US Supreme Court

President Donald Trump on Tuesday went after the Supreme Court after it rejected his push to restrict mail-in voting in this year's midterms, saying justices who opposed him were "not the people I interviewed." His social media missive was just the latest in a long history of Trump assailing justices, particularly those he had nominated, who ruled against him on his administration's most prominent initiatives. The president has been publicly furious with the Supreme Court over its decisions against restricting birthright citizenship and his ability to issue tariffs unilaterally. On mail-in voting, the Trump administration had made a last-minute push to have the US Postal Service play a central role in deciding who would be able to receive a ballot. But state election officials argued there was not enough time to make the changes for the Nov. 3 midterm elections - and said their systems were already secure and accurate. The court ruled late Monday in an emergency order that the ...

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's mail ballot restrictions for now, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting in the midterm elections already underway. The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they have used for years. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the brief order. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the restrictions should not go into effect for the midterms but indicated he might rule in favour of the Trump administration later. The Trump administration had asked the court, once again at the centre of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress. The case has major implications because nearly one-third of the country votes by mail. Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the White House to continue construction on a USD 400 million ballroom project as lawsuits play out, a win for President Donald Trump as he flexes unprecedented executive power and remakes the capital in his image. The decision replaces a temporary order from Chief Justice John Roberts previously issued hours before a lower-court decision halting the work would have gone into effect. Roberts publicly dissented from the latest order, however, joining with the court's three liberal-leaning justices, who called the construction "likely unlawful." The majority did not decide the legality of the project, but found a preservation group likely did not have the legal right to challenge it. The lawsuit will return to lower courts, but documents say that key portions of the project could be complete within months - a quick timeline compared with a typical legal case. The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene after federal courts found

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Monday in a case over President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be implemented before the fast-approaching midterm elections. The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The US Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks. The court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that the states did not have the legal right to challenge it. "The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell," the majority wrote in an unsigned order. The Supreme Court's .

Trump denied Carroll's claims and asserted that she lied both in 2019 and again in 2022, while he was out of office

The White House has asked Cook to respond within three weeks to mortgage-fraud allegations that her lawyer called baseless, according to a report by ABC News on Friday

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for an executive order from President Donald Trump that could dramatically change mail-in voting. The emergency appeal comes after an appeals court upheld a ruling blocking the president's order in nearly half the country ahead of November's midterm elections. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to allow the proposed changes to move ahead while lawsuits play out. Trump ordered the government in March to create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list. Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, not the president. Their attorneys have said Trump's proposed changes are ripe for abuse and could cause chaos. A judge in Massachusetts blocked the order for the plaintiff states, and a 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld that .

But while a US Supreme Court ruling in February reversed the tariffs, much of the economic and political damage, and perhaps some of the Trump administration's gains, will be hard to undo

Billionaire Elon Musk likely broke Wisconsin law when he handed out USD 1 million checks to voters in the 2025 state Supreme Court election, a bipartisan panel has found. The Wisconsin Elections Commission last week referred two complaints to the Brown County district attorney's office, which can choose to bring criminal charges over violating the state law against election bribery. Prosecutors have 40 days to report back to the commission. Musk, the founder of SpaceX and CEO of Tesla, was deeply involved in the effort to flip majority control of the highest court in battleground Wisconsin. The tech titan and groups he supported spent at least USD 20 million on the candidate backed by Republicans, Brad Schimel. However, he lost by 10 percentage points to Democratic-backed candidate Susan Crawford. A month after the lopsided loss, Musk announced that he would be spending far less on political campaigns. Spending on the election topped USD 100 million, making it the most expensive ..

The writer E. Jean Carroll can collect USD 5.8 million held in escrow since a jury found that President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed her, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Trump's lawyers immediately appealed but were denied an emergency order to block the payment from being made. Trump deposited the money in an account shortly after a jury ruled against him in 2023. The US Supreme Court recently let the civil verdict stand, clearing the way for Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to release the money. The initial USD 5 million award has grown with interest. The jury found Trump attacked Carroll in 1996 in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store, and defamed her after she described it publicly in a 2019 memoir, during his first term as president. Trump called her allegations false and said " she's not my type " in an interview. Trump's lawyers said Wednesday they would continue to appeal and accused his political opponents of using the legal system against him. They ..

In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, while dissenting justices warned of far-reaching implications for US immigration policy

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case ​in its next term, which begins in October

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen. "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights-to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, "We keep that promise today.

The Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding President Donald Trump's firings of the heads of independent federal agencies with one important exception, the Federal Reserve. The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights the Republican president's effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. But other than at the nation's central bank, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at will, despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a 91-year-old decision that had limited executive authority. With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey's Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agency board members - in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence. The justices ruled in the case of former Federal

The court handed President Trump victories in his push to rescind deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of people and turn away migrants at the southern border

The suit accused TCS of exploiting software access granted to Transamerica employees, who were transferred to TCS in a $2 billion deal

Tata had appealed ‌after a lower court upheld a judge's decision to set the award at $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages to Ashburn, Virginia-based DXC

TCS, which had already set aside $150 million for the case, said it will book a further $70 million towards damages, interest and legal costs as a one-time exceptional charge in the first quarter of 2

Administration began processing refunds in April after the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump didn't have the authority to impose tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the US Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country. The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge's order to allow all companies that paid the invalidated duties to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits. Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by US Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP. Applications for refunds totalling USD 85 billion - more than half of the USD 166 billion the agency estimated the government owes