Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Supreme Court orders release of foreign aid funds
The terse, unsigned ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett together with the court’s three liberal justices. It upholds an earlier order by US District Judge Amir Ali, now tasked with craftingcompliance requirements for paying the money. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting justices,said he was “stunned” by the decision, arguing that it rewarded “judicial hubris” and imposed a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
What was the lawsuit about? The dispute arose from US President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid to ensure “alignment” with his foreign policy objectives. The orderprompted aid organizations to sue, alleging that the freeze exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
What could this mean for other lawsuits? Eurasia analyst Noah Daponte-Smith says, “The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was more of a procedural than a substantive matter. That said, this is the second time that the court has allowed lower-court injunctions against Trump’s actions to go into effect, which may be an indication of how it will rule once substantive issues reach the court.”
“It is also notable that Barrett — a Trump appointee — sided with Roberts and the three liberal justices, suggesting that a 6-3 conservative majority is by no means unified on the questions of executive authority that the DOGE cases involve.”
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.
In an unsigned 5-4 emergency ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to uphold the decision by the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in payments from the US Agency for International Development pledged under previous administrations.
“I am stunned,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent signed by the bench’s other three conservatives.
The majority did not explain the decision. Noting that the deadline for resuming payments passed last week, it sent the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “clarify” when the Trump administration needed to comply with the order.
Dog days ahead for DOGE? USAID isn’t the onlyagency facing steep cuts mandated by White House adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The various funding slashes are facing mounting legal challenges that are winding their way through lower courts. With rulings stacking up against DOGE, conservative legal scholar John Yoo complained to Fox News last week that “activist judges” in lower courts “misunderstand their proper role,” and surmised that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration.
In a post on X, Boston University law professor Robert L. Tsai said Wednesday’s ruling represented an “important though limited brushback of DOGE and the strategy to evade constitutional constraints – though judicial battle lines are starting to be drawn.”
Wooden gavel.
Trump seeks top court’s permission to fire whistleblower protector
The White House relieved Dellinger of his duties on Feb. 7, but a federal judge blocked it three days later and reinstated him. A US circuit court — the second highest in the land — rejected the first appeal, prompting the White House to take the case to the nation’s top court.
The case could provide a window into whether the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, would be willing to limit US President Donald Trump’s executive authority. Republicans have urged the country’s legal system not to stymie the president’s agenda: Vice President JD Vancesaid earlier this month that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
From removing inspector generals and gutting agencies like USAID, to flying undocumented immigrants to Guantánamo Bay, Trump has tried to push the boundaries of his office within the first few weeks of his presidency. His policies have run into a legal wall, though, as groups challenge the moves in court — and sometimes with success.
Whether Trump tries to override the courts is another matter. Last week, he said he will “abide by the courts.” Over the weekend, though, he wrote, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” a quote oft attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.
With the Trump administration having filed its appeal in the Dellinger case, the Supreme Court must now decide whether it will hear the case. Of the roughly 7,000 appeals that it receives each year, the Court only hears about 100-150 of them.A person holds a placard on the day justices hear oral arguments in a bid by TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, to block a law intended to force the sale of the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face a ban on national security grounds, outside the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington, U.S., January 10, 2025.
TikTok ban likely to be upheld
On Friday, the Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold the TikTok ban, largely dismissing the app’s argument that it should be able to exist in the US under the First Amendment’s free speech protections and favoring the government's concerns that it poses a national security threat.
Put simply, they see it as an issue of national security, not free speech.
“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok. They don’t care about the expression,” claimed Chief Justice John Roberts during questioning, clarifying “That’s shown by the remedy. They’re not saying TikTok has to stop. They’re saying the Chinese have to stop controlling TikTok.”
What’s the threat? US lawmakers are concerned about the Chinese government having access to enormous amounts of Americans’ data – and fear the app could be used to spread Beijing’s agenda. Facebook and other American social media platforms are notably banned in China – with Beijing taking a similar view to that of the US government. The justices seemed worried that TikTok could be used for espionage or even blackmail.
