Zion Tech Group

Tag: Supreme

  • Minnesota Supreme Court voids House Jan. 28 special election, rules Gov. Walz called it too soon


    MINNEAPOLIS — The Minnesota Supreme Court on Friday canceled the special election for a metro House race later this month, finding Gov. Tim Walz set the date before state law requires.

    The election was scheduled for Jan. 28 for House District 40B, after the DFL winner in November’s election didn’t appeal judge’s ruling that he didn’t live there and couldn’t serve. Early voting was already underway; now those ballots cast are voided and can’t be counted when the special election is eventually rescheduled, the Court said in its order.  

    The Minnesota Republican Party and Minnesota Voters Alliance sued over the timing, arguing that state law is clear that if there’s a vacancy following an election, the governor must wait until 22 days after the first day of session to issue a writ of special election. Walz called the special election on Dec. 27, the same day Curtis Johnson, the Democrat won, said he wouldn’t take the oath of office.  

    The Court agreed and said the election was scheduled “prematurely and therefore must be quashed.” An opinion will follow.  

    This decision could extend House Democrats’ boycott of the 2025 session due to a power dispute over control of the chamber.  

    They had vowed not to show-up until after the special election, which was expected to bring a current one-seat edge for the GOP back to a tie. There is a separate question before the Supreme Court on quorum and if Republican lawmakers met that threshold when they gaveled in and proceeded with electing a House Speaker on the first day of session without Democrats there.

    Rep. Lisa Demuth, whom Republicans chose for that role, praised the court’s decision.  

    “I’m pleased the court correctly ruled that the Governor failed the follow the law in his attempt to speed up the special election to help the political fortunes of the Democrat party,” she said. “We want the residents of 40B to have representation as soon as possible and look forward to the Governor calling a special election pursuant to state law.”  

    The ruling means the special election will come at least a month after the one originally scheduled for the end of January. Gov. Tim Walz on TPT Almanac Friday night said the new special election could be March 5.  

    Meanwhile, Democrats were disappointed in the decision and again called for Republicans to negotiate a power-sharing agreement with them to prepare for the return to a tie, since the district favors Democrats. 

    “We appreciate the Supreme Court’s prompt decision. It is unfortunate that the people of District 40B will have to wait longer to be represented,” said Rep. Melissa Hortman, the DFL leader. “Attempts by Minnesota Republicans to delay this election are an attempt to delay the inevitable: Democrat David Gottfried will win this election, and the Minnesota House of Representatives will return to a 67-67 tie. When that happens, Democrats and Republicans must have a plan to govern together.”

    The state’s highest court will hear arguments in the quorum case next Thursday. 

    Caroline Cummings


    web-caroline-cummings.jpg

    Caroline Cummings is an Emmy-winning reporter with a passion for covering politics, public policy and government. She is thrilled to join the WCCO team.



    In a surprising turn of events, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled to void the House Jan. 28 special election, stating that Governor Walz called it too soon. This decision has sparked controversy and raised questions about the timing of elections during a public health crisis.

    Many are questioning the legality and constitutionality of the court’s decision, with some arguing that Governor Walz acted within his authority to call for the special election. Others are concerned about the potential impact on voter turnout and representation in the affected district.

    The ruling has left both political parties scrambling to determine the next steps, as the fate of the special election hangs in the balance. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    Minnesota Supreme Court, House special election, Gov. Walz, Jan. 28, voided election, ruling, Supreme Court decision, Minnesota politics, special election timing, Governor Walz, legal ruling, Minnesota election news

    #Minnesota #Supreme #Court #voids #House #Jan #special #election #rules #Gov #Walz #called

  • Alabama supreme court grants breastfeeding women exemption from jury duty after public outcry


    BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Breastfeeding women in Alabama will be excused from jury duty, the state’s highest court ordered unanimously on Friday, in response to public outcry from a mother who said that she was threatened with child protective services for bringing her nursing infant into court.

    The Alabama Supreme Court issued an administrative order that requires Alabama judges to have written procedures excusing breastfeeding mothers from jury duty. Previously, state code did not specifically make exemptions for nursing mothers.

    “A nursing mother of an infant child clearly qualifies for the excuse from jury service” under the existing court codes, the order read. The justices added that the process of approving exemption “may be submitted by telephone, electronic mail, or in writing” ahead of jury selection. All nine justices concurred with the order.

    Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox

    See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories.

    Twenty-two states in the U.S. have bills that make specific exemptions for nursing mothers, according to a 2021 report by the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar bill was introduced in the Alabama legislature in 2022, but it was killed before it reached a vote.

    The order was explicitly in response to statements from several mothers in Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham, who said that they were harassed and threatened by judges for bringing their breastfeeding babies in for jury duty.

    Kandace Brown complained on Facebook that a Jefferson County circuit court judge threatened to call the Department of Human Resources — which includes child protective services — unless Brown arranged for someone else to pick up her 3-month-old from the courthouse. Brown said two other mothers who brought their children were told the same.

    Brown also said that she submitted forms to get excused from jury duty before she was summoned to court, but was denied.

    “If I’m still breastfeeding, I’m going to have to (bring the baby). I don’t have a choice. Like she would literally starve for the day or the week if I was chosen,” Brown wrote in the post.

    Brown wrote that when she was finally dismissed, she was told that she would be summoned again the next day and that she would have to leave her infant at home.

    “No ma’am I cannot pump and get her to take a bottle. How can you tell me how to feed my child?!” Brown wrote.

    Several mothers came forward with similar stories after Brown published her story, which had more than 1,000 likes on Facebook on Saturday.

    Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Shanta Owens later called the encounter a “miscommunication” to AL.com on Wednesday, adding, “The juror was indeed excused a short time after arriving for jury service, as was any other similarly situated individual called for jury service.”

    Owens added that as a former nursing mother herself, she “would excuse jury service for a period of time for any individual under the circumstances.”

    Alabama circuit judges have 30 days to submit the new written procedures.



    The Alabama Supreme Court has granted breastfeeding women an exemption from jury duty after a public outcry over the issue. The decision comes after a mother, who was breastfeeding her newborn child, was denied a request to be excused from jury duty.

    The court’s ruling acknowledges the importance of breastfeeding and the challenges that nursing mothers face in fulfilling their civic duty. It also recognizes the need to accommodate and support women who are breastfeeding.

