The petitioners requested the court to review the 'original and primary records' related to the matter and declare the ongoing exercise illegal if decisions were made without consensus. While the court did not issue an immediate suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the petitioner argued that the current actions of the CEC threaten the integrity of India’s electoral system, which has functioned for 76 years. The court expressed concerns about the implications of suspending the CEC during ongoing elections but remained cautious about taking immediate action.
One Nation, One Election Bills: Supreme Court gave its nod on Sept 22, but cancelled meet with House panel late, says JPC Chairman
The chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the 'One Nation, One Election' bills, P P Chaudhary, stated that the Supreme Court initially agreed to hold a meeting with the committee on October 6, 2026, to discuss the proposed legislation. However, the meeting was later canceled after the court received objections from various quarters. The planned meeting was intended as a 'local study visit' involving an 'informal discussion' with the Chief Justice of India and other judges on the issue of simultaneous elections. The controversy arose when Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal criticized the meeting as unconstitutional, arguing that the bills under discussion might eventually be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court reportedly decided against proceeding with the meeting after internal discussions among senior judges. The JPC had been informed of the initial agreement by the court, and preparations were made, including submitting materials to the court and sharing participant lists. The cancellation came amid concerns that engaging with the judiciary on these bills could lead to legal challenges.
Justice Alito on the Supreme Court: "We are not part of any political movement"
In a rare interview with CBS News, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito addressed concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. He emphasized that the justices are not aligned with any political movement and criticized leaders from both major political parties for portraying them as such. Alito stressed the importance of maintaining the court's independence and neutrality. The interview highlights ongoing debates about the role of the Supreme Court in American politics and the perception of judicial impartiality.
COI have stated what I know: Sneyder Pinilla responds to allegations against magistrate Vladimir Fernández
The article discusses allegations against Magistrate Vladimir Fernández Andrade related to corruption within the National Risk Management Unit (UNGRD). On September 30, the Constitutional Court held a special session to evaluate these claims but did not mention Fernández by name, urging respect for the presumption of innocence of its members. Despite repeated mentions of Fernández in the case, no investigation has been launched against him. In response, former UNGRD subdirector Sneyder Pinilla, currently serving a five-year prison sentence for his involvement in the scandal, sent a letter to the Attorney General’s Office stating he provided all evidence, including cell phone records, conversations, photographs, chats, contracts, and documents. Pinilla claimed he only knows Fernández through a recommendation from Olmedo López, who was then the legal secretary of the Presidency. He stated that Fernández was recommended to advise his boss after an investigation by the National Audit Office. Pinilla reiterated that he provided information to both the Attorney General and the Supreme Court regarding payments made to then-Senate President Iván Name and House Representative Andrés Calle.
Spain'Law of grandchildren': the Supreme Court reviews the appeal of the Government against the suspension of the right to vote that leaves hundreds of thousands out of the polls on 29-N
The Supreme Court of Spain is reviewing a government appeal against a court order that temporarily suspended a law known as the 'Ley de nietos,' which restricts voting rights for certain individuals. This suspension could affect hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be eligible to vote in the upcoming November 29 elections. The law has been challenged by groups such as Iustitia Europa and the Vox party, who argue that the measure should be immediately enforced to ensure it impacts the next election. The legal dispute centers around whether the temporary suspension of the law is valid and whether it should remain in place until the final ruling.
Gyanesh Kumar changed Form 6 ‘illegally’ during SIR, says Rahul Gandhi
Congress leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of illegally altering Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, claiming this action was part of a broader effort to aid the BJP. They argued that the Supreme Court had not approved such changes and that Kumar acted unilaterally, violating procedural norms. The allegations come amid legal challenges questioning the legitimacy of the SIR process, with the Supreme Court issuing notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the central government. Congress has demanded Kumar's resignation, annulment of the SIR, and election conducted using ballot paper, asserting these are non-negotiable conditions. The party claims these actions represent a systemic attack on democratic processes and has mobilized supporters nationwide.
Legislative privilege versus free speech: SC may not hear on merits after TN Assembly says resolution was withdrawn
The Supreme Court of India may not proceed to hear the case on its merits after the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly indicated that a 2003 resolution regarding legislative privilege was withdrawn in the subsequent year. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the assembly, orally informed the court led by Chief Justice Surya Kant about this withdrawal. This development could affect the ongoing legal dispute between the legislature and the judiciary over the balance between legislative privileges and free speech. The issue centers on whether the assembly's actions were within constitutional bounds and whether they infringe upon fundamental rights. The outcome of this matter could set important precedents for the relationship between state legislatures and judicial oversight.
Just One GOP Justice Needs to Flip for Big Oil to Face Climate Accountability. Welp.
The article discusses the upcoming Supreme Court case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, which centers on whether communities can sue oil and gas companies for contributing to climate change. Boulder County filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging that companies like Suncor Energy and Exxon knowingly concealed the dangers of fossil fuel emissions and mislead the public. The county claims these actions led to costly climate-related damages, including increased flooding, droughts, and heatwaves, costing over $100 million in repairs and expected to cost another $100 million in adaptation efforts. While lower courts rejected Suncor's attempt to dismiss the case, the companies now seek a Supreme Court ruling that federal law preempts such lawsuits, potentially blocking community accountability.
