upholds

Milorad Dodik rejects appeals court’s decision, saying he will seek help of Russia and the Trump administration.

An appeals court in Bosnia has upheld an earlier ruling sentencing Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik to one year in prison and banning him from politics for six years over his separatist actions, which set off tensions in the Balkan country.

Dodik rejected the court ruling on Friday, telling reporters that he will continue to act as the Bosnian Serb president as long as he has the support of the Bosnian Serb parliament.

“I do not accept the verdict,” he said. “I will seek help from Russia and I will write a letter to the US administration.”

A Sarajevo court in February sentenced the president of Republika Srpska – the ethnic Serb part of Bosnia – to a year in prison for failing to comply with rulings by the international envoy overseeing Bosnia’s 1995 peace accords.

It also banned him from holding office for six years.

The conviction led to uproar in Bosnia’s autonomous Serb Republic, triggering Bosnia’s worst political crisis since the conflict in the early 1990s, which killed about 100,000 people between 1992 and 1995.

Dodik has rejected the trial and his conviction as “political”.

In response, the parliament in Republika Srpska passed a law prohibiting the central police and judicial authorities from operating in the Serb entity. Bosnia’s constitutional court annulled those laws in May.

On Friday, the European Union said in a brief statement that the appeals court’s “verdict is binding and must be respected”.

“The EU calls on all parties to acknowledge the independence and impartiality of the court, and to respect and uphold its verdict,” the bloc said.

Dodik’s lawyer Goran Bubic said his team would appeal Friday’s ruling to the constitutional court and seek a temporary delay of the implementation of the verdict pending its decision.

Dodik has repeatedly called for the separation of the Serb-run half of Bosnia to join Serbia, which prompted the administration of former United States President Joe Biden to impose sanctions against him and his allies in 2022.

The Bosnian Serb leader was also accused of corruption and pro-Russia policies.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that California’s policy of background checks for bullet-buyers violates the 2nd Amendment, effectively killing a 2016 ballot measure meant to strengthen the state’s notoriously stringent gun laws.

Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms” guaranteed by the constitution, by forcing California gun owners to re-authorize before each ammunition purchase.

“The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,” the judge wrote.

The ruling is the latest blow to statewide efforts to regulate guns.

Both the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have significantly restricted gun control measures in just the last decade. Two of the three controlling cases Ikuta cited in her decision were handed down in the last three years.

Thursday’s ruling drew primarily from a 2022 Supreme Court decision that sharply limited gun control measures passed by individual states, finding that such laws must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

California had attempted to sidestep that test in part by pointing to Reconstruction-era loyalty oaths some Americans were required to make before buying guns.

But that didn’t sway the panel.

“The problem of ensuring that citizens are loyal to the United States by requiring a one-time loyalty oath is not analogous to California’s recurring ammunition background check rules,” Ikuta wrote. “These laws are not relevant.”

Judge Jay Bybee disagreed.

“California, which has administered the scheme since 2019, has shown that the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,” the judge wrote in his dissent. “The majority has broken with our precedent and flouted the Supreme Court’s guidance.”

Data from the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms shows the program approved 89% of purchases, most within about three minutes. It rejected slightly more than 10% on technicalities that were later resolved, and fewer than one percent because the buyer was banned.

Although the 2022 case had “ushered in a new era for Second Amendment jurisprudence,” Bybee wrote, it didn’t preclude the bullet-background check scheme.

“We have repeatedly rejected the majority’s boundless interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Bybee wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a regulation on the acquisition of ammunition or firearms that would not ‘meaningfully constrain’ the right to keep and bear arms under the majority’s new general applicability standard.”

It was not immediately clear if the ruling would lift restrictions in place for the last six years. California leaders have not yet said whether they would appeal the decision.

Gun rights activists were thrilled by the news.

“Today’s ruling is a major step forward for the Second Amendment and the rights of every law-abiding citizen,”said Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states may ban hormone treatments for transgender teens, rejecting the claim that such gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said states are generally free to decide on proper standards of medical care, particularly when health experts are divided.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the court, said the state decides on medical regulations. “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” he said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law “plainly discriminates on the basis of sex… By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.” Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The ruling upholds laws in Tennessee and 23 other Republican-led states, all of them adopted in the past four years.

Tennessee lawmakers said the number of minors being diagnosed with gender dysphoria had “exploded” in recent years, leading to a “surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients.”

California and other Democratic-led states do not prohibit doctors from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones for those under age 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

While the court’s ruling in the Tennessee case should not directly affect California’s law, the Trump administration seeks to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for gender affirming care.

