ruling

March 27 (UPI) — Argentina’s government praised a U.S. court decision Friday that overturned a ruling ordering the country to pay more than $16.1 billion in a lawsuit tied to the 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF.

“We won the case,” President Javier Milei wrote on X, noting the amount at stake was comparable to key financial obligations, including recent loans from the International Monetary Fund.

According to a statement from the presidential office, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision that had ordered Argentina to pay billions in damages over how the state renationalized the company.

“The court fully overturned the ruling against the Argentine state in what represents the best possible outcome, with less than a 15% probability of occurrence, and avoided an estimated payment of approximately $18 billion,” the statement said.

The case stems from Argentina’s 2012 expropriation of a 51% stake in YPF, which was owned by Spanish energy company Repsol, during the second presidential term of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

The dispute arose because Argentina did not launch a tender offer to purchase shares held by minority investors, as required under the company’s bylaws.

Following that omission, litigation fund Burford Capital acquired the rights to pursue the claim and sued Argentina in New York, securing a record $16.1 billion judgment in 2023 that has now been overturned.

Argentina’s legal defense, maintained across multiple administrations, including those of Mauricio Macri, Alberto Fernández and Milei, argued that the appropriate jurisdiction for the case was Argentine courts, not U.S. tribunals, local newspaper Ámbito reported.

The country had also appealed a June 2025 order requiring it to transfer YPF shares as partial payment of the judgment. With the ruling now vacated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also nullified that order.

The removal of the ruling and its associated payment could improve Argentina’s country risk outlook, ease pressure on international reserves and send a positive signal to investors regarding international litigation, local outlet Perfil reported.

Burford Capital can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. If the court takes up an appeal, the final outcome could be moths or years away.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court broke new ground this month when it ruled the Constitution forbids school policies in California that prevent parents from being told about their child’s gender transition at school.

But the reach of this new parental right remains unclear.

Does it mean all parents have a right to be informed if their child is using a new name and pronouns at school?

Or is the right limited to parents who inquire and object to being “shut out of participation in decisions involving their children’s mental health,” as the high court said in Mirabelli vs. Bonta.

Both sides in this legal battle accuse the other of creating confusion and uncertainty. And that dispute has not subsided.

UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang says understanding the Supreme Court’s order calls for a close reading of the statewide injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.

That order prohibits school employees from “misleading” or “lying” to parents. It did not say school officials and teachers had a duty to contact parents whenever they saw that a student changed their appearance or used a new name, he said.

By clearing this order to take effect, the Supreme Court’s decision “means that schools must tell parents the truth about their child’s gender presentation at school if the parents request that information,” Tang said.

“But the initial burden is on the parents. This is not a rule that schools have an affirmative obligation to inform any and all parents if their child is presenting as a different gender,” he said.

The high court’s 6-3 order also indicated the reach of the judge’s injunction was limited.

It “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious injunctions.”

Religious conservatives who sued say they seek to end “secret transition” policies that encourage students to adopt a new gender identity without their parents knowing about the change.

The lawsuit challenging California’s “parental exclusion” policies was first filed by two teachers in Escondido.

Peter Breen, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, said many of the parents in Escondido “had no clue” their children were undergoing a gender transition at school.

“We need to activate parents,” he said.

Ruling for them, Benitez said the state’s “parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity.”

His injunction also said schools must notify their employees that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.”

The Supreme Court’s order cited a dramatic example of nondisclosure.

Two parents who joined the suit had gone to parent-teacher meetings and learned only after their eighth-grade daughter attempted suicide that she had been presenting as a boy at school and suffered from gender dysphoria.

John Bursch, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Supreme Court’s opinion goes further to empower parents.

“Fairly read, the Mirabelli opinion creates an affirmative obligation on school officials to disclose,” he said. “It’s consistent with the way [the court] describes the parental right: ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’ School officials’ silence (rather than lying) is not notice to and is shutting out parents.”

“All that said, the California attorney general is obviously not getting that message,” Bursch said.

He said the Supreme Court needs to go beyond an emergency order and fully decide a case that squarely presents the issue of parents rights.

“School officials should not be socially transitioning children without parental notice and consent. Period,” he said.

He filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court in a case from Massachusetts that dissenting Justice Elena Kagan described as a “carbon copy” of the California dispute.

It takes only four votes to grant review of a case, but since November, the justices have repeatedly considered the case of Foote vs. Ludlow and taken no action.

The case is set to be considered again on Friday in the court’s private conference.

Meanwhile, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta went back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a clarification to limit the potential sweep of Benitez’s order.

He objected to the part of the judge’s order that said schools must post a notice that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

Bonta said that goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved.

This “could be understood to suggest that public school officials have an affirmative constitutional duty to inform parents whenever they observe a student’s expression of ‘gender incongruence,’ effectively imposing a mandatory ‘see something, say something’ obligation in all circumstances,” he said.

But the 9th Circuit said it would not act until he first presented this request to Benitez.

Meanwhile, transgender rights advocates say the voices and the views of students have been ignored.

“This case has been about states’ and parents’ rights but students have been left out of the conversation. Their voices have not been heard at all,” said Andrew Ortiz, an attorney for the Transgender Law Center. “School should be a place where young people can feel safe and confident they can confide in a teacher.”

“We’re hearing about fear and anxiety,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization.

“There are students who are unable to speak with their parents. Teachers can encourage them to have a conversation with their parents. But this will weaken the trust they have in their teachers,” he said.

In the past, the court had been wary of reaching into the public schools to decide on education policies and the curriculum, but it took a significant step in that direction last year.

In a Maryland case, the court said religious parents had a right to “opt out” their young children from classes that read “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks.

The 1st Amendment protects the “free exercise of religion” and “government schools … may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito, the lone conservative who attended public schools.

The same 6-3 majority cited that precedent to block California school policies that protect the privacy of students and “conceal” information from inquiring parents if the student does not consent.

But the California case went beyond the religious-rights issue in the Maryland “opt out” case because it included a “subclass of parents” who objected without citing religion as the reason.

The justices ruled for them as a matter of parents’ rights.

“Parents — not the state — have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children,” the court said.

That simple assertion touches on a sensitive issue for both the conservative and liberal wings of the court. It rests on the 14th Amendment’s clause that says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

In the past, a liberal majority held that the protection for “liberty” included rights to contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Conservatives fiercely objected to what was dubbed “substantive due process.”

In the California case, Kagan, speaking for the liberals in dissent, tweaked the conservatives for recognizing a new constitutional right without saying where it came from.

“Anyone remotely familiar with recent debates in constitutional law will understand why: Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court — and especially of the Members of today’s majority,” she wrote.

She noted that when the court struck down the right to abortion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would go further and strike down all the rights that rest on “substantive due process.”

In response to Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that staked out a moderate conservative position.

Since 1997, the court has said it would stand behind rights that were “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” she wrote. That includes “a parent’s right to raise her child … and the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

She said California’s “non-disclosure policy” is unconstitutional and violates the rights of parent because it applies “even if parents expressly ask for information about their child’s gender identification,” she wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signed on to her opinion.

While Kagan dissented on procedural grounds, she did not disagree with bottom-line outcome.

“California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line,” she said. “And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”

March 17 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party and the government have decided to raise the operating rates of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to respond to rising oil prices triggered by the war in the Middle East, a move critics say marks a late reversal of the party’s long-standing opposition to nuclear energy.

Ahn Do-geol, secretary of the party’s economic task force on the Middle East crisis, said Monday the government will expand electricity generation from nuclear and coal plants to manage supplies of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which has relatively limited reserves.

Under the plan, the government will lift a cap limiting coal-fired power generation to 80% of installed capacity and accelerate repairs on six nuclear reactors currently under maintenance. Two reactors are expected to return to service by the end of this month and four more by May, raising nuclear utilization rates from the current high-60% range to about 80%.

The decision signals a clear shift for the Democratic Party, which long supported a phase-out of nuclear energy.

Former President Moon Jae-in formally declared a nuclear phase-out policy in 2017, pledging to abandon nuclear-centered electricity generation after attending a ceremony marking the permanent shutdown of the Kori Unit 1 reactor.

At the time, Moon argued South Korea should move toward a nuclear-free era and halted or scrapped most plans to build new nuclear plants.