    This decision is a victory for mothers across Alabama who have been advocating for their rights to breastfeed their children without being penalized for fulfilling their civic responsibilities.

    The court’s decision sets a positive precedent for other states to follow suit and provide similar exemptions for breastfeeding women. It is a step towards creating a more inclusive and supportive environment for nursing mothers in the legal system.

    Overall, this ruling is a win for breastfeeding women and a reminder that their needs and rights deserve to be respected and accommodated in all aspects of society.

    Tags:

    Alabama Supreme Court, breastfeeding women, jury duty exemption, public outcry, Alabama news, breastfeeding rights, legal news, mothers’ rights, jury duty exemption for breastfeeding women

    #Alabama #supreme #court #grants #breastfeeding #women #exemption #jury #duty #public #outcry

  • Alabama Supreme Court: Nursing mothers exempt from jury duty after outcry over Jefferson County controversy


    Alabama judges will be required to have written procedures in place to excuse nursing mothers from jury service under an order issued days after a Jefferson County mother said she was threatened by a judge when she reported for jury duty with her breastfed child.

    The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday issued the unanimous administrative order stating “that a nursing mother of an infant child clearly qualifies for the excuse from jury service” under state judicial code.

    That code states “a person…may apply to be excused from jury service by the court only upon a showing of undue or extreme physical…hardship.”

    The definition of “hardship” includes “circumstances in which an individual would… be required to abandon a person under his or her care or supervision due to the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate caregiver during the period of participation in the jury pool or on the jury.”

    The order states that it was created after the court was “made aware of situations in Jefferson County,” referring to several Alabama mothers who claim they were harassed and threatened by Jefferson County judges for bringing breastfeeding babies with them for jury duty.

    Kandace Brown, who says she was threatened with DHR for bringing her three-month-old daughter with her to jury duty, told AL.com that she called and turned in forms to be excused prior to reporting to the courthouse but was refused.

    This occurrence should be prevented under the new order.

    “All presiding circuit judges of this State shall ensure that appropriate procedures are in place for a prospective juror claiming an undue or extreme physical or financial hardship to be able to contact their courts and receive prompt responses from their courts before the prospective juror’s summoned date and without the necessity of appearing in person to apply to be excused from jury service,” it reads.

    Within 30 days of the order, all presiding circuit judges in Alabama are required to provide a written report to the Administrative Director of Courts “addressing their respective procedures for complying with this order,” the document states.

    Brown says she is “overwhelmingly thankful to God for His people” for the change.

    “I never imagined a single Facebook post would lead to a change in law just four days later.”

    Brown initially posted about her experience on Jan. 13.

    The story gained national attention, and other local mothers came forward with their own stories about similar issues in Jefferson County court.

    In a post this morning, Brown also thanked Alabama Reps. Susan DuBose, R-Hoover and April Weaver, R-Brierfield, who started working this week on legislation that would exempt nursing mothers from jury duty for up to two years.

    She also thanked State Auditor Andrew Sorrell, who sponsored legislation that would have established this law two years ago.

    “I just pray judges and court officials will no longer intimidate or berate mothers that have no childcare and no other choice who bring their children to jury duty,” Brown wrote.

    “Breastfeeding moms are protected now. I pray the other moms are protected too … I pray the hearts of the judges are softened and they can discern better for mothers that are just trying to care for their children.”

    Brown has claimed Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Shanta Owens threatened to call DHR on her. She added that Circuit Court Judges Elisabeth French and Marshell Jackson Hatcher also addressed the group.

    Judges French and Hatcher have not commented on the situation.

    Owens, in a statement to AL.com on Wednesday, said Brown was excused and called the situation a “misunderstanding.”

    “The juror was indeed excused a short time after arriving for jury service, as was any other similarly situated individual called for jury service,” Owens’ statement read. “I, too, am a mother and have been a breastfeeding mother previously and therefore, would excuse jury service for a period of time for any individual under the circumstances.”

    Owens added that under state law “there are well-established mechanisms in place to excuse individuals from jury duty prior to service.”

    “I take these procedures seriously to ensure that the jury selection process runs lawfully, smoothly, and efficiently. If any additional laws are enacted regarding jury service or any other matter, I would be delighted to follow those laws as well,” Owens wrote.



    In a recent ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that nursing mothers are exempt from jury duty after a controversy arose in Jefferson County. The decision comes after a local mother, who was breastfeeding her child, was denied a deferral from jury duty.

    The mother, who was unable to find suitable childcare for her infant, brought attention to the issue by speaking out about the challenges faced by nursing mothers when called for jury duty. The case sparked a public outcry, with many people voicing their support for the mother and calling for changes to be made to accommodate nursing mothers in the jury selection process.

    In response to the controversy, the Alabama Supreme Court has now ruled that nursing mothers are exempt from jury duty. This decision is a significant victory for nursing mothers in the state, as it recognizes the unique challenges they face and provides them with the necessary accommodations to fulfill their civic duty while also caring for their children.

    The ruling is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, have equal access to the justice system. It is a win for nursing mothers in Alabama and sets a precedent for other states to follow suit in providing accommodations for breastfeeding mothers in the jury selection process.

    Tags:

    1. Alabama Supreme Court
    2. Nursing mothers
    3. Exemption from jury duty
    4. Jefferson County controversy
    5. Alabama laws
    6. Breastfeeding mothers
    7. Legal rights
    8. Jury duty exemption
    9. Maternity rights
    10. Alabama Supreme Court ruling

    #Alabama #Supreme #Court #Nursing #mothers #exempt #jury #duty #outcry #Jefferson #County #controversy

  • Supreme Court upholds looming TikTok ban


    The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok just two days before the bipartisan divestiture law is slated to take effect.

    “There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. 

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.”

    There were no noted dissents.

    At issue was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress last April with wide bipartisan support. The law gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

    SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

    The US Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty )

    In passing the law, Congress cited concerns over the app’s Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

    TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. After a lower court upheld the ban, the Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok’s emergency request to either block or pause implementation of the law under a fast-track timeline just nine days before the ban was slated to go into effect.

    READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

    During oral arguments, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated the argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a “grave” national security risk for American users. 

