The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Adrian Peterson is in legal trouble again.

The 2012 NFL MVP has warrants out for his arrest, according to USA Today, for failing to appear in court for two different child support cases.

The warrants were issued in Fort Bend County in Texas, USA Today reported. Its sheriff's department did not immediately confirm this information to Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

"The current legal case is related to a misunderstanding regarding Adrian’s court appearances as it relates to child support, and he is actively working with his legal team to resolve this matter as quickly as possible," his publicist, Denise White, said in a statement to USA Today. "He is committed to clearing up this situation and moving forward positively."

Despite earning over $100 million in his career, the former Minnesota Vikings running back has also been in trouble with bank loans. Court records in February said Peterson had not paid any of the $8.3 million he owed to DeAngelo Vehicle Sales LLC, which he was ordered to pay over three years earlier. He was ordered to pay a creditor $2.4 million in 2019 and had to pay a Minnesota bank the year prior.

Peterson missed all but one game in the 2014 season after his indictment on charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child. He pleaded no contest to assaulting his son, 4 years old at the time, with a tree branch.

PATRICK MAHOMES, PREVIOUSLY CRITICAL OF CHIEFS' TIGHT SCHEDULE, WILL PLAY DESPITE ANKLE INJURY

In 2022, Peterson was arrested after an incident with his wife on a plane. But his wife said it was only an argument, and charges were dropped.

Peterson rushed for 14,918 yards in his career, leading the league in rushing three times. He's one of six running backs to rush for 2,000 yards in a season and was eight yards shy of breaking Eric Dickerson's single-season record in 2012.

He does, though, hold the record with 296 rushing yards in one game, which he accomplished in his rookie season. He ran for 253 of those yards in the second half.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed it would review whether a federal law that could ban or force a sale of TikTok is unconstitutional.

The announcement came just one day after TikTok and its owner ByteDance petitioned SCOTUS for a temporary injunction to halt the ban until the high court could consider what TikTok claimed is "a massive and unprecedented speech restriction" ahead of a change in US presidential administrations.

“We’re pleased with today’s Supreme Court order," TikTok said in a statement. "We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights.”

Read full article

Comments

Just days after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared in a "queer" Broadway spinoff of "Romeo and Juliet," critics are questioning whether her involvement could compromise her impartiality as the court considers a landmark case about banning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

"I think it's a huge mistake for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to engage in activities that clearly put the stamp of approval on an ideological position regarding issues that could come before the court, which is practically the definition of a threat to their impartiality, the appearance of impropriety," Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

"It's unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances. But I suppose if this was ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different. But this is obviously an advocacy production, so for a Supreme Court justice to participate in advocacy on an issue that is currently in the courts, and at least broadly speaking, before her, I think it's a huge mistake," he said.

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

The musical, called "& Juliet," features prominent LGBTQ+ themes and nonbinary characters. The musical begins where Shakespeare's original ends. Instead of dying by suicide for love, Juliet chooses to forge her own path, challenging traditional gender roles. On its website, "& Juliet" is described as a "hilarious new musical" that "flips the script on the greatest love story ever told."

Juliet's best friend, May, is a nonbinary character whose queer relationship is prominently featured and explored throughout the musical.

Jackson joined the Broadway cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

"& Juliet" was written by David West Read, best known for his work as a writer and producer on the TV show "Schitt’s Creek." The musical premiered in November 2019, at the Shaftesbury Theatre in London's West End. Its Broadway debut followed in November 2022, at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in New York City.

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Liberals have criticized several conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years over ethical concerns, fueling calls for stricter oversight. 

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced scrutiny over his wife’s political activism. Justice Samuel Alito has been criticized for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by wealthy donors with business before the court, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has drawn attention for her ties to religious groups and their potential influence on cases involving LGBTQ+ issues and abortion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also faced criticism over his confirmation process and past financial disclosures.

"For two, three years now, liberals have been complaining about actions by Supreme Court justices that they say undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," Jipping said. "Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this."

"Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality. I don't think there's any question about that," he said.

Jackson wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance posted by the production's social media account, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

'THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING': EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

"She should stay on her side of the bench, and judges should protect their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality more, not less. And this, this was really reckless, in my view," Jipping added.

This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court justice has stepped into the spotlight of the performing arts. In 1994, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared as supernumeraries – non-speaking, background roles – in a Washington National Opera production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." 

The two, known for their ideological differences but close personal friendship, shared a love of opera.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this month, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. The court will resume arguments in January and a decision is expected by July 2025.

The Supreme Court's press office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request by press deadline.

