The UBT MPs merger case remains before the Supreme Court after Shiv Sena (UBT) challenged the Lok Sabha Speaker’s recognition of six of its MPs joining the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena. The Speaker order remains effective, leaving the Shinde faction with 13 Lok Sabha MPs while the legal dispute continues. UBT plea Shiv Sena (UBT), through party leader Arvind Sawant, moved the Supreme Court aga

The legal battle over President Donald Trump's proposed White House ballroom has intensified after a federal appeals court upheld an order blocking construction unless Congress authorizes the project. The ruling marks another significant constitutional dispute involving presidential powers and could soon be decided by the US Supreme Court. The case has drawn nationwide attention because it raises questions about executive authority, federal oversight, and the future of one of the administration's most ambitious construction projects. Congress Approval Required for Ballroom Appeal A divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled 2-1 that the administration cannot continue building the ballroom without explicit approval from Congress. The majority agreed with an earlier district court decision, stating that the dispute is about legal authority rather than the merits of the project itself. According to the judges, the proposed ballroom represents a substantial modification to the White House complex, making congressional authorization necessary before construction can move forward while litigation continues. The court temporarily paused enforcement of its ruling for two weeks, allowing the administration time to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Challenge Planned by Trump President Donald Trump sharply criticized the ruling, describing it as "horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful." In statements posted on Truth Social, he argued that the decision threatens national security and announced that his administration will immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump also criticized the judges who formed the majority, noting they were appointed by Democratic presidents, while the dissenting judge had been nominated during his administration. The White House maintains that the project falls within executive authority and says the ballroom is necessary to improve facilities for official ceremonies, diplomatic receptions, and state dinners. East Wing Demolition and Ballroom Cost Construction began after the historic East Wing was demolished to make room for the new ballroom and an underground complex. Recent images from the site show major structural work already underway, including concrete sections extending above ground level. The administration has also cited security improvements, including underground infrastructure, as an additional justification for the project. The project's financial estimates have increased considerably since it was first announced. Initial projections placed the cost near $200 million before later revisions increased the estimate to $400 million. More recent reports indicate the total expense could approach $600 million. Although President Trump has repeatedly stated that private funding would cover the ballroom, reports suggest public funds are also contributing to the development. Ballroom Cost Faces More Legal Challenges The ballroom project is one element of President Trump's broader plan to reshape several prominent landmarks in Washington before the end of his current term in 2029. Other proposals, including modifications near the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and construction of a large ceremonial arch, have also attracted legal scrutiny. The White House ballroom dispute now appears likely to become the first of these cases to reach the Supreme Court. The justices could ultimately determine how much authority a president has to undertake major construction projects on federally protected government property without direct congressional approval. The decision may establish an important constitutional precedent affecting future administrations and executive construction projects. The information in this case is based on the federal appeals court ruling, public statements from President Donald Trump, and filings connected with the ongoing litigation. A Supreme Court decision, if accepted for review, is expected to clarify the balance between presidential authority and congressional oversight regarding significant changes to the White House complex.

US President Donald Trump has launched another attempt to narrow birthright citizenship, signing new executive orders that target birth tourism and several categories of foreign nationals. The move comes after the Supreme Court rejected his broader effort to deny automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented migrants and temporary residents. Trump birthright order targets birth tourism

Trump tariff refunds have reached about $100 billion after the Supreme Court rejected the president’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping import duties. The repayments are helping importers recover IEEPA charges while opening a new legal battle over replacement tariffs. Trump Tariff Refunds Reach $100 Billion The Trump administration has processed approximately $100 billion in refunds for importers that paid tariffs imposed unde

A police officer seen firing a rifle during the July 25 student protest has been suspended, while a PIL concerning the incident has reached the Supreme Court. Bihar Cop Suspended After Protest Firing Video A Bihar police officer has been suspended after a video appeared to show him firing an AK-47 rifle during clashes with protesters in Siwan on Saturday, July 25. The confrontation occurred during a statewide shutdown organised over allege

Monday, July 27, 2026, Parliament will take up Bills concerning examination paper leaks, Supreme Court judges and protection of national symbols during Monday’s proceedings.   Monsoon Session Brings Anti-Paper Leak Bill to Lok Sabha The Union government is prepa

The SIT investigating alleged irregularities in donations received by the Ram temple trust is likely to submit an interim status report to the Supreme Court on Monday, July 20, 2026. The team may also seek additional time to complete the investigation and recommend administrative reforms. SIT Interim Report Expected Before Supreme Court The Special Investigation Team examining alleged embezzlement of donations received by the Shri Ram Janm

A breast cancer patient died before the Kerala High Court could decide her petition seeking a reduction in the price of a life-saving medicine, even though the case had been listed 57 times. The Supreme Court has now taken suo motu cognisance of the delay and issued notice to the Centre. Cancer Drug Plea Remained Pending for Nearly Four Years The petition was filed in the Kerala High Court in June 2022 by a woman undergoing treatment for b

US President Donald Trump has paid writer E. Jean Carroll more than $5.6 million after exhausting a major avenue of appeal against a civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. The payment covers the original $5 million damages award and interest accumulated while the case remained under appeal. Trump Carroll payment released after court order Federal court records released on Tue