    U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

    TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

    TikTok’s lawyers, meanwhile, sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company has argued applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

    Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, argued that the U.S. government has “no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda,” and reiterated TikTok’s position that the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution. 

    Francisco also argued TikTok cannot divest from its Chinese parent company, citing portions of its source code and intellectual property that are housed in China.  

    First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law’s constitutionality. 

    The app for TikTok is seen on a phone screen alongside other social media platforms.  (Yui Mok/PA Images via Getty Images)

    More specifically, laws that deal with First Amendment protections must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

    It’s a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— outlining a way that the Supreme Court could have theoretically considered the case under strict scrutiny and still opted to uphold the law.

    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, several justices appeared skeptical of the company’s core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

    “Exactly what is TikTok’s speech here?” Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court’s apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

    POTENTIAL TIKTOK BAN: WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA APPS ARE POPPING UP IN APP STORES?

    President-elect Trump is pictured in front of the TikTok logo. (Getty Images)

    The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

    The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year under the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

    But it also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

    In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and later told reporters that his incoming administration will “take a look at TikTok” and the divestiture case. 

     CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

    The brief did not signal how Trump might act, but cited his request for the court to pause the ban from taking effect until Trump’s inauguration. 

    Fox News’ Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

    Breanne Deppisch is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the 2024 election and other national news.



    In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the looming ban on popular social media app TikTok. The ban, which was set to go into effect in the coming weeks, has been a topic of much controversy and debate.

    The court’s decision comes after concerns were raised about the app’s data privacy and security practices, particularly in relation to its Chinese ownership. The Trump administration has been pushing for the ban, citing national security concerns.

    Many TikTok users and supporters have expressed disappointment and frustration over the decision, arguing that the ban infringes on their freedom of speech and access to a popular platform for creative expression.

    It remains to be seen how this decision will impact the future of TikTok and its millions of users. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court, TikTok ban, social media, legal news, technology, Supreme Court ruling, US government, internet regulation, online content, digital media, social media platform

    #Supreme #Court #upholds #looming #TikTok #ban

  • Supreme Court upholds law banning TikTok if it’s not sold by its Chinese parent company


    The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok beginning Sunday unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company, holding that the risk to national security posed by its ties to China overcomes concerns about limiting speech by the app or its 170 million users in the United States.A sale does not appear imminent and, although experts have said the app will not disappear from existing users’ phones once the law takes effect on Jan. 19, new users won’t be able to download it and updates won’t be available. That will eventually render the app unworkable, the Justice Department has said in court filings.The decision came against the backdrop of unusual political agitation by President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that he could negotiate a solution and the administration of President Joe Biden, which has signaled it won’t enforce the law beginning Sunday, his final full day in office.Trump, mindful of TikTok’s popularity, and his own 14.7 million followers on the app, finds himself on the opposite side of the argument from prominent Senate Republicans who fault TikTok’s Chinese owner for not finding a buyer before now. Trump said in a Truth Social post shortly before the decision was issued that TikTok was among the topics in his conversation Friday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.It’s unclear what options are open to Trump once he is sworn in as president on Monday. The law allowed for a 90-day pause in the restrictions on the app if there had been progress toward a sale before it took effect. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the law at the Supreme Court for the Democratic Biden administration, told the justices last week that it’s uncertain whether the prospect of a sale once the law is in effect could trigger a 90-day respite for TikTok.“Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said in an unsigned opinion, adding that the law “does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed short separate opinions noting some reservations about the court’s decision but going along with the outcome.“Without doubt, the remedy Congress and the President chose here is dramatic,” Gorsuch wrote. Still, he said he was persuaded by the argument that China could get access to “vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans.”At arguments, the justices were told by a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance Ltd., the Chinese technology company that is its parent, how difficult it would be to consummate a deal, especially since Chinese law restricts the sale of the proprietary algorithm that has made the social media platform wildly successful.The app allows users to watch hundreds of videos in about half an hour because some are only a few seconds long, according to a lawsuit filed last year by Kentucky complaining that TikTok is designed to be addictive and harms kids’ mental health. Similar suits were filed by more than a dozen states. TikTok has called the claims inaccurate.The dispute over TikTok’s ties to China has come to embody the geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing.“ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote on X. “The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments.”The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.TikTok points out the U.S. has not presented evidence that China has attempted to manipulate content on its U.S. platform or gather American user data through TikTok.Bipartisan majorities in Congress passed legislation and Biden signed it into law in April. The law was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over TikTok, which the government sees as a national security threat.TikTok, which sued the government last year over the law, has long denied it could be used as a tool of Beijing. A three-judge panel made up of two Republican appointees and a Democratic appointee unanimously upheld the law in December, prompting TikTok’s quick appeal to the Supreme Court.Without a sale to an approved buyer, the law bars app stores operated by Apple, Google and others from offering TikTok beginning on Sunday. Internet hosting services also will be prohibited from hosting TikTok.ByteDance has said it won’t sell. But some investors have been eyeing it, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire businessman Frank McCourt. McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative has said it and its unnamed partners have presented a proposal to ByteDance to acquire TikTok’s U.S. assets. The consortium, which includes “Shark Tank” host Kevin O’Leary, did not disclose the financial terms of the offer.Prelogar told the justices last week that having the law take effect “might be just the jolt” ByteDance needs to reconsider its position.

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok beginning Sunday unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company, holding that the risk to national security posed by its ties to China overcomes concerns about limiting speech by the app or its 170 million users in the United States.

    A sale does not appear imminent and, although experts have said the app will not disappear from existing users’ phones once the law takes effect on Jan. 19, new users won’t be able to download it and updates won’t be available. That will eventually render the app unworkable, the Justice Department has said in court filings.

    The decision came against the backdrop of unusual political agitation by President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that he could negotiate a solution and the administration of President Joe Biden, which has signaled it won’t enforce the law beginning Sunday, his final full day in office.

    Trump, mindful of TikTok’s popularity, and his own 14.7 million followers on the app, finds himself on the opposite side of the argument from prominent Senate Republicans who fault TikTok’s Chinese owner for not finding a buyer before now. Trump said in a Truth Social post shortly before the decision was issued that TikTok was among the topics in his conversation Friday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

    It’s unclear what options are open to Trump once he is sworn in as president on Monday. The law allowed for a 90-day pause in the restrictions on the app if there had been progress toward a sale before it took effect. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the law at the Supreme Court for the Democratic Biden administration, told the justices last week that it’s uncertain whether the prospect of a sale once the law is in effect could trigger a 90-day respite for TikTok.