This could affect patients who rely on Medicaid and also restrict hospitals and other medical clinics from providing hormones and other medical treatments for minors.

Wednesday’s decision highlights the sharp turn in the past year on trans rights and “gender affirming” care.

Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, had appealed to the Supreme Court in November, 2023, and urged the justices to strike down the red state laws.

She spoke of a broad consensus in favor of gender affirming care. It was unconstitutional, she argued, for states to ban “evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.”

But Republican lawmakers voiced doubt about the long-term effect of these hormone treatments for adolescents.

Their skepticism was reinforced by the Cass Report from Britain, which concluded there were not long-term studies or reliable evidence in support of the treatments.

In his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order condemning “gender ideology extremism.”

He said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

His administration later said its ban on gender affirming care for minors would extend to medical facilities receiving federal funds.

The ruling makes her subject to arrest and bars her from running in upcoming Buenos Aires legislative elections.

Argentina’s Supreme Court has upheld a six-year prison sentence on corruption charges for former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The ruling on Tuesday, which permanently bars the divisive 72-year-old from public office and makes her subject to arrest, prompted crowds of her supporters to block the streets of Buenos Aires in protest.

The left-wing former president denounced the ruling, claiming the court’s judges were acting in the service of the economically powerful.

“They’re three puppets answering to those ruling far above them,” she told supporters outside her party’s headquarters in Buenos Aires, in an apparent reference to the government of her rival, President Javier Milei.

“It’s the concentrated economic power of Argentina’s government.”

The ruling was welcomed by Milei, a libertarian fiercely opposed to Fernandez de Kirchner’s brand of high-spending politics, which critics blamed for years of economic volatility and soaring inflation.

“Justice. End,” he wrote on X.

‘Abundance of evidence’

Fernandez de Kirchner, who succeeded her husband Nestor Kirchner as president in 2007 and remained in power until 2015, had been found guilty by a federal court in 2022 of having directed irregular state public works contracts to a friend during her and her husband’s years in power.

She claimed the conviction was politically motivated and appealed to the Supreme Court.

But the judges rejected Fernandez de Kirchner’s appeal, writing in a resolution that her sentence did “nothing more than … protect our republican and democratic system”, The Associated Press news agency reported.

“The sentences handed down by the previous courts were based on the abundance of evidence produced,” the judges wrote, according to the AFP news agency.

The ruling makes her conviction and appeal definitive, and likely draws a line under her lengthy political career, just days after she launched her campaign for the Buenos Aires legislative elections in September.

The former president has five days to turn herself in to authorities, although her lawyer has requested she be able to serve her sentence under house arrest due to her age, the AP reported.

The threat of arrest mobilised the former president’s supporters around her. Daniel Dragoni, a councillor from Buenos Aires, told AFP he was “destroyed” by the ruling but promised that her left-wing political movement would “return, as always”.

But historian Sergio Berensztein told AFP he believed the calls for her release would be short-lived and have limited effect.

“She is not the Cristina of 2019,” he said.

June 10 (UPI) — Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation’s Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday.

The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner’s 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office.

The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the “Vialidad” trial.

Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the “rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress,” the judges wrote in Tuesday’s verdict.

She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government.

Kirchner was Argentina’s president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina’s vice president from 2019 to 2023.

She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections.

If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker.

The Supreme Court’s decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office.

“The republic works,” Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel.

“All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity,” Milei said.

The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to “fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state.”

She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case.

Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina’s first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office.

She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner’s friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez.

The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner’s conviction.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday that police do not have a broad authority to enter a home to check on someone who may be suicidal and then search and seize evidence that may be used against the person.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices rejected what some courts called a “community caretaking” rule that might authorize police to enter a home even if they had no evidence of a crime or an emergency.

The case before the court began when the wife of a Rhode Island man called police because she was worried about her husband. They had argued the night before, and he possessed a handgun. Officers found the man, Edward Caniglia, sitting on his front porch. He denied that he was suicidal, but the officers called an ambulance and insisted he go to a hospital for an evaluation. He agreed but told them they could not enter his home and take his guns.

After he left, they did just that and confiscated two handguns.

The homeowner sued, alleging a violation of the 4th Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures” and usually requires officers to have a search warrant before going into a residence without the owner’s permission. But the 1st Circuit Court in Boston rejected his claim and said the police were acting to protect the safety and welfare of the homeowner.

The Supreme Court took up his appeal and overturned the lower court’s ruling in a short opinion in Caniglia vs. Strom.

