Supreme Court's final opinions of the term are coming Friday, Chief Justice Roberts says
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will issue the final opinions of its term on Friday.
Chief Justice John Roberts made the courtroom announcement Thursday. Six cases remain to be decided, including whether President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship can take effect anywhere in the United States.
Other remaining cases include whether Maryland parents with religious objections can remove their children from lessons using LGBTQ storybooks and a fight over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congo drops demand for immediate Rwandan troop pullout, sources say
By Sonia Rolley (Reuters) -Congolese negotiators have dropped a demand that Rwandan troops immediately leave eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, paving the way for a U.S.-brokered peace agreement to be signed between the longtime foes on Friday, four sources told Reuters. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. Rwanda has long denied providing arms and troops to M23 and says it is acting in self-defence. Congolese and Rwandan officials are expected to sign a peace deal in Washington on Friday following a diplomatic push by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to end years of conflict with roots in Rwanda's 1994 genocide. The agreement also aims to attract Western investment to the two countries' mining sectors, which boast deposits of tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium, while giving the U.S. access to critical minerals. Sources told Reuters earlier this month that Washington was pushing for Rwanda to withdraw its troops before the deal's signing, a pre-condition that was also included in a U.S.-prepared draft authenticated by diplomats. But that timeline was certain to face resistance from Rwanda. Kigali considers Congo-based armed groups an existential threat, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the genocide. Three sources told Reuters that the new version of the agreement aims to obtain the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from eastern Congo over several months, while two of them said the withdrawal would be conditioned on operations against the FDLR. The sources - three diplomats and a Congolese official - asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the talks. Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told Reuters on Thursday that under the agreement the "lifting of defensive measures in our border area" would be contingent upon the FDLR's "neutralisation". Congo's government did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A State Department spokesperson said it did not comment on ongoing diplomatic negotiations. It remains unclear how far the agreement to be signed on Friday will advance beyond a declaration of principles agreed in April. Technical experts from the two countries initialed a draft peace agreement last week, saying it addressed issues related to territorial integrity, "a prohibition of hostilities" and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups. It also referred to a mechanism agreed as part of an earlier Angolan-backed peace effort to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers and Congolese military operations targeting the FDLR. (Additional reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; Writing by Robbie Corey-Boulet; Editing by Joe Bavier)
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court says states may bar women on Medicaid from using Planned Parenthood clinics
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from providing medical screenings and other healthcare for women on Medicaid. The court's conservative majority cast aside the longstanding rule that said Medicaid patients may obtain medical care from any qualified provider. In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Medicaid Act does not give patients an "individual right" to the provider of their choice. The dispute turned on abortion, even though federal funds cannot be used to perform the procedure. Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states. For decades, conservative states have sought to "defund" Planned Parenthood and argued they did not want to subsidize a leading provider of abortions. But until recently, the federal government and most courts had held that Medicaid patients may go to any qualified provider for healthcare. The legal battle hinged on whether the Medicaid Act gave a patients a right that could be protected in court. The answer was no, said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch speaking for the majority. The court's three liberals, all women, dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision "will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable." Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed. In theory, a Medicaid patient could file a complaint with the Trump administration and tell the Department of Health and Human Services that the state is failing to comply fully with the Medicaid Act. Planned Parenthood clinics provide cancer screenings, birth control, medical screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception and other healthcare services. Congress pays most of the state's costs for Medicaid, and the law says "any individual eligible for medical assistance" may receive care from any provider who is "qualified to perform the service." Last year, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected South Carolina's contention that it could exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. "We reaffirm that a Medicaid beneficiary may ... vindicate her right under the Medicaid Act to freely choose among qualified healthcare providers, of which Planned Parenthood is one," wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a prominent conservative and a Reagan appointee. But the court agreed to hear the state's appeal in Medina vs. Planned Parenthood. Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, called Thursday's decision "an attack on our healthcare and our freedom to make our own decisions about our bodies and lives. By allowing states to block Medicaid patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Court has chosen politics over people and cruelty over compassion." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it was "yet another shameful ruling that inserts the government directly between a patient and their doctor — just like Dobbs three years ago and Skrmetti last week. Intimate, personal decisions about health care shouldn't require sign off from extremist politicians." He was referring to the 2022 decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade and last week's ruling upholding state laws that ban hormone treatment for transgender teens. Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, praised the decision as a landmark. "We are grateful the Supreme Court has recognized the right of states to direct taxpayer dollars toward life-affirming healthcare providers,' she said. 'No one should be forced to subsidize the abortion industry with their tax dollars.' After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, South Carolina made most abortions a crime. But the state continued its legal fight to prevent Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood's clinics in Charleston and Columbia. Gov. Henry McMaster, who issued the ban on Planned Parenthood in 2018, said he did so to protect "his state's sovereign interests." Critics of the move said the state has a severe shortage of doctors and medical personnel who treat low-income patients on Medicaid. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran denies any meeting with US next week, foreign minister says
DUBAI (Reuters) -Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump's statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week. The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the U.S. were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the U.S. attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. The U.S. and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear programme is solely geared toward civilian use. Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites 'were not little' and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran's nuclear programme, which he said would inform Iran's future diplomatic stance.
