Supreme

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to uphold the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) authority to use "disgorgement" to recover illegal profits. • This decision preserves a critical financial remedy used by the Wall Street watchdog to strip wrongdoers of illicit gains. • The ruling follows a separate 2024 decision where the Court limited the SEC by rejecting its ability to handle certain securities fraud penalty proceedings in-house.

• The US Supreme Court is reviewing key cases involving campaign finance and voting regulations, including a challenge by JD Vance and other Republicans against limits on coordinated party expenditures. • In a separate case, conservative justices expressed skepticism on March 23 regarding a Mississippi law that permits a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day. • These rulings are significant as they could either reshape political spending limits or lead to the implementation of stricter voting rules across the United States.

• On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Sripetch v. SEC (No. 25–466) that the Securities and Exchange Commission does not need to prove victims suffered a financial loss to obtain a disgorgement award. • The decision stems from a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC against an individual named Mr. Sripetch. • This ruling is significant as it lowers the evidentiary burden for the SEC when seeking to recover ill-gotten gains in civil cases.

Justices uphold FCC authority to impose in-house penalties, rejecting AT&T and Verizon jury trial claimsSign up for the Breaking News US newsletter emailThe US supreme court backed the Federal Communications Commission’s system for levying fines, ruling on Thursday against wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the agency and handing a win to Donald Trump’s administration.The ruling was 8-1. At issue in the legal dispute was whether the agency’s in-house proceedings for imposing the penalties deprived the companies of their right to a jury trial under the US constitution. Trump’s administration defended the FCC’s system for assessing financial penalties, known as forfeiture orders. Continue reading...

• The Supreme Court of India issued a series of landmark judgments in May 2026, covering diverse legal areas including electoral integrity, human trafficking, and property law. • Key rulings include the upholding of Bihar's electoral roll revision, the extension of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), and the issuance of a comprehensive Victim Protection Plan for human trafficking survivors. • The Court further clarified critical legal frameworks regarding bail jurisprudence, the Benami Act, and gender equality within matrimonial law.

US president says he would ‘like to meet’ Mojtaba Khamenei, who US officials have previously said was injured in attacks, and says Iran has said it will not have a nuclear weaponHello and welcome to the Guardian’s continuing coverage of the crisis in the Middle East.Donald Trump has claimed Iran has agreed it will not have a nuclear weapon and that the country’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is involved in negotiations with the US.One person was killed and several people were injured in an Iranian drone attack that targeted Kuwait’s airport, according to authorities and state media. Flights were suspended this morning but some later resumed after the country’s civil aviation authority said it assessed the damage at the airport.The attack came hours after US forces fired a Hellfire missile to disable a tanker attempting to break through the American blockade of the strait of Hormuz, and later said they repelled Iranian reprisal attacks in the region and attacked sites on Iran’s Qeshm Island.Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said it attacked the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain with missiles and drones in response to the strike on Qeshm, a claim the US military’s Central Command (Centcom) denied.Centcom said two Iranian missiles fired at Kuwait “fell short or broke apart enroute”, and that three missiles targeting Bahrain were intercepted by US and Bahrain.US forces also said they shot down three one-way attack drones “launched by Iran toward civilian mariners that were rightfully transiting regional waters” but gave no further details.Israel kept up strikes on southern Lebanon, pressing its campaign against Hezbollah a day after Donald Trump asked Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Beirut to avert further escalation in the three-month-old war. Israeli airstrikes and artillery fire hit south Lebanon on Tuesday, killing at least eight people, Lebanese state media reported. Israel’s military ordered residents of the city of Nabatieh, a major Hezbollah stronghold, to leave ahead of strikes.Lebanon’s government has said it would seek a full ceasefire in a new round of talks with Israeli officials in Washington that began on Tuesday, the latest in a series of face-to-face meetings Beirut has attended despite Hezbollah objections.Hezbollah said it fired artillery shells at Israeli troops near Beaufort and targeted Israeli military vehicles south of Nabatieh on Tuesday. It has not announced cross-border attacks since Monday. Continue reading...