The party’s stance began to soften after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, which triggered global energy supply disruptions. Near the end of his presidency, Moon said nuclear power would need to remain a major baseload energy source for decades and called for delayed reactors including Shin Hanul Units 1 and 2 and Shin Kori Units 5 and 6 to begin operations as soon as possible.

The latest shift reflects renewed energy concerns linked to instability in the Middle East, which has pushed oil prices higher.

Supporters of nuclear power argue it remains a critical energy source despite safety risks highlighted by past disasters such as the Fukushima accident in Japan.

Opponents warn that nuclear accidents can cause catastrophic damage, pointing to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which has faced repeated safety concerns amid the ongoing war.

However, critics of the phase-out policy argue that abandoning nuclear energy without reliable alternatives risks creating energy shortages.

South Korea currently has only about nine days’ worth of LNG reserves, raising concerns about energy security during geopolitical crises.

Supporters of the policy shift say governments must adjust energy strategies as global conditions change but argue that long-term policies on energy and food security should be developed with careful planning rather than reactive decisions.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260316010004672

Vietnamese elect members of parliament from a list of candidates ⁠almost exclusively fielded by the governing party.

Voters in Vietnam are casting their ballots for members of the National Assembly, the country’s top legislative body, which serves mainly to ratify decisions by the governing Communist Party.

Nearly 93 percent of the 864 parliamentary candidates in Sunday’s election are Communist Party members, while 7.5 percent are independents, according to the national election council, down from 8.5 percent in 2021.

The five-yearly elections in the tightly controlled one-party state will see more than 73 million voters elect 500 members of the National Assembly and representatives for local councils.

The Communist Party, which has ruled the Southeast Asian nation of 100 million people unopposed for decades, holds 97 percent of the parliamentary seats.

Voters expressed hope their representatives would continue modernising Vietnam, whose booming economy is undergoing major reforms introduced by top leader To Lam.

Red-and-yellow banners fluttered from lampposts and traffic lights in the capital, Hanoi, where well-dressed senior citizens were some of the first to vote.

“I do expect top leaders after this election will make major changes to make our country better,” Nguyen Thi Kim, 73, told the AFP news agency at a polling station set up in a community room of a high-rise residential block in Hanoi.

But in a country where major policies and projects are decided by senior cadres, many citizens feel lukewarm about elections. “I don’t think who wins will have any impact on my life,” said a woman, who gave her name as Huyen, in Hanoi.

Most polling stations are scheduled to close at 7pm (12:00 GMT), with results expected on March 23, parliament Chairman Tran Thanh Man told local media.

The opening plenary session of the National Assembly is scheduled for early April, when ⁠lawmakers are expected to approve the state’s top leaders previously nominated by the party, including the president and the prime minister.

The party confirmed Lam as its general secretary, Vietnam’s most powerful position, during ⁠its five-yearly congress in January, when it also selected the 19 members of ⁠the Politburo, its top decision-making body.

After voting on Sunday morning in Hanoi, Lam said on live television that the election aimed “to choose the most prestigious people to continue leading the country to more development”.

First-time voter Nguyen Kim Chi, 18, said she cast her ballot in the capital for “all the young” candidates.

“I know top positions are already set,” she added, “but I still hope my votes count.”

March 6 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court has suspended a disciplinary penalty against lawmaker Bae Hyun-jin, intensifying internal criticism of People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk and prompting calls for accountability within the main opposition party.

The court granted Bae’s request for an injunction blocking the party’s decision to suspend her membership rights for one year. The ruling effectively halted the punishment while the broader legal dispute proceeds.

The decision has fueled criticism of Jang’s leadership and sparked demands for the resignation of Yoon Min-woo, head of the party’s ethics committee that imposed the discipline.

Speaking on SBS radio Thursday, Bae sharply criticized the party leadership.

“Even if he had ten mouths, he would have nothing to say,” she said of Jang, accusing him of using the ethics committee to purge members who do not align with his political stance.

She also called on the party leader to apologize to members and the public.

Former party leader Han Dong-hoon also criticized the leadership in a Facebook post, saying the court ruling suggested the disciplinary move had raised constitutional concerns.

Han accused the leadership faction supporting former President Yoon Suk Yeol of remaining silent after the court decision and criticized what he described as attempts to shift responsibility to the ethics committee leadership.