What does upholding the ban mean for the app? If the court rules against the app, it would mean that Bytedance, Tiktok’s parent company, must divest from the company before Jan. 19 or face a national ban on national security grounds. The app would no longer be available on the Google or Apple app stores.
But it won’t disappear from your phone if you already have it downloaded. The ban would only affect future downloads. Without the ability to update the app, however, it will likely degrade, and TikTok may block US users before that happens to avoid further legal issues. Incoming President Donald Trump has pledged to save the app, but there is no clear legal method to do so.
The decision could be an early reflection of one of this year’s Top Risks 2025 from our parent company, Eurasia Group: the breakdown of the US-China relationship. The world’s biggest superpowers increasingly distrust one another, and Trump’s return to office is likely to exacerbate the decoupling — increasing the risk of instability and crisis.
Workers of the Judiciary in Mexico City, Mexico, on October 15, 2024, protest outside the National Palace in the capital against judicial reform in Mexico. They reject the bill promoted by the former president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, which proposes the election by popular vote of judges, magistrates, and ministers of the Supreme Court starting in 2025.
Mexican Congress defangs the judiciary as majority of Supreme Court resigns
Eight out of Mexico’s 11 Supreme Court justices announced late Wednesday that they would resign their positions in opposition to a judicial overhaul that requires them to stand for election, while at the same time Congress passed new legislation that will prohibit legal challenges to constitutional changes. With the opposition in tatters and the courts castrated, President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Morena party has free rein to implement its far-reaching agenda, known as the Fourth Transformation.
Experts say the legislation means Mexico effectively has no checks on presidential and legislative power, given Morena’s coalition supermajority in Congress. The opposition PRI and PAN parties are deeply unpopular and tarnished by corruption, with slim chances of recovering popular support before the midterm elections in 2027. With a strong popular mandate to boot, Morena is on stable ground to pursue whatever projects it wants to prioritize, no matter how potentially disruptive.
Seven of the eight resigning justices will serve through August 2025, with their replacements set to be elected in June, while the eighth has reached retirement and will leave his seat on Nov. 30. The justices made clear their resignations are not meant to legitimize the judicial overhaul, but they stood to lose their pensions if they did not resign or declare their candidacy by Oct. 31.
What’s the next signpost? All eyes will be on the Supreme Court on Nov. 5 (the same day as the US election), when it is expected to discuss a draft ruling on the judicial overhaul that requires justices to stand for election. They may find portions of the overhaul unconstitutional, but with Wednesday’s legislation, that point is rendered moot.Activists carry caricatures of Supreme Court justices Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene peaks with people outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 1st, as the justices began hearing oral arguments in a case that challenges abortion rights in the United States.
Tipping the scales: How the 2024 presidential election could define the future of the Supreme Court
Everyone knows a lot is at stake in next week’s election, with voters deciding between two candidates with vastly different visions for the United States. But the stakes may be highest at the Supreme Court, where the next president could determine whether the court swings back toward an ideological equilibrium or if the Republican-appointed majority gets even stronger, potentially ensuring conservative dominance for decades to come.
The Supreme Court increasingly acts like a legislative body. And with Congress riddled with partisan gridlock, it is also increasingly the most politically influential branch of the federal government, requiring only a five-person majority to make groundbreaking decisions on rights, regulations, and the rule of law.
When Donald Trump was last in office, he appointed JusticesNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court its current 6-3 conservative majority. This has allowed for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the expansion of 2nd Amendment gun rights, and the limitation of federal agencies’ power to regulate the environment, public health, workplace hazards, and many other issues pertaining to their offices. It was also responsible for the landmark ruling in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution.
Since then, President Joe Biden replaced Democratic-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, keeping the ideological balance of the court the same.
How will the next president affect the makeup of the Supreme Court?