Supreme Court wrestles with energy companies' bid to block major climate suit
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to allow a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, against energy companies Exxon and Suncor Energy over climate change impacts. The case, Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County, involves whether state lawsuits against energy firms fall under federal law. Eight justices heard arguments, with Justice Samuel Alito recusing himself due to potential conflicts of interest. Alito’s absence raises concerns about a possible 4-4 deadlock, which would let the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling stand. The Trump administration supports Exxon and Suncor, while Boulder argues its case seeks compensation for environmental harm. The court is examining if it has jurisdiction to review the lower court’s decision.
Supreme Court sounds wary of state-based climate change suits against oil producers
The U.S. Supreme Court expressed caution regarding state-level lawsuits against oil and gas producers over climate change impacts, suggesting these cases might conflict with federal regulations like the Clean Air Act. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan emphasized that interstate environmental issues fall under federal jurisdiction, potentially limiting state claims. The court is considering whether states can pursue damages for climate-related harms, with California and over thirty other jurisdictions having initiated such lawsuits, though none have reached trial. The case involves a challenge to a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing Boulder County to sue, with the oil industry backing the appeal. Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself due to potential conflicts of interest. While the justices have not yet reached a definitive decision, many appear inclined to prioritize federal oversight over state-level litigation.
Iustitia Europa asks the TS to "guarantee" that the 29-N will not vote the nationalized by the Law of grandchildren who have not accredited the exile
The Spanish political party Iustitia Europa has requested the Supreme Court to ensure that individuals naturalized under Spain’s ‘law of grandchildren’ who have not properly proven their descent from exiles during the Franco regime cannot vote in the upcoming general elections on November 29. This request comes after the court issued a precautionary ruling on September 8 suspending the voting rights of those naturalized under this law until further clarification. The party argues that the voter registry cutoff date, August 1, 2026, as set by electoral law could include people who have not met the requirements for naturalization through the law. The Central Electoral Board confirms that the current registry includes these individuals but notes that the Supreme Court is still reviewing a challenge from the State Attorney General regarding the suspension. Iustitia Europa insists that the court must clarify which voters are affected by the suspension and ensure compliance with its previous ruling.
ICC unseals Taliban leaders' warrants over persecuting women
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has revealed more details about arrest warrants issued against four senior Taliban figures, including Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and Supreme Court Chief Abdul Hakim Haqqani, as well as two education ministers. The charges stem from alleged crimes against humanity involving the persecution of women, girls, and the LGBTQ+ community in Afghanistan since the Taliban regained power in 2021. The court claims these individuals implemented policies leading to severe human rights violations, including murder, imprisonment, torture, and forced disappearances. The ICC lacks enforcement powers but aims to exert diplomatic pressure on the Taliban regime. The Taliban has rejected the warrants, asserting that they follow Islamic Sharia law rather than international legal institutions.
Supreme Court orders capture of heads of cartel of health recoveries
The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the convictions of Claudia Patricia Rojas Puerta and Luis Andrés Ruiz Martínez, two former officials of the Ministry of Social Protection involved in the 'health recovery cartel.' Both were found responsible for participating in a scheme that allowed them to process payments for health insurance provider (EPS) requests that had been rejected by public resource administrators. In exchange for these actions, they shared commissions based on the money disbursed. Rojas Puerta received a 24-year prison sentence and a fine of COP $16.013 million, while Ruiz Martínez was sentenced to 22 years and six months in prison and a fine of COP $11.467 million. The court denied both the possibility of house arrest and conditional release. The decision, dated September 2, 2026, upheld the 2021 conviction by the Bogotá High Court. The case revealed how officials from the Ministry and representatives of intermediary companies managed payments for recoveries that had been fully or partially rejected by the Fidufosyga 2005 consortium, which administered funds from the Solidarity and Guarantee Fund (Fosyga).
The Midterm Sprint Gets The Full Kamala Treatment With A ‘Powerful’ Pep Talk
Former Vice President Kamala Harris launched a Democratic voter mobilization campaign ahead of the midterm elections, emphasizing the importance of feeling empowered to influence outcomes. Speaking at a get-out-the-vote event with 29 days remaining until Election Day, Harris urged Democrats to engage in door-knocking and outreach efforts to turn out voters. She criticized President Trump's administration as 'callous, corrupt, and incompetent,' linking current challenges such as high gas prices and grocery costs to broader national issues. Harris also accused Trump of being a 'tyrant' and claimed the Founding Fathers anticipated scenarios involving executive overreach. While acknowledging the difficulty of relying on the Supreme Court, she emphasized the potential for voters to reshape congressional control through the midterms. Her remarks focused on collective action and the belief that citizens possess significant power to effect change.
A SCOTUS Petition Argues That Pot Growers, Like Pot Smokers, Cannot Be Categorically Disarmed
Joseph Johnson, a Colorado resident convicted of unauthorized marijuana cultivation in 2015, received probation but later faced federal charges under 18 USC 922(g)(1) due to his felony record, resulting in a 2025 federal prison sentence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld his conviction, rejecting his claim that it violated the Second Amendment. Johnson is now seeking Supreme Court review to challenge the application of Section 922(g)(1), arguing that nonviolent felons should not be categorically disarmed. This follows the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in United States v. Hemani, where the Court struck down a similar law against cannabis users. Lower courts remain divided on whether the Second Amendment limits prosecutions under Section 922(g)(1), with some circuits allowing as-applied challenges while others block them. The 10th Circuit previously rejected such challenges in Vincent v. Bondi, involving a nonviolent felony conviction for check fraud.