  Maharashtra leaders Devendra Fadnavis, Eknath Shinde and Sharad Pawar have renewed efforts over the Karnataka border dispute, promising faster Supreme Court hearings, senior legal support and financial assistance for Marathi-speaking residents facing cases in border areas. Fadnavis, Shinde and Pawar unite over Karnataka border dispute Maharashtra’s government and senior political leaders have renewed their push on the long-running Maha

Trump seeks rehearing on citizenship ruling US President Donald Trump said he would immediately ask the Supreme Court to rehear its ruling on birthright citizenship, arguing that the decision could encourage abuse of the immigration system. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that signs and billboards near the southern border and in Mexico were advertising service

The birthright citizenship ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, provides important clarity for families living in the United States on temporary visas. Children born in the country to parents who are lawfully but temporarily present remain U.S. citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment. For the court’s vote and constitutional reasoning, read NRIPage’s full report on the

The Trump v. Barbara ruling preserved automatic U.S. citizenship for nearly all children born on American soil. In a 6-3 decision issued Tuesday, June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower-court judgment blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order. What the Trump v. Barbara ruling decided Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s principal opinion, joined by Justices Sonia S

A major ruling from the US Supreme Court has redefined how much authority the president holds over independent federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission. In a closely watched 6–3 decision, the court concluded that certain protections preventing removal of agency officials without cause are inconsistent with the constitutional structure of executive power. The judgment effectively strengthens presidential oversight, allowing broader discretion in removing commissioners who exercise executive functions. Background of the FTC dismissal dispute The case arose after FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was removed from her position without being given a formal reason tied to misconduct or inefficiency. She challenged the decision, arguing that the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 only permits removal under limited conditions such as neglect of duty or wrongdoing. Her legal team maintained that her dismissal violated statutory safeguards designed to protect agency independence. The dispute quickly escalated into a constitutional question about how far presidential authority extends over regulatory bodies. Court’s interpretation of executive authority Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that officials exercising executive power must remain accountable to the president. The court reasoned that insulating such officials from removal undermines the constitutional principle of a unified executive branch. As a result, the Federal Trade Commission’s structure was found to be partially incompatible with absolute “for cause” removal protection. The ruling split the court 6–3, with dissenting justices warning that the decision weakens institutional safeguards designed to prevent political interference in regulatory enforcement. Legal precedent and structural implications The decision revisits long-standing administrative law principles tied to earlier rulings that had supported limits on presidential removal power for independent agencies. By narrowing those protections, the court has opened the door for broader executive control over a range of federal commissions that previously operated with significant autonomy. Legal analysts expect the ruling to influence disputes involving multiple regulatory bodies beyond the FTC, particularly where commissioners have statutory job protections. Impact on independent agencies and governance The ruling could affect dozens of federal agencies that rely on “for cause” removal standards to maintain operational independence. These institutions, which include regulatory, labor, and enforcement bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, may now face closer oversight from the White House. Supporters of the ruling argue it strengthens accountability and reduces bureaucratic insulation. Critics, however, warn it concentrates too much power in the executive branch and could weaken regulatory neutrality. Political reactions and dissenting views Former President Donald Trump welcomed the decision, describing it as a significant reinforcement of presidential authority over federal institutions. In contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a strong dissent, arguing that the ruling undermines structural protections that prevent excessive executive control over independent agencies. The decision is expected to remain a key reference point in future constitutional debates on the balance of power between the presidency and regulatory institutions.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, June 29, 2026, upheld the Mississippi mail ballot grace period, ruling that absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive within five business days. The 5-4 decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling and preserved similar post-election ballot receipt rules in other states. What the Mississippi Mail Ballot Grace Period Ruling Means

Supreme Court Says Right To Walk On Safe Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right The Supreme Court has declared that walking on safe and clearly marked footpaths is a fundamental right, strengthening the legal protection available to pedestrians across India. In a significant ruling, the court said public authorities have a duty to provide and maintain footpaths wherever roads exist. The judgment pl

Supreme Court Ruling Against Eduardo Bolsonaro Brazil’s Supreme Court has sentenced Eduardo Bolsonaro to four years and two months in prison after concluding that he attempted to influence foreign governments against his own country during an ongoing high-profile legal case involving his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro. The court also imposed an eight-year ban on holding public office after comple

Over 1.8 lakh teachers across India are under pressure to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test by August 2028 after the Supreme Court retained the mandatory qualification rule. TET Deadline Creates Fresh Concern Among Teachers A fresh Teacher Eligibility Test notification has triggered anxiety among many in-service teachers, especially those who have not yet cleared the qualification exam. The application deadline has been fixed as July 5,

Hanu Karlapalem Alabama District 4 campaign officials are criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alabama congressional map ruling, saying it could weaken Black political representation before the 2026 elections. Karlapalem, the Democratic nominee for Alabama House District 4, released a statement on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, after the court’s 6-3 decision allowed Alabama to use a disputed congressional map in the 2026 election cycle. Hanu Karlapa

A foreign divorce is not automatically valid in India just because a court in another country grants it. The Supreme Court has made it clear that when a marriage is governed by Indian matrimonial law, especially the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any foreign divorce decree must satisfy India law, Section 13 CPC, jurisdiction rules, natural justice, and the legal principles already settled by the court. This means a US divorce may be valid in the US, but it may still fail in India if it does not ma