“I would expect at least one vacancy depending on whoever wins on either side,” predicts Emily Bazelon, a senior fellow at Yale Law School, “but possibly more because sometimes life events or health intervene.”
If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, the oldest Democratic-appointed justice, Sonia Sotomayor, would likely step down, giving the Democrats the power to replace her with someone younger. Supreme Court justices serve for life, so appointing a younger judge is a way of projecting political power, sometimes decades into the future. If a Republican-appointed judge steps down under Harris, the court would swing back towards a more even 5-4 majority.
On the other side, if Trump wins the presidency, 74-year-old Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas would be highly likely to step down, giving the conservative side of the bench four judges under the age of 60 (two of which are already 55 or younger). The second oldest justice, 72-year-old Samuel Alito, could also potentially retire.
If one of the Democratic-appointed justices were to step down under a Trump administration, that would create a rock-solid 7-2 Conservative majority, which is likely to have real policy implications. “The more people you can choose from to make a majority, the less you have to worry about internal differences,” says Bazelon. “Getting a majority vote of five just gets easier.”
She expects that a 7-2 majority may further limit states’ and cities’ abilities to restrict firearms or to provide emergency abortion services when women experience complications late in pregnancy.
“The more robustly conservative the court is, the more ambitious the right-wing agenda becomes,” Bazelon added.
FILE PHOTO: Members of media speak in front of cameras outside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India October 13, 2022. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis/File Photo
Indian government opposes criminalizing marital rape as “excessively harsh”
India’s Supreme Court is hearing petitions this month and will soon rule on whether to criminalize marital rape, but the government opposes the idea, stating it would be “excessively harsh.” The Interior Ministry argues that while a man should face “penal consequences” for raping his wife, criminalizing the act “may lead to serious disturbances in the institution of marriage.”
The petitions seek to overturn Section 375 of India’s Penal Codewhich lists “exemptions” for sex to be considered rape, including “by a man with his own wife” if she is not a minor. A lower Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on the issue in 2022, but when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government overhauled the country’s penal code in July, the exemption stayed on the books. Modi’s party, the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party, has longopposed changes for reasons of “illiteracy, poverty, social customs and values.”
But activists argue the 164-year-old law must be amended to combat systemic gender inequality. Sexual violence against women is rampant in India, andmedical workers are still striking over the August rape and murder of a trainee female doctor in Kolkata, for which a man was formally charged last Monday.
Around the world, more than 100 countries have outlawed marital rape. We’re watching whether public outcry – and a high court verdict - will force Modi’s government to do the same.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., June 27, 2024.
Please approach the bench! What’s on the Supreme Court's docket this season?
On Monday, the US Supreme Court took the bench again for a session where it will hear 40 cases, including some potentially landmark rulings on a Tennessee law outlawing hormone treatments for transgender minors; the Biden administration’s effort to ban “ghost guns,” which are assembled from kits purchased untraceably over the internet; and an Oklahoma capital punishment case where the state attorneys general have concluded the prosecutors hid evidence that could have led to an acquittal. All of these speak to culture war issues over which Americans are deeply divided – and at a time when faith in the Supreme Court is at its lowest.
What’s not on the docket? A case that could provide an answer on whether state abortion bans may conflict with federal law. The court decided not to rule on a case in Texas where the Biden administration invoked the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay. The administration argues this act preempts more restrictive state regulations on providing emergency abortion services.
The decision not to take up the case leaves the Texas court’s decision stopping the federal government from enforcing its mandate on emergency abortions in the state in place. It has been criticized by abortion-rights activists and physicians but also by Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two judges on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
And the election looms. Although the court’s caseload features fewer blockbuster cases than last year, when it ruled on presidential immunity, it does have one potentially huge looming responsibility: to potentially shape the outcome of the US election. Before the vote, SCOTUS could be asked to resolve last-minute disputes over ballot access or vote-counting rules. And after Nov. 5, it could be called upon to decide a winner if there is a serious dispute over the results.