Fox News Digital's Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will hear ByteDance and TikTok’s challenge to a law that would ban the social network in the U.S. unless the social network divests from Chinese ownership by January 19. On January 10, the Supreme Court justices will hear arguments about whether the sell-or-ban law violates the First Amendment. […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

As the Biden administration enters its final days, two new student debt relief programs face imminent release as they undergo final review before formal implementation.

The two programs include a second attempt at providing sweeping student loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers under the Higher Education Act, known colloquially as "Plan B," which comes after federal courts ruled that the Biden administration's initial attempt at providing broad-based student loan forgiveness via executive action was unconstitutional. The second program, focused on people facing financial hardships, seeks to provide student debt relief for millions more.

The two programs were submitted for review to the Office of Management and Budget as of Tuesday, one of the final steps before the policies are formally published in the Federal Register.

TOP DEMS, ACTIVISTS CALL ON BIDEN ADMIN TO DOLE OUT MORE STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS BEFORE TERM ENDS

After the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration's first attempt at providing broad-based student loan forgiveness, ruling it was an overreach of the executive branch's authority under the Constitution, the president and his team began working on a new plan. It's "Plan B" seeks to provide relief to roughly 23 million borrowers, in particular those whose outstanding loan balance has been impacted by unrestrained interest accumulation. 

Meanwhile, the second program seeks to provide additional student loan forgiveness for 8 million borrowers who face financial hardships. If finalized, the new rule would authorize student debt forgiveness on a one-time basis for people who the department considers to have at least an 80% chance of defaulting on loans based on a "predictive assessment using existing borrower data."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a letter to the Biden administration earlier this month slamming its efforts as a "Band-Aid that forces taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else’s debt."

"If this administration spent half as much time working to address the root causes of our broken student loan system as peddling this illegal free college agenda, college costs would be lower," she said.

DAD WHO SACRIFICED HIS SAVINGS TO PAY FOR SON'S COLLEGE CALLS STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS A ‘BITTER PILL’ 

Meanwhile, Madison Doan, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, told Fox News Digital that the Biden administration's student debt forgiveness efforts will likely be shot down in court for the same reasons its previous programs have been blocked. She also pointed to the recent ruling that overturned Chevron deference, which previously allowed courts to defer to executive agencies when statutory language, such as that associated with the Higher Education Act, is unclear.

"These precedents make it doubtful that the courts will endorse the administration’s attempt to use ambiguous language in old statutes to justify broad new authority for canceling billions in loans at the expense of taxpayers," Doan said. She also pointed out how two Democratic-appointed judges have indicated that opponents of the rules are "likely to succeed on the merits" of their legal challenges.

In addition to the two programs that are in the final approval stages, the Biden administration is also attempting to push through a new interim rule that, once implemented, will reopen enrollment in an income-driven student debt repayment plan that is currently stalled in the courts. The new rule contains certain changes from the original income driven repayment plan in order to provide protections from the same legal challenges that stalled the initial attempt.

SENATE DEM IN KEY BATTLEGROUND RACE FLIP-FLOPPED ON STUDENT DEBT UNDER BIDEN: NO ‘MAGIC WAND’

However, the rule is not slated to go into effect until several months into President-elect Trump's second term, and, as a result, will likely be rescinded. While Trump has not formally laid out plans on how he will approach the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness policies, he has indicated plans to reform the federal government's role in U.S. education during his term.

"The lesson President Biden should have taken from the Supreme Court's student loan ruling was that, if he wanted to forgive debt, he should hammer out a deal with Congress," Chad Squitieri, Catholic University of America law professor, told Fox News Digital. "President Biden's efforts to unilaterally plow forward without Congress, in the waning days of his administration, is just the latest effort to use administrative rulemaking as a substitute for the federal lawmaking process. Publishing a rule might be easier than enacting legislation, but it can come at the cost of undermining a more stable solution on debt relief."

Executive rulemaking has been a staple for the Biden administration, which has used the policymaking avenue to implement a range of reforms. As of Dec. 3, the Biden administration set a new record for the most Federal Register pages filled in a single year – 96,088. The number puts the administration on pace to fill more than 100,000 pages by the end of its term.

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected the broadband industry's challenge to a New York law that requires Internet providers to offer $15- or $20-per-month service to people with low incomes.

In August, six trade groups representing the cable, telecom, mobile, and satellite industries filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that upheld the state law. But the Supreme Court won't take up the case. The high court denied the telecom groups' petition without comment in a list of orders released yesterday.