Court decision that represents win for Republicans comes after lengthy battle over state’s congressional mapSign up for the Breaking News US newsletter emailAlabama can use a redrawn congressional map that eliminates one of the state’s two majority-Black districts in this year’s midterm elections, the US supreme court ruled in a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, another major blow to Black voters and a win for Republicans.The court’s emergency ruling is the most consequential decision it had issued since its landmark ruling in late April that struck down a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act. In that case, Louisiana v Callais, the court’s majority made it nearly impossible to win Voting Rights Act claims, saying that plaintiffs had to prove intentional discrimination. But on 26 May, a three-judge panel said the map Alabama wants to use for this year’s midterm was enacted with discriminatory intent. Continue reading...

• SCOTUSblog says several of the term’s most important cases remain undecided as the Supreme Court heads into its final stretch. • The article highlights the legal fight involving Cook, who is challenging Trump’s mortgage fraud allegations after lower courts required the dispute to proceed in federal court. • The remaining decisions matter because they could shape executive power, financial regulation and other high-stakes policy questions before the Court.

• On May 27, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of India’s authority to conduct Special Intensive Revisions of electoral rolls to ensure voter list accuracy. • The ruling reinforces that citizenship is the fundamental basis for voting rights, aiming to prevent non-citizens and illegal immigrants from participating in elections. • This decision is significant as it validates the Commission's power to remove ineligible names, thereby tackling illegal immigration through administrative scrutiny.

• The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s powers regarding Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise to identify and remove fake voters from electoral rolls. • While Justice Surya Kant noted that exclusion from voter lists does not formally strip a person of their citizenship, the court left unresolved whether procedural legality can lead to the democratic exclusion of marginalized citizens. • The ruling carries significant stakes as the West Bengal Chief Minister has announced that individuals excluded from the rolls will be denied access to government welfare schemes.

Terry Pitchford, on death row for a murder conviction, argued that Black jurors were excluded from his trialSign up for the Breaking News US newsletter emailThe US supreme court on Thursday ruled in favor of Terry Pitchford, a Black man convicted of capital murder and on death row in Mississippi, who claimed that his conviction was due to the jury having racial bias.The justices sided with Pitchford in a 5-4 vote. Continue reading...

• The Supreme Court has upheld the Election Commission of India's (ECI) authority to conduct special intensive voter revisions to verify citizenship and eligibility. • The ruling specifies that the ECI may remove ineligible names to maintain accurate electoral rolls, but must re-include individuals once their citizenship is confirmed. • This decision is significant for residents of Bihar, as those whose names were erroneously deleted due to absence or routine applications maintain the right to seek judicial review.

• Political activist Yogendra Yadav explained his decision to skip the Supreme Court hearing regarding the Special Institutional Revision (SIR) of voter lists. • Yadav argues that the court's decision was a foregone conclusion, asserting that the judiciary effectively gave the Election Commission of India (ECI) a "carte blanche" to manage voter lists without sufficient oversight. • The situation is significant as it suggests a lack of judicial intervention to protect voter integrity or annul elections held after the SIR process.

• The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional and legal validity of the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. • The ruling follows extensive court arguments where the judiciary decided in favor of the Election Commission on all major issues raised. • This decision is significant as it affirms the Commission's authority to conduct intensive voter list revisions to ensure electoral integrity.

• The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, affirming its authority to verify citizenship to ensure free and fair elections. • Key measures approved include the use of Aadhaar cards as an indicative document for verification and the publication of a list containing approximately 65 lakh excluded electors in Bihar. • The court ruled that a prior entry in the electoral roll does not prevent the EC from conducting fresh inquiries, rejecting claims that names cannot be deleted without prior notice under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules.

• The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Election Commission's (EC) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise is constitutional and falls within the poll body's legal powers. • The court determined that the SIR does not conflict with the Representation of the People (RP) Act or the 1960 EC Rules, citing Section 21(3) of the RP Act and Article 324 of the Constitution as the legal basis. • This decision matters as it affirms the EC's authority to conduct such exercises to ensure the constitutional imperative of holding free and fair elections.

• The Supreme Court of India validated the Election Commission's (EC) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar electoral rolls. • A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected opposition claims that the exercise was arbitrary or exclusionary. • The court ruled that the SIR aligns with the EC's constitutional mandate to ensure free and fair elections by maintaining the integrity and accuracy of voter lists.