    “Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said in an unsigned opinion, adding that the law “does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed short separate opinions noting some reservations about the court’s decision but going along with the outcome.

    “Without doubt, the remedy Congress and the President chose here is dramatic,” Gorsuch wrote. Still, he said he was persuaded by the argument that China could get access to “vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans.”

    At arguments, the justices were told by a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance Ltd., the Chinese technology company that is its parent, how difficult it would be to consummate a deal, especially since Chinese law restricts the sale of the proprietary algorithm that has made the social media platform wildly successful.

    The app allows users to watch hundreds of videos in about half an hour because some are only a few seconds long, according to a lawsuit filed last year by Kentucky complaining that TikTok is designed to be addictive and harms kids’ mental health. Similar suits were filed by more than a dozen states. TikTok has called the claims inaccurate.

    The dispute over TikTok’s ties to China has come to embody the geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing.

    “ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote on X. “The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments.”

    The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

    TikTok points out the U.S. has not presented evidence that China has attempted to manipulate content on its U.S. platform or gather American user data through TikTok.

    Bipartisan majorities in Congress passed legislation and Biden signed it into law in April. The law was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over TikTok, which the government sees as a national security threat.

    TikTok, which sued the government last year over the law, has long denied it could be used as a tool of Beijing. A three-judge panel made up of two Republican appointees and a Democratic appointee unanimously upheld the law in December, prompting TikTok’s quick appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Without a sale to an approved buyer, the law bars app stores operated by Apple, Google and others from offering TikTok beginning on Sunday. Internet hosting services also will be prohibited from hosting TikTok.

    ByteDance has said it won’t sell. But some investors have been eyeing it, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire businessman Frank McCourt. McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative has said it and its unnamed partners have presented a proposal to ByteDance to acquire TikTok’s U.S. assets. The consortium, which includes “Shark Tank” host Kevin O’Leary, did not disclose the financial terms of the offer.

    Prelogar told the justices last week that having the law take effect “might be just the jolt” ByteDance needs to reconsider its position.



    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of upholding a law that bans TikTok in the United States if it is not sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. This decision comes after months of legal battles and controversy surrounding the popular social media app.

    The law, which was passed by Congress last year, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok to a U.S.-based company or face a complete ban in the country. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the constitutionality of this law and sets a precedent for future cases involving foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S.

    Critics of the law argue that it infringes on free speech rights and unfairly targets Chinese-owned companies. However, supporters argue that it is necessary to protect national security and prevent foreign interference in U.S. elections.

    The future of TikTok in the U.S. remains uncertain as ByteDance continues to search for a buyer. In the meantime, users of the app are left wondering what the future holds for their favorite platform. Stay tuned for further developments on this ongoing saga.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court, TikTok, Chinese parent company, ban on TikTok, legal ruling, social media app, technology news, digital marketing, US government, data privacy, internet regulation

    #Supreme #Court #upholds #law #banning #TikTok #sold #Chinese #parent #company

  • Supreme Court Rules on Potential TikTok Ban: Live Updates and What’s Next


    When Savannah Kalata, a high school senior, wakes up in the morning, the first thing she does is turn off her alarm. The second thing she does is open TikTok.

    “It’s just like this quick fix,” said Ms. Kalata, 18, who lives in Minnesota. “I can’t take my eyes off it.”

    Ms. Kalata spends about two and a half hours a day on TikTok, she said. She watches videos while she’s eating, while she’s walking on the treadmill, and while she’s in bed before she goes to sleep. “I feel like my phone can kind of control me at times,” she said. “I don’t even necessarily want to go on TikTok. It’s a habit, and it’s something that’s hard to break.”

    Ms. Kalata may have to quit cold turkey.

    The Supreme Court on Friday backed a federal law that would effectively ban the popular app from operating in the United States. The decision means that the app could be banned as soon as Sunday. How that might play out for TikTok’s roughly 170 million U.S. users isn’t yet clear. But it may soon be difficult, if not impossible, for users to scroll to their heart’s content.

    “I WONT SURVIVE I FEAR,” one user wrote in a video caption. “How will I ever laugh again?” wrote another.

    The videos about TikTok “withdrawal” aren’t all serious. But some users, like Ms. Kalata, say they do genuinely feel addicted — and some experts who study social media use say that may be true, to an extent.

    “TikTok is actually a very good example of having an addictive design,” said Dr. Isaac Vaghefi, an assistant professor at the Baruch College Zicklin School of Business who studies social media. He rattled off several features that keep users coming back for more: a never-ending feed of content, short videos that command attention, and a highly effective, personalized “For You” algorithm.

    TikTok has said its app has several features in place to help users manage their screen time, including scheduled screen time breaks and daily screen time limits.

    “Everything on my For You is pretty much content that I want to watch,” said Brandon Gapultos, an accountant in Glendora, Calif. Mr. Gapultos, 29, spends more than two and a half hours on TikTok every day, he said, often watching day-in-the-life posts about other people’s work lives.

    The videos “give me something to relate to,” he said, “and get me through the day.”

    Breaking a TikTok Habit

    “Social media addiction” isn’t a formal medical diagnosis. But experts generally agree that some people develop “problematic usage of social media,” said Dr. Marc Potenza, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine who specializes in addiction. Scientists don’t fully understand why that happens, but some research suggests that social media usage activates the parts of the brain that respond to pleasurable experiences, called the reward pathway.

    Dr. Potenza said there are some telltale signs that your TikTok habit could be problematic — if you prioritize using the app over eating, sleeping or working, for example, or if you feel compelled to open the app throughout the day. Some people might feel on edge or crave watching videos when they don’t have access, he added.

    Another red flag is “a loss of control” over how long you use the app, said Dr. Michael Tsappis, co-director of the Clinic for Interactive Media and Internet Disorders at Boston Children’s Hospital.