Although a US District Court judge blocked the law in 2021, that judge's ruling was reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in April 2024. The Supreme Court's denial of the industry petition leaves the 2nd Circuit ruling in place.

Read full article

Comments

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is receiving mixed reviews after making a surprise cameo performance as "Queen Mab" in the Broadway musical "& Juliet." 

While some social media users called Jackson’s performance "humanizing," others called it "cringe," "embarrassing" and unbefitting for a sitting member of the nation’s highest court.

Written by contemporary playwright David West Read, "& Juliet" is a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s "Romeo and Juliet" that explores an alternate scenario when Juliet does not commit suicide and instead explores life as an independent young woman. The musical includes a character named May, who is Juliet’s best friend and identifies as nonbinary.

Jackson joined a cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, BIDEN'S SUPREME COURT PICK, REFUSES TO DEFINE THE WORD 'WOMAN'

She wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

However, her decision to take the stage was not well received by many members of the public. 

Conservative influencer Arynne Wexler reacted on X, saying, "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson not only appeared in a Broadway show The show is a ‘queer musical knockoff’ of Romeo and Juliet. Of course Max cringe, max DEI." 

"This is a sitting SCOTUS Justice. A lifetime appointment," reacted conservative influencer account Gunther Eagleman. "I’m at a loss for words." 

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler said "Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson performs in the Broadway show ‘& Juliet’ which is a ‘queer’ rendition of Romeo & Juliet … So no, when Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define ‘what is a woman’ during her Senate confirmation hearing, she wasn’t being a brilliant legal mind. She was, and is, a radical leftist DEI hire propagating harmful, Neo-Marxist, anti-woman transgender ideology."

"I'd rather our country not be run by the weird theater kids," influencer Colin Rugg reacted. 

"This is so embarrassing," posted LibsofTikTok.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk jokingly suggested Jackson "should sing her verdicts." 

DEMOCRATS ATTACK CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BUT HAVE LONG IGNORED LIBERAL JUSTICES' ETHICAL ISSUES

Jackson’s performance was not universally mocked, however. Former New York Congressman George Santos reacted by saying, "I love this! Humanizing the one part of the government that’s never been humanized! Good on this partnership!"

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Former Kamala Harris campaign writer Victor Shi called the performance "the most epic video I've watched in so long." 

"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson performed on Broadway, while some of her Republican colleagues would’ve spent this time flying with billionaires," he went on. "So cool. So refreshing. Justice Jackson is the best."

Jackson has been a consistent liberal vote on the Supreme Court since she was appointed by President Biden in 2022. 

• Billionaire businessman Frank McCourt has made a $20 billion bid to buy TikTok without its algorithm.
• He told Business Insider the path toward a sale is murky since ByteDance isn't entertaining talks.
• TikTok has vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court to stop its looming ban in US app stores.

Frank McCourt, the billionaire businessman who wants to buy TikTok, told Business Insider that, despite a Friday court ruling allowing the TikTok ban's looming January 19 deadline to proceed if the company isn't sold, the path to a sale remains unclear because "we don't know what ByteDance is selling."

McCourt is among a small handful of investors, including former treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and the former chief executive of Activision, Bobby Kotick, who've publicly said they want to buy TikTok.

Through his nonprofit, Project Liberty, McCourt, the former Dodger's owner and real estate developer, has put together a bid worth over $20 billion to purchase TikTok and usher in what he calls the dawn of an "alternative, upgraded internet" that allows users more control of their own personal data.

However, he said, "It's very, very difficult to have precision" regarding the specifics of a potential sale because "let's be clear, we don't know what ByteDance is selling."

ByteDance, TikTok's China-based parent company, has so far refused to entertain talks over a potential sale, McCourt said.

The company's apparent reluctance to negotiate comes despite a December 6 court ruling upholding a law that requires the app be banned from the US in January if it is not sold to a non-Chinese entity. The divest-or-ban legislation aimed to address years of concerns from critics that the influential short-form video social media app could be used as a propaganda tool for the Chinese Communist Party.

On Friday, Reuters reported that the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied TikTok's emergency bid to stop the ban from taking effect on January 19.

When reached by Business Insider, a TikTok spokesperson declined to comment on the terms of any potential sale, instead saying the company plans on appealing the case to the Supreme Court under the grounds that a potential ban is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

"The voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world will be silenced on January 19th, 2025 unless the TikTok ban is halted," the TikTok spokesperson said.

Representatives for ByteDance did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Just because they're not talking about the specifics of a deal "doesn't mean they won't eventually come to that," McCourt said.

And when ByteDance is ready to talk, so is he, he said.

