WASHINGTON: Surely but slowly, the Supreme Court is entering the 21st century. The court is making new legal filings available online starting Monday, years behind the rest of the federal court system.
Can livestreamed audio of arguments and even televised sessions be far behind? Yes, they can.
But advocates of court openness will take what they can get for now, especially because the Supreme Court will not charge for documents. The federal courts’ PACER system does charge fees.
“Though the Supreme Court has moved glacially to join the rest of the judiciary in permitting online filing, that’s better than not at all, and the institution should be commended for creating an e-filing system that, unlike PACER, will be free and easily accessible to the public,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court.
Over the years, the justices have at times shown a glancing familiarity with technology. Some carry computer tablets with high court briefs loaded on them. But notes between justices are routinely sent on paper, definitely not by email.
Chief Justice John Roberts himself noted a few years back that the court stuck with pneumatic tubes to transmit newly released opinions from the courtroom to reporters waiting one floor below until 1971, long after their heyday.
Roberts said that it’s appropriate for courts “to be late to the harvest of American ingenuity” because their primary role is to resolve disputes fairly.
Many Supreme Court legal briefs already are available online and for free from several sources. Scotusblog.com obtains and posts many of them, along with opinions. The Justice Department has an easily accessible archive of its extensive high court filings on its website, and the American Bar Association posts briefs in the 70 to 80 cases the court agrees to hear each term.
But the public may not know to look elsewhere. When the justices issued their highly anticipated decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in 2012, the court’s website was overwhelmed.
It, too, has recently been overhauled to make it friendlier to the public.
The Supreme Court updates come amid criticism of the PACER system as outmoded and unfair. “The PACER system used by the lower federal courts is hopelessly outdated and cumbersome. And, to add insult to injury, the PACER system charges people fees to access court records that should be made freely available,” said Deepak Gupta, the lead attorney in a class-action lawsuit challenging PACER fees.
The judiciary says the fees provide the only money to pay for the system.
The cost to users was just one among several reasons the court opted not to join the PACER system, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.
“The court elected to design its system in-house so that it would have the capability to customize and continuously update to meet the distinctive needs of the court and counsel,” Arberg said.
Until now, lawyers have not been required to submit their filings to the court electronically. Beginning Monday, those documents should appear quickly on the court’s website. People who can’t afford to pay court costs will be allowed to file paper copies, which Supreme Court employees will scan and post online.
Not everything is changing. Lawyers still will be required to submit up to 40 paper copies of every brief, and the court’s color-coding system to distinguish types of briefs also will remain.
There’s no timetable for electronic filings to supplant paper as the official court record.
And there’s also no expectation that the justices will drop their prohibition on cameras in the courtroom anytime soon.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who once sounded open to cameras, recently told a New York audience that cameras might detract from the robust exchanges during arguments.
The Supreme Court also refuses to livestream audio of its arguments, even as the federal appeals court just down Capitol Hill recently has allowed live audio access to its hearings. The high court posts transcripts within hours of arguments, but doesn’t release the audio for days.
US Supreme Court enters 21st Century, takes a technological step forward
US Supreme Court enters 21st Century, takes a technological step forward
President Donald Trump appeals his New York hush money conviction
- Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Wednesday, asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn his conviction
- Trump’s lawyers will have an opportunity to expand on their grievances in subsequent court filings
NEW YORK: President Donald Trump has appealed his hush money conviction, seeking to erase the verdict that made him the first person with a criminal record to win the office.
Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Wednesday, asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn his conviction last May on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
The case, involving an alleged scheme to hide a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 Republican campaign, was the only one of his criminal cases to go to trial.
A notice of appeal starts the appeals process in New York. Trump’s lawyers will have an opportunity to expand on their grievances in subsequent court filings.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, will have a chance to respond in court papers. A message seeking comment was left with the office Wednesday.
Trump hired a new legal team from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP to handle the appeal, spearheaded by the firm’s co-chair Robert J. Giuffra Jr.
Giuffra and four other lawyers from his firm stepped in after the president tabbed his two main defense lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, for top positions in his administration’s Justice Department.
“President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,” Giuffra said in a statement provided by a Trump spokesperson.
Norwegian mass murderer Breivik loses prison condition case
- “The Court of Appeal considers that the restrictions are sufficiently justified,” the three judges said in their ruling
- They also said that the prison authorities have put in place sufficient measures to compensate for his relative isolation in prison
OSLO: A Norwegian court on Wednesday rejected an appeal brought by right-wing extremist and mass killer Anders Behring Breivik, who claims his prison conditions are a violation of human rights.
Breivik, who killed 77 people in July 2011, has regularly complained about his prison conditions, despite them including three private cells, two Guinea pigs, a flat-screen television and a video game console.
Claiming that he has been “treated like an animal,” Breivik has sued the Norwegian state on several occasions in a bid to get improvements to compensate for his relative isolation.
He has argued that this isolation constitutes a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
His case was struck down by a district court in February, after which he appealed.
“The Court of Appeal considers that the restrictions are sufficiently justified by the risk of violence that persists,” the three judges said in their ruling Wednesday.