Rep. Park Jeong-hoon, another party lawmaker, also condemned the move in a social media post, arguing that using the ethics committee to target political rivals had pushed the party toward what he called a constitutional crisis.

Rep. Cho Eun-hee, a member of a younger lawmakers’ group within the party called Alternative and Future, urged ethics committee chair Yoon to step down, saying the case showed the committee had operated in an arbitrary and biased manner.

Jang has not publicly commented on the court decision.

Party chief spokesperson Park Sung-hoon told reporters that Jang is currently focused on economic issues and preparations for upcoming local elections and has no plans to address the matter.

He also said the party is not considering additional legal action related to the court ruling.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260306010001731

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168

Feb. 27 (UPI) — Britain’s Green Party won the Gorton and Denton byelection in southeast Manchester with a more than 4,000-seat majority, beating the ruling Labour Party into third place, and 12 points clear of Reform UK.

The Greens’ new Member of Parliament, Hannah Spencer, a plumber from a neighboring suburb of Manchester, produced a convincing win in Thursday’s poll, overturning the 13,000-seat majority won in the 2024 general election by the previous Labour holder of the seat who is standing down due to ill-health.

Spencer won 14,980 seats, or 40.7% of the vote, Reform’s Matt Goodwin, 10,578 and Labour’s Angeliki Stogia trailing in third place with 9,364. The Conservative Party’s candidate came in a distant fourth with just 706 votes. Turnout was 47.6%.

The win, a first for the Green Party in a byelection, takes the party’s contingent in the House of Commons to five.

Speaking in the early hours of Friday after the results were announced, 34-year-old Spencer vowed to “fight” for the people of Gorton and Denton “who feel left behind and isolated.”

“There is an appetite here for change, and there are people across this constituency and much further beyond who are rejecting the old political parties and who are coming together to fight for something better, but who are doing it positively and in a really hopeful way.”

Spencer said her victory proved there was “no longer any such thing as a safe seat” and that there was “no part of the country where the Green Party cannot win.”

Asked if the Greens’ intention was to “eviscerate” Labour, Party leader Zack Polanski said that taking a seat Labour had held for more than 100 years showed it was “beginning already.”

“If we see a swing like this at the next general election, there will be a tidal wave of new Green MPs. This is an existential crisis for the Labour Party,” he said.

Labour’s second-straight loss of a byelection with Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the helm, and with local elections just around the corner in May, could prove highly consequential for his future.

Speaking to reporters Friday, a defiant Starmer rejected any suggestion he might be considering his position, saying he would never quit.

“I came into politics late in life to fight for change for those people who need it. I will keep on fighting for those people for as long as I’ve got breath in my body,” he said.

Starmer played down the loss saying that while it was “very disappointing,” voters often took out frustrations on sitting administrations in mid way through their terms.

However, Strathclyde University Politics Professor John Curtice said the Green Party was now challenging Labour’s stranglehold on the left of British politics in a way that would cause the parliamentary wing of the party to seriously question whether Starmer was still the right person to lead the country.

Reform UK chairman David Bull, telling the BBC he was “absolutely thrilled” with his party’s performance,” echoed that analysis.

“Keir Starmer is in big trouble now — it is not a matter of if he leaves office, it’s when he leaves.”

Party leader, MP Nigel Farage, warned the Greens’ win would embolden the radical left and said opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch should apologize for leading the party to the worst result in its history.

“Roll on the elections on May 7. It will be goodbye Starmer and goodbye to the Tory [Conservative] party,” he wrote on X.

Badenoch, who is Black, called on Starmer to quit immediately.

“Our country is not broken, but this byelection showed that Labour, Reform and the Greens are trying very hard to break it. Labour trying to buy people off with more and more benefits spending, Reform telling people you can’t be British if you’re not white. The Greens running a nasty, sectarian campaign while simultaneously wanting to legalize crack-cocaine,” she wrote in a statement.

“The result shows Keir Starmer’s premiership is finished. He lost authority a long time ago, a mere hostage at the mercy of a divided Labour Party that cannot decide who to replace him with. He has lost the support of his MPs and the country. He is in office but not in power. If had any integrity he would go,” said Badenoch.