McCourt's TikTok purchase project, which he calls "The People's Bid" has secured the backing of Guggenheim Securities, an investment banking firm, and Kirkland & Ellis, one of the world's largest law firms.

Rather than recreate the app's algorithm and continue business as it currently operates, McCourt hopes to acquire and use TikTok as a large-scale example of a decentralized social media app that allows users more control over their personal data.

"Imagine you're signing on to the internet. You don't have 50 passwords. You're not the IP address of a device anymore — you're actually a person on the internet, and you have the IP address, so when you sign on the internet, you have access to all the apps that are built on the same core-level protocol," McCourt said. "Now imagine all your data is yours, and you permission its use, so the apps that are built in this new world are clicking on your terms and conditions of use for your data."

The momentum behind decentralized social media — and the internet more broadly — has, in recent years, been gaining steam. Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, says he is partially to blame for helping to "centralize" the internet and that he regrets it. He's since shifted his focus to building decentralized tech solutions.

Others, such as Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst sentenced to 35 years in prison over her 2010 leak of classified government information, publicly promote decentralized security solutions to enhance user privacy amid concerns about cyber surveillance.

While some users are increasingly interested in decentralized social media, it is difficult for new sites to break through the centralized landscape and siphon off enough users from giants like Meta and Elon Musk's X to get to scale.

Smaller platforms often fail to achieve the positive feedback loop known as the network effect, which entices new users to join based on the positive experience of the existing user base.

If McCourt is able to acquire TikTok, the platform's existing 170 million users would come with the brand — and he's not worried that ByteDance has reportedly shut down any talks of selling the app's signature algorithm, declaring it integral to its internal operations; he wouldn't want to buy it if it did.

"There'd probably be more buyers if the algorithm was available, or at least more buyers kicking the tires," McCourt said. "But we don't want the algorithm. If someone offered TikTok to me with the algorithm, I wouldn't take it because I'm against the architecture, the design that preys on people and takes advantage of people. I think it's incongruent with our democratic principles."

President Biden has sparked anger among Pennsylvanians after he commuted the sentence of a corrupt judge who was jailed for more than 17 years after he was caught taking kickbacks for sending juveniles to for-profit detention facilities.

In what came to be known as the kids-for-cash scandal, former Judge Michael Conahan shut down a county-run juvenile detention center and shared $2.8 million in illegal payments from the builder and co-owner of two for-profit lockups. Another judge, Mark Ciavarella, was also involved in the illicit scheme, the effects of which are still felt today among victims and families. 

The scandal is considered Pennsylvania’s largest-ever judicial corruption scheme with the state's supreme court throwing out some 4,000 juvenile convictions involving more than 2,300 kids after the scheme was uncovered.

BIDEN COMMUTES 1,500 JAIL SENTENCES, GRANTS PARDONS FOR 39 OTHERS: 'LARGEST SINGLE-DAY GRANT OF CLEMENCY'

Conahan, 72, pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of racketeering conspiracy but was released from prison to home confinement in 2020 because of COVID-19 health concerns with six years left in his sentence.

But Biden, the so-called favorite son of Scranton, commuted Conahan's sentence Thursday as part of the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history in which he commuted jail sentences for nearly 1,500 people and granted 39 pardons.

"My Administration will continue reviewing clemency petitions to advance equal justice under the law, promote public safety, support rehabilitation and reentry, and provide meaningful second chances," the president said. 

Sandy Fonzo, who once confronted Ciavarella outside federal court after her son was placed in juvenile detention and committed suicide, said that the president’s actions were an "injustice" and "deeply painful."

"I am shocked and I am hurt," Fonzo said in a statement, per The Citizens Voice. "Conahan‘s actions destroyed families, including mine, and my son’s death is a tragic reminder of the consequences of his abuse of power. This pardon feels like an injustice for all of us who still suffer. Right now I am processing and doing the best I can to cope with the pain that this has brought back."

The decision has raised questions as to why Biden would choose to commute the sentence of a judge who is detested in the area. 

Fox News has reached out to the White House for comment but has not received a response. 

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said that he opposed the president's actions and insisted that the judge should have been given a longer prison sentence given the damage he inflicted on families. 

"I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely wrong and created a lot of pain here in Northeastern Pennsylvania," Shapiro said at a press conference in Scranton Friday while adding he was not privy to all the information about the decision. 

"This was not only a black eye on the community, the kids for cash scandal, but it also affected families in really deep and profound and sad ways. Some children took their lives because of this. Families were torn apart. There was all kinds of mental health issues and anguish that came as a result of these corrupt judges deciding they wanted to make a buck off a kid's back."