Supreme Court refuses to stay proceedings against Nicobar project
The Supreme Court of India refused to halt legal proceedings against the Great Nicobar Island Project, rejecting the Union government's request to pause the case. The court emphasized that preserving cultural heritage, particularly of indigenous tribes such as the Shompen, is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Former Environment Secretary Meena Gupta challenged the project, citing concerns about its impact on the region's fragile ecosystem and the Forest Rights Act of 2006. The Union government argued that the project, valued at over ₹72,000 crore, holds significant national and strategic importance. The Supreme Court directed the Calcutta High Court to proceed with the case promptly, while noting the need to differentiate between state security and commercial interests.
Stocks Get Tech Lift Despite Renewed Bond Losses
The stock market saw gains driven by strong performance in major technology companies, despite ongoing concerns over elevated oil prices and bond yields. The S&P 500 neared a record high as large-cap stocks rose 1.3%, while political instability in Europe and financial uncertainties weakened the euro, strengthening the U.S. dollar as a safe-haven currency. The report includes insights from Bloomberg News' Macro Strategist Michael Ball, discussions on the real estate market featuring Realty Income CEO Sumit Roy, and conversations about a jewelry venture led by Astrea London founder Nathalie Morrison and actress Sarah Jessica Parker. Bloomberg's Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr also provides a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court term.
3 New Judges Appointed To Supreme Court, Working Strength Reaches 37
Three new judges have been appointed to India's Supreme Court, bringing the total number of working judges to 37. The newly appointed judges include Justice Sunita Agarwal, previously the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court; Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, formerly the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court; and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, who was the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. These appointments follow the elevation of high court chief justices to the apex judicial body, which is responsible for overseeing the country's legal system.
Supreme Court upholds concealment of identity of large homeowners
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that the identities of large property owners (personas jurídicas) can be kept confidential to protect public safety, citing a risk of illegal occupation. This decision overturns a previous ruling by Catalonia’s High Court of Justice, which had ordered the disclosure of such information. The case originated from a journalist’s request for transparency regarding entities holding more than ten rental properties. While personal data was anonymized, corporate identities were initially disclosed. The Catalan Property Urban Chamber challenged this, arguing it violated public safety limits. The Supreme Court now states that a real, objective, and foreseeable risk justifies partial access to data, emphasizing that statistical anonymity suffices for public interest. The court notes that 82% of occupations in Catalonia involve properties owned by these entities, and manuals indicate identifying them is a key step in illegal occupation.
Mamata moves Supreme Court against ECI’s freeze on Trinamool Congress symbol
In September 2026, Mamata Banerjee, leader of the Trinamool Congress and former Chief Minister of West Bengal, filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to freeze the party's symbol ahead of upcoming Assembly byelections in Nandigram and Rejinagar. This action followed the ECI's allocation of distinct names and symbols to two factions within the Trinamool Congress, Mamata's group received the name 'Mamata All India Trinamool Congress' with a football player symbol, while the opposing faction led by Ritabrata Banerjee was assigned the name 'Democratic Trinamool Congress' with an envelope symbol. The petition argued that the ECI did not thoroughly examine the party's internal structure and relied heavily on statements from rebel legislators facing potential disqualification under anti-defection laws. Additionally, Mamata's faction highlighted delays in the disqualification process involving 10 legislators from the opposing faction.
Pay No Attention to the Russian Oligarch at My Wedding Weekend
The article humorously describes a wedding weekend hosted by Donald Trump Jr. and his wife, where a Russian oligarch, part of Vladimir Putin's delegation to China, pays for much of the event. The piece frames the situation as a lighthearted and normal occurrence, dismissing concerns about potential conflicts of interest or unethical behavior. It references the Supreme Court's stance that 'money is speech,' suggesting that financial contributions are a form of expression rather than a cause for scrutiny. The article also mocks claims of corruption, comparing the situation to 'The Godfather' and noting that the attorney general, Todd Blanche, has stated there is 'nothing sketchy here to investigate.' The tone is satirical, using hyperbole and irony to downplay the significance of the oligarch's involvement.
DOJ won't enforce handgun ban for 18- to 20-year-olds
The U.S. Department of Justice announced it will not enforce a 1968 federal law that prohibited licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to individuals aged 18 to 20, citing a legal opinion that the restriction violates the Second Amendment. The decision, authored by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, argues that young adults in this age range are entitled to the right to purchase handguns. This marks the first time a major federal agency has decided not to enforce such a law, despite the Supreme Court having never ruled on its constitutionality. Advocacy groups like Giffords and Brady argue the move is illegal and dangerous, claiming it undermines public safety and prioritizes the interests of the gun industry over community well-being. The decision leaves uncertainty about whether dealers will immediately start selling handguns to those aged 18 to 20, as the Department of Justice has not provided clear directives to licensed firearms sellers.