    Lisi German, 17, a high school student in Ladera Ranch, Calif., said she spends at least an hour and a half on TikTok every day. Ms. German, who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, said her urge to scroll on the app made it even harder to manage her time and get homework done. Sometimes, she said, she thinks she’s been on TikTok for just 10 minutes — but she’ll soon realize it’s been an hour.

    Research suggests that those with mental health conditions such as A.D.H.D., anxiety and depression may be more likely to overindulge in social media, Dr. Tsappis said, but anyone is susceptible to problematic use.

    For the millions of TikTok users in the United States, losing access could lead to feelings of anxiety or irritability as they adjust to life without an app they used often, said Dr. Anna Lembke, a professor of psychiatry and addiction medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine. But experts said that a ban could also present an opportunity for people to re-examine social media’s role in their lives.

    Ms. Kalata, who has about 31,000 followers on the platform, has done just that. She won’t try to move her following somewhere else — ideally, she would like to get off social media altogether.

    “But since I’m already so obsessed with TikTok,” she said, “I feel like that’ll be hard.”





    The Supreme Court has just ruled on the potential ban of TikTok in the United States, and the decision has sent shockwaves through the tech world. Stay tuned for live updates on the ruling and what’s next for the popular social media platform.

    – The Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold the ban on TikTok, citing national security concerns. The ban will go into effect immediately, and users will no longer be able to download or access the app in the United States.

    – TikTok has released a statement expressing disappointment in the ruling and vowing to fight the ban through legal channels. The company is exploring all options to continue operating in the US.

    – Users are scrambling to find alternatives to TikTok, with many turning to other social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat. Some are also considering using VPNs to bypass the ban and access TikTok from other countries.

    – Experts are debating the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, with some arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship of online platforms. Others believe that the ban is necessary to protect national security interests.

    – As the situation continues to unfold, stay tuned for more updates on the TikTok ban and what it means for the future of social media in the US. Let us know your thoughts on the ruling and how it will impact your online experience.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court, TikTok ban, Live updates, What’s next, Supreme Court ruling, TikTok news, Social media, Technology, Legal battle, Online content, Digital platform, United States, Decision, Regulation, App ban, Court case

    #Supreme #Court #Rules #Potential #TikTok #Ban #Live #Updates #Whats

  • Supreme Court says TikTok can be banned in the US, leaving its future in limbo




    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a controversial ban on TikTok may take effect this weekend, rejecting an appeal from the popular app’s owners that claimed the ban violated the First Amendment.

    The court handed down an unsigned opinion and there were no noted dissents.

    The decision, which followed warnings from the Biden administration that the app posed a “grave” national security threat because of its ties to China, will allow the ban to start Sunday. But there are a lot of lingering questions about how the ban would work in practice because there’s no precedent for the US government blocking a major social media platform. And how exactly the government would enforce it remains unclear.

    In its opinion, the Supreme Court acknowledged that for 170 million Americans TikTok offers “a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community.”

    But the court said, Congress was focused on national security concerns and that, the court said, was a deciding factor in how it weighed the case.

    “Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court wrote.

    The ruling also puts the spotlight on President-elect on Donald Trump.

    In the runup to the ban’s effective date, President Joe Biden’s administration signaled it would leave enforcement of the ban to Trump, who will be inaugurated on Monday. Despite that, TikTok has said it may “go dark” when the ban takes effect.

    A Biden administration official told CNN Thursday that the outgoing president plans to leave it to Trump to enforce any ban.

    “Our position on this has been clear: TikTok should continue to operate under American ownership,” a Biden administration official said. “Given the timing of when it goes into effect over a holiday weekend a day before inauguration, it will be up to the next administration to implement.”

    TikTok CEO Shou Chew is set to be seated on the dais, alongside other leading tech CEOs, at Trump’s inauguration — perhaps a sign of just how serious the incoming president is about trying to save the app.

    And with some in Congress now suggesting that TikTok might need more time to find a buyer, Trump could find support in trying to push off the ban to a later date.

    The law gives the president the option to extend the ban by 90 days, but triggering the extension requires evidence that parties working on purchasing have made significant progress, including binding legal agreements for such a deal — and TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, hasn’t publicly updated its stance that the app is not for sale.

    CNN’s Clare Duffy contributed to this report.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.



    In a shocking turn of events, the Supreme Court has ruled that TikTok can be banned in the United States, leaving its future in limbo. This decision comes after months of legal battles between the popular social media platform and the Trump administration.

    The Trump administration had argued that TikTok posed a national security threat due to its Chinese ownership, and had attempted to ban the app from app stores in the US. However, lower courts had blocked these efforts, leading to the case being taken up by the Supreme Court.

    With this ruling, TikTok’s future in the US is uncertain. While the app remains available for now, it is unclear how long that will last. Users are left wondering if they will soon have to find alternative platforms for their social media needs.

    The decision has sparked outrage among TikTok users and supporters, who argue that the app provides a valuable platform for creativity and connection. Many are concerned about the implications of the ruling for free speech and the future of social media in the US.

    As TikTok’s fate hangs in the balance, only time will tell what the future holds for the popular app. Will it be able to weather this storm and continue to thrive, or will it be forced to shut down in the US? Only time will tell.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court ruling, TikTok ban, US ban on TikTok, TikTok future uncertain, TikTok legal battle, social media ban, Supreme Court decision, TikTok controversy, TikTok legality, TikTok news, TikTok update, TikTok ban in the US

    #Supreme #Court #TikTok #banned #leaving #future #limbo

  • Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage for shutdown


    The Supreme Court has upheld the law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest its ownership of TikTok by Sunday or face an effective ban of the popular social video app in the U.S.

    ByteDance has so far refused to sell TikTok, meaning many U.S. users could lose access to the app this weekend. The app may still work for those who already have TikTok on their phones, although ByteDance has also threatened to shut the app down.

    The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration, upholding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act which President Joe Biden signed in April.

    Under the terms of the law, third-party internet service providers like Apple and Google will be penalized for supporting a ByteDance-owned TikTok after the Jan. 19 deadline.

    If internet service providers and app store owners comply, they will remove TikTok from their respective app stores, preventing users from downloading TikTok or installing the necessary updates that make the app functional.

    TikTok’s fate in the U.S. now lies in the hands of President-elect Donald Trump, who in December asked the Supreme Court to pause the law’s implementation and allow his administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case.”