"Frankly, I thought the sentence that the judge got was too light, and the fact that he's been allowed out over the last years because of COVID, was on house arrest and now has been granted clemency, I think, is absolutely wrong. He should have been in prison for at least the 17 years that he was sentenced to by a jury of his peers. He deserves to be behind bars, not walking as a free man."

The scheme began in 2002 when Conahan shut down the state juvenile detention center and used money from the Luzerne County budget to fund a multimillion-dollar lease for the private facilities.

WHO ELSE MIGHT BIDEN PARDON AFTER HE SPARED HUNTER FROM SENTENCING?

Ciavarella, who presided over juvenile court, pushed a zero-tolerance policy that guaranteed large numbers of kids would be sent to PA Child Care and its sister facility, Western PA Child Care. 

Ciavarella ordered children as young as 8 years old to detention, many of them first-time offenders deemed delinquent for petty theft, jaywalking, truancy, smoking on school grounds and other minor infractions. The judge often ordered youths he had found delinquent to be immediately shackled, handcuffed and taken away without giving them a chance to put up a defense or even say goodbye to their families.

In 2022, both Conahan and Ciavarella were ordered to pay more than $200 million to nearly 300 people they victimized, although it's unlikely the now-adult victims will see even a fraction of the damages award.

During the case, one victim described how he shook uncontrollably during a routine traffic stop — a consequence of the traumatizing impact of his childhood detention — and had to show his mental health records in court to "explain why my behavior was so erratic."

Several of the childhood victims who were part of the lawsuit when it began in 2009 have since died from overdoses or suicide, prosecutors said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The scheme, per The Citizens Voice, involved former Pennsylvania attorney Robert Powell paying Ciavarella and Conahan $770,000, who in turn funneled juvenile defendants to two private, for-profit detention centers Powell partly owned.

Powell served an 18-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to felony counts of failing to report a felony and being an accessory to a conspiracy.

Real estate developer Robert K. Mericle paid the judges $2.1 million and was later charged with failing to disclose to investigators and a grand jury that he knew the judges were defrauding the government. Mericle served one year in federal prison, per The Citizens Voice. 

Ciavarella is serving a 28-year prison sentence on honest services mail fraud charges, per the publication.

Fox News' Matt Finn and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The sex abuse trial of Tampa Bay Rays player Wander Franco was supposed to commence Thursday. But it was delayed until June after 28 of 31 witnesses expected to testify were absent.

Franco has been charged with sexually abusing a minor, sexual and commercial exploitation against a minor and human trafficking. His trial is scheduled to resume June 2, 2025.

Dominican Judge Yacaira Veras postponed the trial at the request of prosecutors due to the absence of several key witnesses in the case. Only three of 31 witnesses arrived for the trial  Thursday.

Franco’s lawyers asked the court to reconsider the postponement, arguing Franco must report to spring training in mid-February.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

"There is no case against Wander. For as many witnesses as they present, there is no case now," Franco’s lead lawyer, Teodosio Jáquez, told The Associated Press.

The judge replied that Franco is obligated to continue with the trial schedule and his conditional release from detainment.

The 23-year-old shortstop said his career is not over yet, that he wants justice to be done and that "everything is in God’s hands."

ROGER GOODELL SAYS JAY-Z'S RELATIONSHIP WITH LEAGUE REMAINS INTACT AMID SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS

Franco appeared upset when reporters asked if his MLB career was over.

"I did not had a career," he said, implying that he still has one. "This is not over."

Franco was arrested on a separate charge in the country for his involvement in an alleged armed altercation in November. 

The Rays took down images of Franco around Tropicana Field after the allegations became public last year. There has also been no sign of Franco merchandise being sold at the Rays' team store within their ballpark.

He agreed to an 11-year, $182 million contract in November 2021. He was an All-Star for the first time in 2023, hitting .281 with 17 homers and 58 RBI over 112 games.

Tampa Bay placed him on the team's restricted list July 10, cutting off the pay he had been receiving while on administrative leave.

After Dominican police raided two homes associated with Franco just before the new year, he was eventually arrested. He was later released on the condition that he meet with local authorities once a month. 

According to ESPN, Dominican prosecutors say Franco called the minor "my girl" in a WhatsApp message, admitting the relationship was a "risk," but he "loved it."

"My girl," Franco allegedly wrote in Spanish. "If my team realizes this, it could cause problems for me. It is a rule for all teams that we cannot talk to minors, and yet I took the risk and I loved it."