What to Know About Mail-In Voting for the 2026 Midterms
The Supreme Court recently rejected the Trump administration's attempt to impose new rules for mail-in voting in the 2026 midterms. In March, President Trump issued an executive order directing the USPS to establish new mail-in voting protocols, threatening to withhold ballot delivery if states did not comply. Two federal judges blocked the rule before the November elections, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision in an unsigned order, stating the government was unlikely to succeed on its challenge. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the rule should have taken effect. Trump criticized the ruling on his social media platform, calling it a 'big loss for Republicans.' Experts note that while mail-in voting is widespread, it varies significantly by state, and the current system remains intact. The administration had previously claimed noncitizen voting was rampant, though this claim lacks evidence.
Supreme Court plans NTA office visit over paper leaks, says ‘lessons from past not learnt’
The Supreme Court of India has announced plans to visit the National Testing Agency (NTA) offices to evaluate the effectiveness of recent reforms aimed at preventing examination irregularities, such as paper leaks. This decision comes amid concerns raised by petitioners following the NEET-UG 2026 exam scandal. The court emphasized the importance of institutionalizing these reforms, referencing previous recommendations from the K Radhakrishnan Committee after a similar issue in 2024. The government has formed a high-powered task force led by Nandan Nilekani, which is expected to submit its report by the end of the month. The court also directed the Department of Personnel and Training to provide updates on the task force's progress.
TN govt firm on 2-language policy after SC asks for mindset change on Hindi
Tamil Nadu has rejected proposals to establish Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas within the state, despite a Supreme Court directive urging a shift in attitude toward Hindi. The state government, led by Chief Minister Tamil Vazhakulam Karunanidhi (TVK), maintains its commitment to a two-language policy that prioritizes Tamil, arguing that Hindi instruction conflicts with local linguistic norms. This stance has drawn support from the opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which endorsed the state’s position and called for legislative action to block the central government’s educational initiative. The core disagreement centers on land allocation for these schools, with Tamil Nadu asserting that it cannot facilitate a national program that does not conform to its language policies. The Navodaya Vidyalayas, centrally funded residential schools promoting a three-language formula including Hindi, are seen by the state as imposing an incompatible educational model.
The last dance of the Supreme and Puigdemont
The article discusses the legal battle surrounding the amnesty law for leaders of Catalonia’s independence movement, focusing on the Spanish Supreme Court’s attempt to justify its refusal to apply the amnesty by comparing the 2017 referendum to a fictional wedding banquet paid for with public funds. The court argued that former President Carles Puigdemont and others enriched themselves through the referendum, but this argument has been challenged by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, which rejected claims that the movement violated EU interests. The article highlights the ideological divide within the Supreme Court, with conservative judges like Pablo Llarena pushing the 'wedding' theory while progressive judges oppose it. The case remains unresolved, with potential decisions expected in October.
Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions ahead of midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected efforts by former President Donald Trump to impose restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections. The decision comes amid heightened concerns over voter access and election integrity. Trump had sought to limit the number of mail ballots allowed in certain states, arguing that such measures would prevent fraud. However, the court ruled that these restrictions were overly broad and violated voters' constitutional rights. Legal experts noted that this ruling could significantly impact voting participation, particularly among Democratic-leaning demographics. The decision underscores ongoing tensions between executive authority and electoral processes.
![Dispute over WKO salaries: now the OGH has to decide [premium]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.diepresse.com%2Fpublic%2Fincoming%2Feub4ih-EMPFANG-ANL.-DES-75.-UNABH%25C3%2584NGIGKEITSTAGES-DES-STAATES-ISRAEL-SCHULTZ%2Falternates%2FWEBP_WIDE_1200%2FEMPFANG%2520ANL.%2520DES%252075.%2520UNABH%25C3%2584NGIGKEITSTAGES%2520DES%2520STAATES%2520ISRAEL%2520SCHULTZ&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
AustriaDispute over WKO salaries: now the OGH has to decide [premium]
The article discusses a dispute over salary increases within the Austrian Economic Chamber (WKO), where former president Harald Mahrer was forced to resign after a planned 4.2% raise for employees sparked controversy. The union, represented by the Betriebsrat, argued that this increase was disproportionately high compared to other sectors, leading to a revised offer of 2.1%. However, the Betriebsrat remains dissatisfied and has now taken the issue to court, seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court (OGH) on whether the 'factor increase' model used by the WKO should still apply for 2026. This model, which had been suspended by the WKO’s expanded board in November 2025, was replaced by a lower rate. The case is notable because the request comes from the trade union rather than the WKO itself, marking an unusual move in Austria’s social partnership framework.
Texas man who killed 3 in 2005 burglary executed after warden asks him for last words
A Texas death row inmate, LeJames Norman, was executed by lethal injection for the 2005 murders of three people during a botched burglary. Norman, 40, did not offer any final words before his execution at the Huntsville Unit. He was sentenced to death for fatally shooting Samuel Roberts, Tiffani Peacock, and Celso Lopez during a failed robbery attempt. Norman and his accomplice, Ker’Sean Ramey, were both convicted and sentenced to death for the crime. Ramey’s execution is scheduled for the following week. Norman was arrested five months after the murders while attempting to return to the U.S. from Mexico. He pleaded guilty to capital murder, allowing a jury to determine his sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a last-minute appeal to halt the execution. Norman was the fifth person executed in Texas this year. In another development, an execution in Georgia was postponed due to legal challenges related to a new law affecting victims of childhood abuse.