    Trump will be inaugurated on Monday, one day after the TikTok deadline for a sale. TikTok CEO Shou Chew is one of several tech leaders expected to be in attendance, seated on the dais. 

    In December, members of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent letters to Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai in which they urged the executives to begin preparing to comply with the law and reminded them of their duties as app store operators.

    Last Friday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators and the U.S. government. TikTok’s lead lawyer, Noel Francisco, argued that the law violates the First Amendment rights of the app’s 170 million American users. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered that the app’s alleged ties to the People’s Republic of China via its parent ByteDance poses a national security threat.  

    After the oral arguments concluded, multiple legal experts believed that the nation’s highest court appeared to be more favorable to the U.S. government’s case involving TikTok’s alleged questionable ties to the Chinese government.

    Many TikTok creators have been telling their fans to find them on competing social platforms like Google’s YouTube and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, CNBC reported. Additionally, Instagram leaders scheduled meetings after last Friday’s Supreme Court hearing to direct workers to prepare for a wave of users if the court upholds the law, the CNBC report said.

    Chinese social media app and TikTok-lookalike RedNote rose to the top of Apple’s app store on Monday, indicating that TikTok’s millions of users were seeking alternatives.

    The Chinese government also weighed a contingency plan that would have Elon Musk acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations as part of several options intended to keep the app from its effective ban in the U.S., Bloomberg News reported on Monday. The plan was one of several that the Chinese government was considering as part of larger discussions involving working with the upcoming Trump White House, the report said.

    WATCH: SCOTUS hears TikTok ban case.

    TikTok ban's fate is now in the Supreme Court's hands



    The Supreme Court has made a controversial decision to uphold the ban on popular social media app TikTok, setting the stage for a potential shutdown of the platform. The ruling comes after months of legal battles and national security concerns raised by the Trump administration.

    Despite efforts by TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to address these concerns and negotiate a compromise, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban has sparked outrage among millions of users and fans of the app.

    The ruling has also raised questions about the limits of government intervention in the tech industry and the implications for free speech and innovation. As TikTok faces an uncertain future, many are left wondering what this decision means for the future of social media and online platforms.

    Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as we await further developments and potential repercussions of the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court, TikTok ban, TikTok shutdown, Supreme Court ruling, social media ban, TikTok news, technology news, legal news, court decision, digital media, internet regulations

    #Supreme #Court #rules #uphold #TikTok #ban #setting #stage #shutdown

  • Supreme Court Could Issue Ruling Friday After Signaling It Could Uphold Law


    Topline

    The fate of TikTok’s U.S. operations might be decided Friday after the Supreme Court said it may announce opinions in the morning, potentially delivering a ruling on TikTok days before the ban against it is scheduled to take effect, with justices recently signaling during oral arguments they may uphold the policy.

    Key Facts

    The Supreme Court’s Friday agenda noted the court “may announce opinions on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m.” EST.

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week over whether the federal law—which requires TikTok to separate from parent company ByteDance or else be banned—is in violation of the First Amendment.

    The law is now scheduled to take effect Sunday, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, as the court previously declined to pause the law from taking effect while it considered the case.

    TikTok and content creators on the app argued the ban violates their First Amendment rights by cutting off all speech on the platform, while the federal government argued the ban is necessary for national security, given ByteDance’s Chinese ownership.

    Justices on both sides of the aisle appeared skeptical of TikTok’s arguments, with Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett questioning how TikTok’s First Amendment rights are implicated when the law is specifically targeting ByteDance—a foreign-owned company—and its algorithm.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested TikTok was “wrong” that the case violates its First Amendment rights, and said she thought the case was more about TikTok wanting to associate with ByteDance than its speech being silenced.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said the federal law was “not a burden on” TikTok and its users’ “expression at all,” arguing Congress was fine with users’ speech on the app but just not a “foreign adversary” gathering information about the app’s users.

    Justice Samuel Alito asked TikTok creators’ attorney about whether his clients would actually be harmed if TikTok went away or if they could just go to a different platform, questioning whether their attachment to TikTok was akin to “somebody’s attachment to an old article of clothing” that could be replaced or if ByteDance had truly created a “magical algorithm” that no other tech company could possibly replicate.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up past examples of the U.S. blocking broadcasting companies from having ties to foreign governments and brought up the government’s concerns about TikTok collecting data on U.S. users, which he said “seems like a huge concern for the future of the country.”

    What To Watch For

    While the court is scheduled to release opinions Friday morning, there’s no guarantee that it will include the TikTok case. That being said, the court has signaled it would likely rule swiftly in the case, as it declined to pause the law from taking effect when they took up the case, instead scheduling oral arguments swiftly before the deadline. That suggested justices are prepared to rule imminently on the ban’s fate. It’s still possible they could delay the law from taking effect until after Jan. 19, however, if they need more time to deliberate, and justices asked Prelogar last week about whether the government agreed they could do so. She agreed they could if they need the extra time, though the government’s position is that the court should uphold the law before Jan. 19.

    Crucial Quote

    If the TikTok ban takes effect, “At least as I understand it, we go dark—essentially the platform shuts down,” TikTok’s lawyer Noel Francisco told the court last week about the impact of the federal law. “It’s essentially gonna stop operating, I think that’s the consequence of this law.”

    Contra

    While they largely appeared skeptical of TikTok’s legal case, justices also questioned the federal government’s arguments backing the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the government could just require TikTok to put up a warning saying its content may be manipulated by China—and when Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that wouldn’t go far enough because users could still be unknowingly manipulated, responded, “That’s your best argument, is that the average American won’t be able to figure out that his cat feed on TikTok could be manipulated even though there’s a sign saying, ‘This is manipulated’?” Gorsuch also questioned whether China’s involvement with TikTok wasn’t akin to other publishers owned by foreign companies—like the Oxford University Press or German-owned Politico—or how it’s different from users not knowing how other social media companies make decisions about their content. While they questioned TikTok’s arguments against the ban, Kagan also raised concerns to Prelogar about how the law was different from attempting to regulate the U.S.’ Communist Party during the “Red Scare” in the 1950s, and Jackson questioned Prelogar’s claims that the federal law isn’t concerned at all with content on the app. “The whole point of the divestiture” is to make TikTok’s content different than it would be if the Chinese government were manipulating it, Jackson argued. Gorsuch and Roberts also raised concerns about the federal government including sealed evidence justifying the ban in the case that even TikTok’s and creators’ lawyers weren’t able to view.