They also said that the prison authorities have put in place sufficient measures to compensate for his relative isolation in prison.
The court also dismissed Breivik’s appeal for an easing of the filtering of his mail, for which he also invoked the ECHR on the right to correspondence.
On July 22, 2011, Breivik set off a bomb near government offices in Oslo, killing eight people, before gunning down 69 others, mostly teens, at a Labour Party youth wing summer camp on the island of Utoya.
He said he had killed his victims because they embraced multiculturalism.
He was sentenced in 2012 to 21 years in prison, which can be extended as long as he is considered a threat.
More Indians losing hope of improved quality of life under Modi, survey shows
- More than 37% respondents in pre-budget survey said they expect overall quality of life for ordinary people to deteriorate over next year
- Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents said inflation had remained unchecked and prices had gone up since Modi became prime minister
NEW DELHI: More Indians are becoming less hopeful about their quality of life as stagnant wages and higher living costs cloud future prospects, a survey showed, in disappointing news for Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of this week’s annual budget.
More than 37 percent of respondents in a pre-budget survey said they expect the overall quality of life for ordinary people to deteriorate over the next year, the highest such percentage since 2013, findings released by polling agency C-Voter showed on Wednesday. Modi has been prime minister since 2014.
C-Voter said it polled 5,269 adults across Indian states for this survey. Persistent eye-watering food inflation has squeezed Indian household budgets and crimped spending power, and the world’s fifth-largest economy is expected to post its slowest pace of growth in four years.
Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents said inflation had remained unchecked and that prices had gone up since Modi became prime minister, while more than half said the rate of inflation had “adversely” affected their quality of life.
Modi, in the nation’s annual budget this week, is expected to announce measures to shore up faltering economic growth, lift disposable incomes and placate a stretched middle class.
Nearly half of respondents said their personal income had remained the same over the last year while expenses rose, while nearly two-thirds said rising expenses had become difficult to manage, the survey showed.
Despite world-beating economic growth, India’s job market offers insufficient opportunities for its large youthful population to earn regular wages.
In the last budget, India earmarked nearly $24 billion to be spent over five years on various schemes to create jobs but those programs have not yet been implemented as discussions on the details drag on.
German government says criticism of Musk does not mean exit from X
- “It has no repercussions,” said the spokesperson
BERLIN: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s sharp criticism of Elon Musk’s backing of right-wing parties in the European Union does not influence how the German government uses his social media platform X, a government spokesperson said on Wednesday.
“It has no repercussions. Our statement still holds that we are looking at and weighing up what is happening there case by case,” said the spokesperson in a press conference, adding there was no pre-defined “red line.”
Scholz on Tuesday described Musk’s backing of right-wing parties in the EU as “really disgusting,” saying it was hindering democracy in the bloc.
UN refugee agency taking ‘precautionary measures’ amid US aid freeze
- The UNHCR said it did not yet have “specific information” about how the Trump administration’s decision would impact the agency
- The spokesperson said the precautionary measures being implemented “touch upon travel, workshops, supply procurement and the hiring of new colleagues“
GENEVA: The UN refugee agency said Wednesday that it was taking a string of temporary measures as it faces “funding uncertainty” following a US decision to freeze virtually all foreign aid.
“We have taken note of the decision by the new US administration to pause allocation of funds to foreign assistance programs,” a UNHCR spokesperson told AFP in an email.
“While we are still assessing the impact of the new US administration’s decision, including possible exceptions, we are implementing a series of temporary precautionary measures to mitigate the impact of this funding uncertainty.”
President Donald Trump on returning TO office last week ordered a 90-day pause to review assistance by the United States, the world’s largest foreign aid donor in dollar terms.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed up by freezing virtually all funding, though he specified exemptions for emergency food, as well as military assistance to Israel and Egypt.
In a follow-up memo on Tuesday after an outcry from aid groups, Rubio clarified that other “humanitarian assistance” besides food would also be exempt during the review period.
The UNHCR said it did not yet have “specific information” about how the Trump administration’s decision would impact the agency, which has long counted the United States as by far its biggest donor.
In 2024, the United States contributed $2.05 billion to the UNHCR’s total budget of over $10.6 billion.
The spokesperson said the precautionary measures being implemented “touch upon travel, workshops, supply procurement and the hiring of new colleagues.”
The UNHCR noted that it had “worked closely with the United States for decades.”
“We are looking forward to engaging actively and constructively with the US government as a trusted partner,” the spokesperson said.
“Our focus is to maximize the impact, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of our operations around the globe, with the aim of saving lives, protecting families fleeing war and persecution, fostering stability in unstable places, advancing self-reliance, and reducing dependency on humanitarian aid.”
UNHCR is not the only UN agency feeling the burn.
The World Health Organization said last week that it was reviewing its priorities after Trump ordered the full withdrawal of the United States, traditionally the agency’s largest donor.
WHO was “freezing recruitment, except in the most critical areas” and was dramatically cutting back on travel expenditures, the organization’s chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a letter sent to staff on Thursday.
Tedros said the UN health agency hoped the new administration would reconsider its decision, noting that it was open to dialogue on preserving the relationship.