Prosecutors say Franco's relationship with the girl, now 15, lasted four months, and he paid her not to speak about it. The girl's mother also faces charges of money laundering based on gifts sent to her by Franco. Franco and the girl met Dec. 9, 2022, after he "took her from her home," had sex twice in a two-day span and began their relationship.

Prosecutors say the minor’s mother went from being a bank employee to leading an ostentatious life and acquiring assets using the funds she received from Franco. During the raids on the house of the minor’s mother, prosecutors say they found $68,500 and $35,000 that they allege was delivered by Franco.

Franco gave the girl the equivalent of $46,000 in July and August, the documents say, and paid the mother about $1,700 per month, along with a new car.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
 

UFC star Colby Covington wasted no time taking shots during a media appearance Wednesday, but he didn't target upcoming opponent Joaquin Buckley. 

Covington instead ripped into NBA superstar LeBron James. 

It wasn’t a question from a reporter that prompted Covington to launch into a rant about basketball’s all-time leading scorer. 

He started off his press conference by questioning James about an old video that resurfaced with James talking to disgraced music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs about his now-infamous "Diddy Parties."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

"I’m gonna start this off, you know, since I’m the man of the hour, man of the show," Covington said. "I want to ask Lebron what does he mean by, ‘There’s no party like a Diddy party.’ I truly want to know. And not only that, LeBron, how many Diddy parties have you actually been to? I’m really curious to know. And is that the reason you left social media because all the backlash you were getting for going to so many Diddy parties?"

The comment Covington is talking about was an old Instagram Live of "P. Diddy" and James in which the basketball star said, "Ain’t no party like a Diddy party," which the music mogul loved. 

LEBRON JAMES SAYS HE'S ‘GETTING OFF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR THE TIME BEING’

It's a comment that didn’t age well since Combs was charged with racketeering conspiracy; sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and transportation to engage in prostitution in a federal indictment unsealed Sept. 17. 

Authorities alleged Combs ran a criminal enterprise through his business, which includes Bad Boy Entertainment, and he would frequently have "Freak Offs," described as "elaborate produced sex performances that Combs arranged, directed, masturbated during, and often electronically recorded," according to an indictment.

James was recently confronted by an NFL fan who accused him of attending Combs’ parties until security intervened. It’s unknown whether James attended any of Combs’ parties in the past. 

"It’s pathetic, man," Covington added. "People think this guy is a role model. He wants to defund the police, the most patriotic people in America, serving and protecting our country. 

"LeBron, you’re a f---ing scumbag, and I hope you get locked up in the same cell with Diddy."

James wasn’t the only target of Covington, who also took shots at fellow fighter Jon "Bones" Jones, among other fighters in the sport. 

Covington has been vocal about James in the past, and he’s always been one to speak his mind and stir some controversy during media appearances.

The American fighter is 17-4 in his UFC career. He lost his last fight at UFC 296 against Leon Edwards. He’s 2-3 in his last five fights, with his last win coming against Jorge Masvidal in March 2022. 

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Music mogul Jay-Z founded Roc Nation in 2008, and the entertainment company has handled the production of the Super Bowl halftime show for the past several years.

A rape allegation was recently brought against the rapper and businessman. 

While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he was aware of the allegations, he quickly dismissed concerns the situation would negatively alter Jay-Z's working relationship with the league.

"We’re aware of the civil allegations and Jay-Z’s really strong response to that," Goodell said Wednesday after the NFL's winter meetings. "We know the litigation is happening now. From our standpoint, our relationship is not changing with them, including our preparations for the next Super Bowl."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

A woman sued Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging she was sexually assaulted at an awards show after-party in 2000, when she was 13.

On Sunday, the lawsuit was amended to include a new allegation that Jay-Z was also at the party and participated in an illegal sexual act.

Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, denied the allegations and asserted the rape accusation made against him was part of an extortion attempt. He also called the allegations "idiotic" and "heinous in nature" in a statement released by Roc Nation, one of his companies.

"My lawyer received a blackmail attempt, called a demand letter, from a ‘lawyer’ named Tony Buzbee," Jay-Z shared in a statement posted on Roc Nation's X account. "What he had calculated was the nature of these allegations and the public scrutiny would make me want to settle."

READ IT: JAY-Z SENDS BLISTERING MEMO AMID DIDDY ALLEGATIONS

The NFL teamed up with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019 for events and social activism. The league and the high-profile entertainment company extended their partnership earlier this year.

Kendrick Lamar has been tapped for the Super Bowl halftime show at the Caesars Superdome in New Orleans Feb. 9. Roc Nation and Emmy-winning producer Jesse Collins will serve as co-executive producers of the halftime show.