U.S. Postal Service Failed to Properly Handle Some Ballots During This Year’s Primary Elections, Audit Finds
An audit by the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General found that some postal facilities failed to properly handle mail ballots during this year's primary elections. The report highlighted issues such as inadequate staff training, poor tracking systems, and errors causing delays, which could result in ballots being rejected due to incorrect postmarks or late arrival. While most facilities followed postal service policies and nearly 99% of ballots arrived on time, the audit warned of systemic procedural gaps. These findings coincide with the U.S. Supreme Court considering whether to allow the Postal Service to implement new rules requiring states to provide voter lists for targeted mail ballots, a policy introduced by former President Donald Trump. Concerns have been raised by postal workers and election experts that these changes could disenfranchise voters, particularly due to insufficient testing and implementation readiness.
PHSC upholds graft conviction of ex-Siquijor town mayor, 4 others
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the graft conviction of former Siquijor town mayor Orville Fua and four other officials for their involvement in the illegal procurement of fertilizers worth over P4.9 million in 2004. The court confirmed the 2023 ruling by the Sandiganbayan, finding them guilty of violating Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The officials included municipal engineer Sue Castillon, treasurer Natalio Jumawan, Jr., and accountant Rose Marie Tomogsoc, who failed to follow proper procurement procedures. Also convicted was Merlyn Lu of Mangopina Trading, Inc., the winning bidder, which was deemed ineligible due to its poor track record in government transactions. The court emphasized that the procurement process lacked required steps such as pre-procurement conferences and proper advertisements, leading to the conviction of all involved.
SloveniaThe Supreme Court upholds the illegality of the expulsion of a student who allegedly threatened to attack
The Supreme Court has confirmed that the expulsion of a first-year student from one of Ljubljana's secondary schools was unlawful, as it was based on a perceived threat rather than a concrete danger to life or health. The student had drawn a sketch during class that allegedly indicated a plan to detonate bombs at the school. However, the school principal received an anonymous report three months after the sketch was created, leading to the student’s temporary suspension and eventual expulsion by the teaching staff in February 2024. The Supreme Court ruled that the expulsion was unjustified because the threat was not objectively verified or clearly dangerous. According to the court, the school must differentiate between a feeling of being threatened and an actual risk to safety. The student’s mother emphasized that her son made a mistake but did not pose a serious threat, and the school’s actions were appropriate but not excessive. The family now plans to file a compensation claim against the school.
A new book on Indian laws demystifies the ‘right to privacy’ and examines how it has improved lives
A new book explores the evolution of the 'right to privacy' in Indian law, focusing on the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India. The ruling affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing its role in protecting individual dignity and enabling the exercise of other freedoms. The judgment overturned the controversial ADM Jabalpur decision from 1975, which had suspended civil liberties during emergencies. The Puttaswamy verdict reshaped India's legal landscape, requiring the government to justify intrusions on privacy through proportionality. Its impact was evident in the subsequent 2018 Aadhaar case, where the court upheld the Aadhaar Act's constitutionality but removed provisions allowing private entities to demand Aadhaar numbers, reinforcing the principle that fundamental rights cannot be outsourced to corporations.
Supreme Court paralyzes the right to vote of the descendants registered by the 'law of grandchildren'
The Spanish Supreme Court has issued a precautionary measure suspending the voting rights of descendants of Spaniards who obtained citizenship under the 'grandchildren law.' The court's decision follows a legal challenge by Vox and Iustitia Europa, who argued that the law could lead to irreversible effects on the electoral register. The ruling requires the National Electoral Board (JEC) to verify that nationalized individuals are indeed children or grandchildren of exiles persecuted for political, ideological, religious, or sexual orientation reasons who lost or renounced their Spanish nationality. The court mandates that these certifications be completed before proceeding with registration in the CERA (Electoral Register for Residents Abroad). The 'grandchildren law,' enacted under the Democracy Memory Law in October 2022, allows foreign-born descendants of Spanish nationals to apply for citizenship if they meet specific criteria related to exile. However, a government instruction later presumed all Spaniards who left between 1936 and 1955 as exiles, which the court now requires to be verified through documentation. The court also orders the JEC to review existing applications and
Gujarat High Court rejects Asaram’s temporary bail plea in 2013 rape case
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a request by religious figure Asaram Bapu for temporary bail in a 2013 rape case. Asaram, who is currently serving a life sentence for multiple rapes committed between 2001 and 2006, sought 20 days of release, citing a previous ruling by the Rajasthan High Court that granted him parole due to his age and lengthy incarceration. His legal team argued that the Rajasthan decision justified his temporary release, but the Gujarat authorities and state prosecutors opposed the plea, stating that parole in one case does not automatically grant bail in another. The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's prior consideration of Asaram's health but concluded there was insufficient justification for temporary bail at this time. Asaram has faced multiple convictions across different cases, including a recent acquittal on gangrape charges by the Rajasthan High Court.