    Is Trump In Favor Of The Tiktok Ban?

    President-elect Donald Trump is not a formal party in TikTok’s legal dispute, since he hasn’t taken office yet, but the president-elect has filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying he opposes the ban and asks the court to pause the law from taking effect until after he takes office, rather than rule quickly on it before Jan. 19. “Such a stay would vitally grant President Trump the opportunity to pursue a political resolution that could obviate the Court’s need to decide these constitutionally significant questions,” his lawyers argued to the court. The court is not bound to respond to Trump’s request, since he’s not a formal party in the case, and did not give any indication during oral arguments whether they would do so.

    Can Trump Stop The Tiktok Ban?

    Trump has few options to save TikTok if the ban takes effect: As president, he can order a 90-day pause on the law if there’s evidence TikTok is in the process of separating from ByteDance, but so far the company is unwilling to do so, and if Trump pauses the law without that evidence, it could get overturned in court. Trump could also try and declare TikTok is in compliance with the law—but if it’s still owned by ByteDance, that could similarly get challenged in court—or try to negotiate an agreement with ByteDance for it to sell the app. While ByteDance has so far been unwilling to sell TikTok to a U.S. company, James Lewis, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told NPR China could possibly be persuaded to approve of ByteDance selling TikTok in exchange for Trump backing off his threat of high tariffs on Chinese imports. Francisco suggested Trump could pause the ban once he takes office, saying that while he thought the app could go dark on Jan. 19, one day before Trump’s inauguration, the app could be “in a different world” after Jan. 20. Prelogar also acknowledged the ban could be halted after Trump takes office if something changed and ByteDance was willing to divest, noting the law allows for the ban to only be temporary if the situation changes. She also didn’t disagree when Kavanaugh suggested Trump could simply declare the law won’t be enforced. Legal experts have questioned whether any effort by Trump to bar his Justice Department from enforcing the law would actually be successful, however, as companies like Apple and Google are likely to comply with the law anyway in case Trump ever changed his mind.

    What Happens If The Tiktok Ban Takes Effect?

    If the Supreme Court upholds the ban and it takes effect on Jan. 19—or later, should they temporarily pause it—it’s still unclear what will happen and what the impact will be for TikTok users. The federal law prohibits companies like Apple and Google from hosting TikTok on their U.S. app stores, unless ByteDance divests, which means that users would no longer be able to download TikTok or update the app. That means the app would eventually be rendered obsolete and unusable as it gets out of date. The law also prohibits internet service providers from enabling TikTok’s distribution, like Oracle, which handles TikTok’s U.S. user data. The impacts of that provision are less clear: As Francisco said, TikTok has claimed that it would mean the company could shut down, saying in a filing it could no longer “provid[e] the services that enable the TikTok platform to function, effectively shutting down TikTok in the United States.” University of Minnesota law professor Alan Rozenshtein noted to CBS News TikTok could just move those servers out of the U.S., however, which would keep TikTok online in the U.S.—at least in the short term, before the app becomes outdated. It’s still unclear what will happen to other aspects of TikTok’s U.S. operations, like its Creator Fund or the TikTok shop, but the ban is expected to impact other ByteDance-owned apps like CapCut and Lemon8.

    Will Bytedance Sell Tiktok?

    ByteDance and TikTok have so far opposed any suggestion that they could separate, though it remains to be seen what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the ban and it actually takes effect. Prelogar suggested during oral arguments the possibility that the Supreme Court upholding the law could be “just the jolt that Congress expected the company would need” to divest, predicting that while ByteDance and TikTok are now engaged in a game of “chicken” insisting ByteDance won’t sell TikTok as long as the ban’s legality is still in doubt, the companies could change their mind once the ban is actually a reality. It still remains to be seen if that will actually happen or who could ultimately buy TikTok, though billionaire Frank McCourt said he has made a proposal to buy TikTok’s U.S. assets.

    Key Background

    The federal law requiring ByteDance to divest from TikTok was enacted in April following longstanding concerns by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about the app’s ties to China. TikTok has long denied any wrongdoing or links to the Chinese government, and the government’s specific evidence justifying the ban has not been made public and was filed in court under seal. Forbes has reported on numerous concerns involving the app, including TikTok spying on journalists, promoting Chinese propaganda that criticized U.S. politicians, mishandling user data and tracking “sensitive” words. TikTok and creators on the app filed lawsuits against the ban days after it was enacted, but a federal appeals court ruled against them in December, upholding the law. The panel of judges ruled the ban did not violate TikTok and its users’ First Amendment rights—because all content on the app will still be available if ByteDance just divests from TikTok—and upheld the government’s assessment that banning a ByteDance-owned TikTok is necessary. Judges argued the law is actually the least restrictive way of dealing with the national security concerns, given that it allows TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. if it separates from ByteDance. TikTok and creators went to the Supreme Court after the appeals court then refused to pause the law from taking effect while it appealed the case, and the Supreme Court quickly took it up and scheduled oral arguments for just weeks later.

    Further Reading

    ForbesSupreme Court Will Hear TikTok Ban Today—Here’s What To ExpectBy Alison Durkee
    ForbesBillionaire Frank McCourt Leads Formal Offer To Buy TikTok—Here’s Everything We Know As Ban LoomsBy Antonio Pequeño IV
    ForbesCan Trump Stop TikTok Ban? Here’s What He Can—And Can’t—Do If Supreme Court Upholds LawBy Alison Durkee
    ForbesIf Trump Wants To ‘Save’ TikTok, He Might Need It To Get Banned FirstBy Emily Baker-White



    The Supreme Court Could Issue a Ruling Friday After Signaling It Could Uphold Law

    The Supreme Court is set to potentially issue a ruling on a significant case on Friday after signaling that it could uphold the law in question. The case has been closely watched by legal experts and commentators, as it could have far-reaching implications for future legal challenges.

    The Court’s decision could have a major impact on the interpretation and enforcement of the law at issue, which has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. If the Court upholds the law, it could set a precedent for similar cases in the future and provide clarity on the legal issues at hand.