• The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday to uphold the Election Commission's authority to carry out the S.I.R. exercise. • This judicial decision serves as a significant legal setback for opposition parties who had challenged the commission's power. • The ruling is critical as it reinforces the Election Commission's regulatory control over electoral processes and administrative exercises.

• The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, upheld the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. • The ruling follows a batch of petitions that challenged the validity of the SIR exercise across various Indian states. • The judgment is significant as it clarifies the extent of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) powers regarding the maintenance and revision of voter lists.

• Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan have raised concerns regarding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Interim Revision (SIR) exercise. • Yadav alleges that the ECI continued rolling out phases of the exercise during Supreme Court hearings, creating a "fait accompli" that bypassed judicial oversight. • The critics argue that these actions led to large-scale voter deletions, potentially disenfranchising citizens and eroding essential constitutional safeguards.

• SCOTUSblog reported that Supreme Court oral argument sessions are getting longer, raising questions about how the justices manage time and case presentation. • The trend has drawn attention because expanded arguments can change how much each justice can probe the lawyers and how many cases the Court can hear efficiently. • The issue matters for judicial administration, since procedural changes at the Court can affect both case outcomes and the pace of the docket.

Move comes after federal appeals court upholds ruling that opens door for government to detain and deport KhalilAttorneys for Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University student who last year became the face of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestine speech, will ask the US supreme court to intervene after a federal appeals court opened the door for the government to once again detain and ultimately deport him.On Friday, the third circuit court of appeals upheld a January ruling by a three-judge panel, which had reversed a lower-court decision ordering Khalil’s release on bail last June. The ruling marks the latest chapter in Khalil’s months-long challenge of the government’s campaign against him. The appeals court’s decision marks a significant setback for him, but his lawyers insist he cannot be deported – for now. Continue reading...

• European stocks experienced volatility on Thursday, eventually reversing initial losses to finish the trading session higher. • The market shift followed an order from Iran's Supreme Leader to keep near-weapons-grade uranium within the country. • Simultaneously, flash PMI data for May indicated a slump in economic activity across both France and the United Kingdom.

Court throws out state’s challenge to judicial finding that inmate convicted of murder is ineligible for death penaltyThe US supreme court on Thursday threw out a challenge by the state of Alabama to a judicial finding that a death row inmate convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible under the US constitution for the death penalty.In this highly unusual move, and in a single-sentence, unsigned order, the court dismissed Alabama’s petition for review in Hamm v Smith without deciding it, effectively undoing its earlier decision to take up an appeal by state officials to the method used by a lower court to determine that Joseph Clifton Smith was intellectually disabled and therefore could not be executed. Continue reading...

• The Philippine Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition from a senator seeking to stop his arrest after the International Criminal Court issued a warrant over alleged crimes against humanity. • The decision keeps the legal path open for arrest proceedings and leaves the senator’s status subject to further action by authorities. • The ruling matters because it highlights the continuing domestic and international fallout from ICC-related cases in the Philippines.

• Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a reform on 9 May 2026 to expand the Supreme Tribunal of Justice from 20 justices to 32, saying the change would speed up judicial work. • The Judicial Nominations Committee was installed on 19 May 2026 to fill 24 vacancies on the court, according to the International Commission of Jurists. • The ICJ said the appointment process “must be carried out in compliance with the rule of law,” warning that judicial independence is at stake.

Order, issued without any noted dissent, is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competitionThe supreme court on Friday rejected Virginia’s bid to restore a congressional map that would have given Democrats a chance to pick up four seats in the closely divided House of Representatives.The court’s order, issued without any noted dissent, is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competition . It was kicked off last year by Donald Trump urging Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent supreme court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act that opened up even more winnable seats for the Republican party. Continue reading...

• The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold the authority of the Preventive Services Task Force to recommend which healthcare services must be covered with no cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act. • The ruling affirms that the independent medical body retains power to determine preventive care coverage standards for millions of Americans with ACA insurance plans. • The decision impacts ongoing healthcare policy debates as seventy-five national medical organizations simultaneously urged the Senate to adopt Medicare physician payment provisions in the budget reconciliation package.