Colonel Plazas Vega is a national hero: Abelardo De La Espriella makes a request to the foreign minister and the ambassador to the United States.
President Abelardo De La Espriella has publicly supported Colonel (ret.) Alfonso Plazas Vega, a former military officer accused of involvement in the 1985 takeover of the Palace of Justice during which Magistrate Carlos Horacio Urán was tortured and killed. The president called Vega a 'hero of the nation' and highlighted that the Supreme Court declared him innocent after years of false and malicious legal persecution. He emphasized that the state has a duty to support retired soldiers facing legal challenges stemming from their service, urging the foreign minister and ambassador Maria Consuelo Araujo to evaluate Vega’s case and take appropriate action. The president stressed that veterans should not be left vulnerable to strategic litigation that harms national institutions.
IrelandIsraeli strikes kill 11, including 2 children, in Lebanon
Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed 11 people, including two children, according to Lebanese state media. The strikes hit a residential building in Kfar Rumman, killing nine, and two rescuers whose vehicle was targeted. The Israeli military had previously warned residents of Deir Zahrani to evacuate due to suspected Hezbollah activity, citing an explosive drone launch. Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV confirmed the strikes. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun called on the U.S. and global community to halt the attacks. Israel's military has been conducting operations within a 10km security zone along the border since March, following Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Violence has slightly decreased since June agreements between the U.S., Iran, Israel, and Lebanon. Separately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the dismantling of unauthorized West Bank settler outposts under U.S. pressure, and the Supreme Court ruled to allow the return of three Palestinian families.
Supreme Court delivers reserved verdict in 2 years, breaks its 3-month limit
The Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict in a long-pending case against Sanofi India Limited over alleged corruption and cheating, taking over two years to pronounce the judgment after it was reserved on May 15, 2024. This delay contrasts with the court's own directive issued three months earlier, which set a three-month deadline for delivering reserved judgments. The judgment outlines criteria for holding corporations criminally liable, emphasizing the need for evidence linking natural persons to alleged offenses. The case had been pending for over seven years, with proceedings stalled since 2019. The delayed verdict highlights concerns about judicial efficiency, especially against the backdrop of new guidelines aimed at reducing case backlogs.
Noida student who took part in CJP protest gets show-cause notice, revoked the same day
A student from Gautam Buddha University in Greater Noida, Akshat Tripathi, was served a show-cause notice by the district administration demanding a ₹5 lakh personal bond to ensure peace after participating in a protest at Jantar Mantar. The notice was issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) following allegations that Tripathi encouraged fellow students to join a political party-led protest and spread anti-government narratives. The police claimed his actions created tension on campus, but the notice was revoked the same day. Tripathi denied the allegations, stating he participated peacefully and was not present at college during the protest. He also alleged injuries during a previous Parliament protest. The Students' Federation of India criticized the move as repressive, while the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) questioned the local authority's disregard for a Supreme Court ruling granting immunity to Jantar Mantar protesters.
Politicians who hit doctors should be taken into custody, not allowed to roam free: SC
The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns about the increasing number of attacks on doctors by members of political parties in Maharashtra. Following an incident where Shiv Sena officials allegedly assaulted medical staff at a hospital in Palghar district, the court ordered the government to immediately detain such politicians rather than allowing them to go free. The altercation occurred after a dispute arose regarding the discharge of a patient injured during the Dahi Handi festival. CCTV footage showed some individuals slapping a receptionist and threatening employees who attempted to intervene. The police have filed charges against at least 17 people, including members of the Eknath Shinde faction. Similar incidents have been reported previously, including an assault on doctors by a Shiv Sena corporator in Kalyan.
Rush Hour: Assam told to compensate woman forced into Bangladesh, SC questions UP about NSA and more
The Gauhati High Court ordered the Assam government to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation to two individuals, Jahanara Begum and Mumtaz Begum, who were forcibly deported to Bangladesh by authorities, violating deportation rules. Both women were declared foreigners by tribunals in 2019 and deported in June. This marks the first time the court has imposed financial liability on the state for such actions. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court rejected a request to quash a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Supreme Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh government about the legality of detaining individuals under the National Security Act based on confessions made in police custody, specifically regarding the case of Mulla Afroz. The Gujarat High Court denied temporary bail to 85-year-old religious leader Asaram Bapu in a 2013 rape conviction. In France, the removal of female staff from the Eiffel Tower during a Hindu religious group's visit sparked political debate over gender equality.
Pune: Third protest in a week seeks ban on loudspeakers, DJs during religious festivals
Residents of Pune held a third protest in a week demanding a ban on loudspeakers and DJs during religious festivals and stricter enforcement against noise pollution. The demonstration, organized by the Loudspeaker-Virodhi Punekar Manch, followed previous protests and occurred two days after activist Vidyanand Bapat was assaulted while discussing noise pollution. Bapat, who has campaigned against unauthorized noise, chose not to attend the rally, emphasizing the need to keep the focus on the issue rather than his personal situation. Protesters argued their demands were not tied to specific communities or festivals but aimed at reducing excessive noise at all public events. They requested inspections of sound systems before events and greater transparency in monitoring noise levels. Authorities stated they were adhering to Supreme Court and National Green Tribunal guidelines and had already taken legal action against noise violations during recent festivals.