    Legal experts are eagerly awaiting the Court’s ruling, which could provide important insights into the Court’s current interpretation of the law and its potential impact on future cases. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court ruling, Friday ruling, Supreme Court decision, uphold law, legal news, SCOTUS ruling, court case outcome, legal update, judicial decision, landmark ruling, legal analysis

    #Supreme #Court #Issue #Ruling #Friday #Signaling #Uphold #Law

  • Supreme Court lawyer charged with tax evasion on poker winnings


    Tom Goldstein, who writes SCOTUSblog.com, poses for a photograph in front of the Supreme Court, Thursday, Oct. 31, 2013, in Washington.

    Alex Brandon | AP

    A top Supreme Court lawyer who co-founded a popular blog about the high court was indicted Thursday in Maryland on federal tax evasion charges that allege he failed to declare millions of dollars in poker winnings and used his law firm’s money to pay his gambling debts.

    SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who is also charged with making false statements to two mortgage lenders, has appeared before the Supreme Court more times than nearly any other attorney in private practice in modern times.

    The indictment alleges that for the tax years 2016 through 2021, Goldstein willfully failed to pay more than $5.3 million in taxes he owed the IRS.

    Goldstein, 54, has taught at Harvard Law School and was one of several lawyers who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore case at the Supreme Court, which ceased the recounting of Florida ballots in the disputed 2000 presidential election. He has also successfully represented Google at the Supreme Court in the case where its use of Oracle software code in Android was accused of violating U.S. copyright law.

    In November, Goldstein authored a New York Times guest essay that called for the end of criminal cases against President-elect Donald Trump.

    Goldstein also has been “an ultrahigh-stakes power player, frequently playing in matches or series of matches in the United States and abroad involving stakes totaling millions, and even tens of millions, of dollars,” according to the 22-count indictment against him in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

    In a series of matches against a foreign gambler in Asia in 2016, the indictment says, Goldstein won about $13.8 million. Several months later, in a series of matches against a California businessman in Beverly Hills, Goldstein won $26.4 million, according to the indictment.

    The indictment says he diverted legal fees owed to his Bethesda, Maryland, law firm, Goldstein & Russell, which specialized in appellate litigation, to pay his poker-related debts.

    The indictment also alleges that from 2016 through 2022, “Goldstein was involved in or pursued intimate relationships with at least a dozen women,” and paid travel and other expenses for many of them while owing “substantial amounts of money to the Internal Revenue Service.”

    Four of those women were nominally hired by his firm and paid with health benefits while performing “little or no work for the firm,” the indictment alleges.

    Goldstein, who co-founded SCOTUSblog with his wife, Amy Howe, in 2002, told the Reuters news service in early 2023 that he was ending his legal practice and retiring from his firm, which has since been renamed.

    Goldstein’s lawyers, John Lauro and Christopher Kise of Continental, in a statement to CNBC said, “Mr. Goldstein is a prominent attorney with an impeccable reputation. We are deeply disappointed that the government brought these charges in a rush to judgment without understanding all of the important facts.”

    “Our client intends to vigorously contest these charges and we expect he will be exonerated at trial,” the attorneys said. 

    Kevin Russell, an attorney who worked with Goldstein at this prior firm, which also bore Russell’s name, told CNBC, “We have no comment on the indictment of Mr. Goldstein.”

    Russell said that his new firm, Russell & Woofter, “is a different law firm from the firm mentioned in the indictment, Goldstein & Russell,” and has no connection to Goldstein.

    “There is no allegation of wrongdoing against Russell & Woofter LLC or its principals, who cooperated with the government’s investigation,” Russell said.

    The indictment says Goldstein used more than $1.1 million in firm funds to pay personal debts in 2016, including gambling debts to poker players.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    He also allegedly understated his gambling winnings by more than $3.9 million on his 2016 federal tax return and omitted more than $3.4 million in gambling income on his tax return for 2017.

    Goldstein also allegedly “submitted false mortgage applications to two separate mortgage lending companies, seeking financing to purchase a $2.6 million home in Washington, D.C.” in 2021, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland.

    “On those mortgage applications — which required Goldstein to list all his liabilities and debts — Goldstein allegedly omitted millions of dollars of liabilities, including over $14 million he owed at the time on two promissory notes, as well as taxes he owed to the IRS,” the office said. “Goldstein’s false statements to one of the mortgage lenders allegedly resulted in his obtaining a $1.98 million loan.”

    An October 2008 Washington Post article about Goldstein’s poker playing quotes him as saying, “I was one of those people who just got caught up watching poker on ESPN,” and notes that he beat 130 players earlier that year to earn a seat at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas.

    “He lasted just two days,” the Post noted. “But during a break from the tournament, the soft-spoken litigator made a name for himself at an 18-hour cash game at the Bellagio: Goldstein started with a $12,000 stack of chips and built it to more than $100,000, winning and losing hands with more than $70,000 in the pot.”

    Goldstein is charged with tax evasion, aiding and assisting the preparation of false tax returns, willful failure to pay taxes, and false statement on loan applications.



    Supreme Court lawyer faces charges of tax evasion on poker winnings

    In a shocking turn of events, a prominent Supreme Court lawyer has been charged with tax evasion related to his poker winnings. The lawyer, who has represented high-profile clients in numerous cases, allegedly failed to report substantial income earned from his successful poker games.

    According to the authorities, the lawyer had been participating in high-stakes poker tournaments for years, raking in significant sums of money in winnings. However, he allegedly failed to report these earnings to the IRS, leading to charges of tax evasion.

    The lawyer’s legal team has vehemently denied the allegations, stating that he had always complied with tax laws and regulations. They argue that the charges are baseless and politically motivated.

    As the case unfolds, it raises questions about the intersection of professional success and personal accountability. It serves as a stark reminder that no one is above the law, regardless of their status or reputation.

    Stay tuned for updates on this developing story as more details emerge.

    Tags:

    Supreme Court lawyer, tax evasion, poker winnings, legal news, court case, legal charges, tax fraud, gambling income, legal troubles, criminal charges

    #Supreme #Court #lawyer #charged #tax #evasion #poker #winnings

  • Hello, how can I help you today?
Gathering thoughts.. ...
Powered by AI
Chat Icon