“The 1st Circuit’s community caretaking rule goes beyond anything this court has recognized” under the 4th Amendment, said Justice Clarence Thomas. The police “lacked a warrant or consent” to enter the home, and they were not “reacting to a crime.” Nor was there an emergency that required officers to enter immediately, he added.

In the past, the court had upheld an officer’s search of a car in a similar situation. But “what is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Thomas wrote.

Several justices wrote separately to say the decision on Monday was narrow. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said “police officers may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential suicide or to help an elderly person who has been out of contact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.”

Washington lawyer Shay Dvoretsky, who represented the homeowner, called Monday’s decision “a significant victory for Americans concerned about the sanctity of their homes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed bedrock 4th Amendment principles and held that police do not have an open-ended license to perform community caretaking tasks in the home.”

Meanwhile, the court limited the reach of last year’s ruling that rejected non-unanimous jury verdicts in serious criminal cases. The justices said then that the Constitution as originally understood meant a jury must be unanimous to find someone guilty.

Only two states — Louisiana and Oregon — had permitted guilty verdicts based on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote, and both had agreed to end the practice.

In Edwards vs. Vannoy, the court said it would not apply the new rule retroactively to old cases. Thedrick Edwards was convicted on multiple counts of robbery, kidnapping and rape in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison, but the jury verdicts were not unanimous.

The justices split along ideological lines on whether he could obtain a new trial. The court’s conservatives insisted the justices had said in the past they would not apply new decisions to old cases. But the court’s liberals said an exception existed for “watershed” rulings and that last year’s ruling met that standard.

In 1989, the court left open the possibility that it might extend new rules to past cases if they involved an issue of “fundamental” fairness. Since then, however, the justices have never agreed that a new rule is so “fundamental” as to be such a “watershed” decision.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld, for now, President Trump’s decision to fire two agency officials who had fixed terms that were set by Congress.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices set aside rulings that would have reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both were appointees of President Biden.

The decision is the latest in which the court’s conservative majority sided with the president’s power to fire agency officials in violation of long-standing laws.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said in an unsigned order.

But the justices were quick to add the Federal Reserve Board is not affected by this decision.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the court said.

President Trump has threatened to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term extends to next year.

At issue is a fundamental dispute over whether the Constitution gave the president or Congress the power to set the structure of the federal government.

In 1935, the court ruled unanimously that Congress can create independent and “nonpartisan” boards and commissions whose members are appointed by the president for a fixed term. The court then drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and members of boards whose duties were more judicial or legislative.

But in recent years, conservatives have questioned that precedent and argued that the president has the executive power to hire and fire all officials of the government.

Shortly after taking office, Trump fired Wilcox and Harris even though their terms had not expired. They sued contending the firings were illegal and violated the law.

They won before a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals.

Those judges cited the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that upheld Congress’ authority to create independent boards whose members are appointed by the president to serve a fixed-term.

Trump’s lawyers say the Constitution gives the president full executive power, including control of agencies. And that in turns gives him the authority to fire officials who were appointed to a fixed term by another president, they said in Trump vs. Wilcox.

Justice Elena Kagan filed an eight-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Today’s order favors the President over our precedent; and it does so unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time— needed to discipline our decision-making,” Kagan wrote. “I would deny the President’s application. I would do so based on the will of Congress, this Court’s seminal decision approving independent agencies’ for-cause protections, and the ensuing 90 years of this Nation’s history.”

The court said its decision was not final.

The NLRB was created by Congress in 1935 as a semi-independent agency tasked with enforcing the labor laws. Its general counsel serves as a prosecutor while the board‘s five members act as judges who review administrative decisions arising from unfair-labor claims brought by unions.

Under the law, the president appoints the general counsel who can be fired but board members have five-year terms. They may be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” but not simply because of political disagreements.

Trump could have controlled the board by appointing members to fill two vacancies. He chose instead to fire Wilcox, leaving the board without a quorum of three members.

Wilcox argued there was no reason to rush to change the law.

“Over the past two centuries, Congress has embedded modest for-cause removal restrictions in the structure of numerous multi-member agencies,” she said in response to the administration’s appeal. She noted that all past presidents — Republicans and Democrats — did not challenge those limits.

The Merit System Protections Board was created by Congress in 1978 as a part of a civil service reform law. Its three board members have seven-year terms, and they review complaints from federal civil servants who allege they were fired for partisan or other inappropriate reasons.

Trump’s decision to fire Harris also left the board without a quorum.