AustraliaQueen’s Wharf owner takes Brisbane council to court over unpaid rates bill
The owner of Brisbane's Queen’s Wharf, the Destination Brisbane Consortium, has filed a lawsuit against the Brisbane City Council and the state valuer-general, seeking to reduce a $30 million unpaid rates bill. The consortium, which owns a $3.6 billion mixed-use development including a casino, luxury hotels, and residential units, claims the current valuation and rate calculation do not equitably reflect the scale and economic impact of the property. Deputy Mayor Fiona Cunningham defended the council's decision, stating that the rates consider the area's high service levels and land value, emphasizing principles of equity and contribution. The case was mentioned in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for December 4. The consortium, a joint venture between Chow Tai Fook Enterprises and Far East Consortium, did not provide a statement.
What is the role of State government in appointment of High Court Chief Justice? | Explained
The Punjab state government challenged the Central government's decision to appoint Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the appointment bypassed constitutional procedures and failed to consult the state. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann sent letters to both the President and Prime Minister requesting a delay in administering the oath to Mishra until the state's concerns were addressed. While the state government has a consultative role in judicial appointments under Article 217 of the Constitution, it does not have the authority to veto or block such appointments. The article explains that the Governor, acting on the advice of the state council, is involved in the consultation process, but the final decision lies with the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the relevant state governor. The article also outlines the evolution of judicial appointment processes in India, highlighting key Supreme Court rulings that shifted control from the executive to the judiciary.
Albares warns that Moroccan claims on Ceuta and Melilla "degrade bilateral relations"
Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Maria Albares has warned that Moroccan ministers' claims over the territories of Ceuta and Melilla 'degrade bilateral relations,' emphasizing that Spain will never negotiate these issues. During a meeting with his Moroccan counterpart, Nasser Burita, Albares reiterated that Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territory and that any discussion on their status is unacceptable. He acknowledged that Moroccan officials made these remarks during an election campaign but stressed that such statements harm diplomatic ties regardless of the context. Regarding the recent influx of migrants into Ceuta at the end of July, Albares stated that Morocco denied involvement and took measures to stop the flow. However, he noted unusual social media activity around July 30th, which seemed to signal open borders after a distorted interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling. The Spanish government is currently investigating to determine the cause of the migrant surge and prevent future incidents.
CJI asks Aravallis panel if it is waiting for him to retire; SC declines six-month extension
The Supreme Court of India has denied a six-month extension requested by a committee tasked with defining the boundaries of the Aravalli mountain range. Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the panel's request for an extension until February 28, suggesting it might be waiting for his retirement. The court allowed the committee to submit its report by November 30, two months after the initial August 31 deadline. The committee, established in May, was created after the Supreme Court adopted a definition of the Aravallis proposed by a Union environment ministry panel, which sparked protests in Rajasthan. This definition limited the Aravallis to areas with elevations of 100 meters or more. The court paused its decision in December due to concerns over potential environmental damage from unregulated mining under the new definition. During the hearing, the chief justice emphasized that the committee should work diligently to meet the revised deadline and warned that if they were unable to do so, the committee could be reconstituted.
The 72 hours in the new immigration detention centre in Ceuta that will test Morocco's collaboration
The Spanish Ministry of Interior has finally opened the Temporary Immigration Attention Center (CATE) in Ceuta, designed to manage the influx of immigrants entering the city. The center, capable of accommodating up to 400 people, marks a turning point in the government’s strategy to handle the crisis, particularly if Morocco continues to accept returns of its nationals. Immigrants who were previously identified at police stations or border posts now face identification processes within the CATE, which includes 14 operational police points. While the government expects daily identification rates to rise to 100 per day, labor unions like the SUP doubt these projections due to insufficient resources. Many migrants remain exposed to the elements near the CATE, located in the Tarajal industrial area close to the Moroccan border. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals detained in such centers are considered deprived of liberty under European jurisprudence, though administrative detention is limited to 72 hours.
77 days and counting: Haryana guest teachers intensify agitation seeking job regularisation
Guest teachers in Haryana's government schools have intensified their protests for job regularisation, marking the 77th day of their agitation in Kurukshetra. The teachers, led by the Rajkiya Anubandhit Adhyapak Sangh, are demanding the implementation of state policies from 2014, supported by recent judicial rulings. They argue that despite winning cases in both the High Court and Supreme Court, the government has not acted on their demands. Around 12,000 guest teachers, mostly women, work on contract against sanctioned posts, having been appointed between 2005 and 2008. The dispute centers on two regularisation policies, with teachers claiming they met the criteria but were not regularised. The association links their demand to the BJP's 2014 election manifesto, which promised regularisation for these teachers. The BJP government suspended the policy in 2015 for review, and the teachers' case has involved multiple legal challenges.
Supreme Court refuses to stop CJP’s September 5 march
The Supreme Court of India refused to issue an urgent order to restrict a planned peaceful march by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on September 5 in Delhi. The court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, stated it would assume the event would proceed peacefully and decline to intervene. The CJP had organized the march to hold the government accountable for failing to honor its July 25 commitments regarding the handling of competitive exams and the treatment of protesters. Earlier protests, beginning in June, involved demonstrations against the mismanagement of exams and the arrest of activist Sonam Wangchuk during a hunger strike. These protests intensified after police crackdowns on July 20, leading to injuries and widespread agitation across the country. Following pressure, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned on July 25, prompting the CJP to end its protests. The Supreme Court later issued orders to release minors detained during the protests and to avoid punitive actions against students without criminal records. On Monday, a retired police officer filed a petition opposing the September 5 march, but the court deferred the decision to local authorities.
101 taluks declared drought-hit, more may be added: Parameshwara
Deputy Chief Minister and Revenue Minister G. Parameshwara announced that 101 taluks in Karnataka have been declared drought-affected, with the possibility of additional areas being included after a 15-day review. He stated that the state government plans to submit a drought memorandum to the central government by late August or early September, outlining crop loss assessments and requesting relief. Parameshwara emphasized the importance of avoiding the previous year's delays in receiving relief, which required protests and Supreme Court intervention. He mentioned that ₹1,200 crore in disaster relief funds were allocated, though the central government had not yet released them. Additionally, Parameshwara addressed questions regarding the resignation of former minister B. Nagendra, stating it was due to political pressure rather than wrongdoing, and clarified that former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was not 'silent' but taking a temporary break.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra sworn in as Chief Justice of Punjab, Haryana HC
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra was officially sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh on September 7, 2026. He had been serving as the acting chief justice since June 2026. The oath was administered by Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria, with attendance from several prominent officials including Haryana Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh and Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini. Notably absent was Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, whose government had previously opposed Mishra's appointment. The Central government formally approved Mishra's appointment on September 5, 2026, following a recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium. Earlier that day, the Punjab Cabinet had passed a resolution opposing the swearing-in until their concerns were addressed.
Collins's Kavanaugh vote becomes key weapon for opponents
Democratic candidates and reproductive rights advocates are criticizing Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) for her role in confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that her vote contributed to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maine's Democratic Senate nominee, Troy Jackson, has released advertisements highlighting Collins' past votes on Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, both of whom supported the overturning of Roe. Jackson has also pointed to Collins' recent vote to confirm Erica Schwartz as CDC director, citing her comments on abortion surveillance. Reproductive rights organizations such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund have endorsed Jackson, accusing Collins of failing to uphold her promises on reproductive freedom. While Jackson previously opposed abortion as a Republican, he has shifted his stance and now supports reproductive rights, earning a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.
Prediction markets' regulation draws closer to Supreme Court
Prediction markets are facing potential Supreme Court involvement due to conflicting rulings from lower courts regarding their regulation. New Jersey recently asked the Supreme Court to resolve disputes over whether states or the federal government should oversee these markets. The Trump administration seeks to maintain federal control, while a bipartisan group of states argues that prediction markets are similar to traditional gambling and should fall under state regulation. A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit blocked New Jersey from enforcing its sports betting laws against Kalshi, citing federal oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In contrast, the 9th Circuit supported Nevada's attempt to regulate Kalshi's sports contracts. Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in, though some believe the matter needs further development in lower courts before reaching the highest level.
SC seeks Centre, EC views on introducing ‘totalisers’ to count votes in clusters
The Supreme Court of India has requested the Union government and the Election Commission to provide their perspectives on implementing a 'totaliser' system for counting votes in clusters of electronic voting machines. Currently, votes are counted booth-by-booth, which can reveal detailed information about individual booths. Petitioners argue that using a totaliser would protect voter privacy and reduce post-election violence by preventing candidates or parties from knowing specific booth results. During the hearing, the court questioned whether there were obstacles to adopting the system and whether it might have negative impacts. The Election Commission's counsel noted that while the proposal was previously considered, it was rejected by a government-appointed expert committee and faced opposition from most political parties. However, the petitioner claimed the Election Commission had historically supported the idea and recently shifted its position.
SC suspends sentence of Naga militant in triple murder case, directs him to stay in Delhi
The Supreme Court of India has suspended the sentence of Hopeson Nignshen, a former Naga militant convicted in the 2009 triple murder of three Manipur government officials. Nignshen, who has been in custody for over 17 years, was originally sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2014 for abducting and killing Dr. Thingnam Kishan Singh and two others, along with looting their belongings. The Supreme Court granted the suspension under the condition that Nignshen remains in Delhi until his appeal is resolved. The case was moved to Delhi in 2010 due to concerns over his safety and potential unrest in Manipur if he were tried there. The murders sparked ethnic tensions between the Meitei and Naga communities, leading to widespread protests in the region.
SIR exercise: Citizenship test must be a balancing act
The article discusses the legal distinction between a passport and citizenship in the context of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in India. It explains that while a passport is a travel document issued under the Passports Act, 1967, it is not conclusive proof of citizenship. The Election Commission conducted the SIR exercise under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, aiming to ensure accurate electoral roll management. The Supreme Court, in the case 'Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India,' affirmed the Commission's authority but emphasized that determining citizenship is the responsibility of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The article highlights that other documents like Aadhaar can be used for verification purposes but do not equate to citizenship. The discussion underscores the importance of distinguishing between legal status and documentary proof in democratic processes.