Beyoncé, who is married to Jay-Z, will perform at halftime of the Christmas Day game between the Ravens and Texans in Houston. Beyoncé, who has more Grammys than any other artist in history, was born in Houston.

"I think they’re getting incredibly comfortable with not just with the Super Bowl but other events they’ve advised us on and helped us with," Goodell said. "They’ve been a big help in the social justice area to us on many occasions. They’ve been great partners."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge in America at age 97, is continuing to fight against a suspension from the bench by her colleagues who found her mentally not fit enough to serve. Newman is appealing her suspension and has also filed a motion to unseal documents related to an investigation which ultimately led to her being temporarily removed from the bench.

Newman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was barred from serving in September 2023 for a year by the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council after the panel said she refused to cooperate with an investigation into "reasonable concerns" surrounding her mental fitness. The suspension was extended for another year by the panel in September. 

The Committee on Judicial Conduct conducted more than 20 interviews with court staff pointing to her "significant mental deterioration including memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility and severe agitation," per court documents. 

FEDERAL JUDGE, 96, BARRED FROM HEARING CASES AFTER PANEL CLAIMS LACK OF MENTAL FITNESS: 'BASELESS ALLEGATIONS'

The suspension order also said Newman was slower than her colleagues in issuing opinions and had "amassed a troubling backlog of cases," which her team has said is not accurate.

The Federal Circuit Court on which Newman has served for nearly 40 years deals frequently with patent, intellectual property and copyright cases. Newman is considered a leading intellectual property jurist.

The investigation into Newman led her to file a federal lawsuit against her fellow judges.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, a President Obama appointee, threw out most of Newman’s lawsuit in February, then dismissed the entire case on the pleadings in July, per Law & Crime.

In his 15-page ruling, Cooper rejected the legal challenges Newman had raised to the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and did not focus on the factual allegations against Newman.

Newman appealed the ruling Monday and argued via counsel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that although advanced in age, she "retains her sharp intellect," and both lay and expert witnesses have described her as an "unusually cognitively intact … woman" whose cognitive and physical abilities make her appear "20 or more years younger than her stated age," per Law & Crime.

She says she is physically and mentally fit enough to continue doing her job, and has obtained independent evaluations from doctors issuing the same opinion, court documents revealed.

REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE, NOW 95, FACES PROBE INTO WHETHER SHE CAN STILL DO THE JOB

In the appellate brief, cited by Law & Crime, Newman’s counsel said she was in sound mental and physical health, and argued that the only reason Newman was late in submitting written opinions is that "she takes extraordinary pains to ensure that her opinions fully reflect her views and remain consistent from case to case and year to year."

Newman is being represented in the lawsuit by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonprofit civil rights group that says it views the "administrative state" as an especially serious threat to constitutional freedoms.

The group says that the suspension is illegal and that Newman was removed without due process. 

"Judge Newman’s indefinite, complete suspension is unprecedented in American judicial history, exceeding sanctions imposed on judges who committed serious misconduct and improprieties," the group said in a statement. "Suspending an Article III judge from all judicial functions of her office is unconstitutional."

The group said that world-renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Aaron G. Filler recently directed a cutting-edge Perfusion Computed Tomography (PCT) scan of Newman’s brain and administered a full neurological examination that turned up "no relevant deficits, confirming that she is fully fit to perform the duties of the office."

On Thursday, Greg Dolin, who has represented Newman throughout the case, said via a statement that the entire disciplinary process against Judge Newman was "always factually baseless and legally meritless."

"But the issues are more important than Judge Newman," said Dolin, a senior litigation counsel for the NCLA. "At stake is the very independence of American judiciary and our system of checks and balances. The D.C. Circuit should put a stop to the Federal Circuit Judicial Council’s unconstitutional and ultra vires actions against Judge Newman."

Newman also filed a motion to unseal documents related to the committee’s investigation and findings that are subject to a Dec. 4 gag order, per Law & Crime.

Newman’s legal team said that Newman’s judicial colleagues have refused to abide by rules of judicial conduct and have "threatened Judge Newman and her counsel with unspecified sanctions" for making documents public.

Her team also accused the defendants of seeking to "direct the process within their own forum" in an "entirely inappropriate effort" to contradict the law.

Former senior U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown, was the oldest person to serve as a federal judge in the history of the United States, actively hearing cases until approximately one month before his death at age 104, according to the U.S. Courts. 

Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy and Elizabeth Pritchet contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could reshape a key environmental law and determine the future of an oil railway project in the west.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decisions and then issue a "detailed statement" of the review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, to decide whether an agency is required to study environmental impacts beyond the "proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority." Justices appeared open to reconsidering the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how they would adjust the law. 

The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build an over 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to a national railway.

FEDERAL COURT UPENDS DECADES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

The STB released an Environmental Impact Statement on the railway, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency did not consider all of its environmental effects – therefore, violating NEPA.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED OVER STATE BANS ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATEMENTS’ FOR MINORS

The case was brought to a D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review be conducted before the project moves forward. In March 2024, SCIC petitioned SCOTUS in the case.

Paul Clement, the attorney backing the SCIC project, argued that it is a "straightforward case" and requested NEPA be limited to "proximate cause" principles. 

"NEPA is a self-described procedural statute. It is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it," Clement argued on Tuesday.

Clement called the D.C. court's request to conduct further environmental review "a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive roadblock." 

"All of that is not just remote in time and space but falls well outside the STB's limited remand – remit, and it falls within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can address those issues comprehensively and concretely if and when they arise," he said during the oral arguments.

Several justices appeared to agree that the D.C. court's issuing of an entirely new environmental review of the project may have been unnecessary.

"It's not a question of did it fail to look at something," Justice Sonia Sotomayer said. "So the question before us was, was it arbitrary and capricious for it not to consider something more?"

The judges questioned Clement on how his request would impact the scope of environmental reviews, such as on smaller or larger projects.

Clement replied, "If the environmental impact statement is focused on the project, it will inform – you can pick one route versus another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures. But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that's outside the ambit of the agency."

"This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway," Sam Sankar, Earthjustice vice president of programs, said in a statement. "The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price."

Justice Neil Gorsuch, on Dec. 4, dismissed himself from the case ahead of arguments.

Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.V., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., are proposing a constitutional amendment that would institute a term limit system for future Supreme Court justices.

Currently, high court justices do not face constraints on the length of their service. They " … shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …" the U.S. Constitution states.

The proposed amendment would create 18-year terms, with new terms beginning every two years. But the term limits would only impact justices appointed after ratification — all current justices would still be able to remain on the bench as long as they wish.

JOE MANCHIN ISN'T DONE WITH POLITICS, SAYS BOB CUSACK

"The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire," a Manchin press release explains. "During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench. Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court."

Manchin, a Democrat-turned-independent who has served in the Senate since late 2010, did not seek re-election this year. His current term will end in less than a month.

"I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land," Manchin said, according to the press release. 

MANCHIN DELIVERS EMOTIONAL FINAL FLOOR SPEECH AS WEST VIRGINIA SENATOR: ‘HONOR OF MY LIFE’

"Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system."

The proposed amendment stipulates that the high court should be comprised of nine justices, a figure which is not currently enshrined in the Constitution.

"The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred," according to the Supreme Court's website.

FIRST DEM SENATOR CALLS FOR BIDEN TO DROP OUT ‘FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY’

Three of the current nine members of the Supreme Court were appointed by President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office, while only one of the current members was appointed by President Joe Biden.

"Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans," Welch noted, according to the press release. "I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system."

TikTok is doing everything it can to delay a potential ban starting the day before Donald Trump takes office in January.

On Monday, TikTok filed an emergency motion requesting a temporary injunction on a US law that requires its owner, ByteDance, to sell off TikTok by January 19 or else be banned in the US due to national security concerns.

Planning to appeal to the Supreme Court to block the law on First Amendment grounds, TikTok urged the court to delay enforcing the law until SCOTUS has ample time to review the constitutionality of the law, which would impact millions of American speakers who use TikTok each month. TikTok also argued that Trump could "moot" SCOTUS review if he decides to "save" TikTok, as he promised on the campaign trail.

Read full article

Comments

• The US Appeals Court upheld a decision forcing the sale of TikTok lest it be banned in the US.
• Several investors, philanthropists, and tech giants are interested in buying the company.
• Here's what they've said they'd do with the short-form video platform if they bought it.

On Friday, a panel of three judges from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a law that will ban TikTok from app stores in the United States if the social media platform's parent company, the China-based ByteDance, doesn't sell its stake in the app by January 19.

In a statement about the decision, TikTok said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

"Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people," TikTok's statement read. "The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025."

With the app's uncertain future in the United States, a slate of ultrawealthy investors has expressed interest in buying the social media platform.

Big-name buyers, from Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank" to former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, have said for months that they are prepared to step in if ByteDance changes its mind or the Supreme Court decides the ban can proceed.

Here's what those who've said publicly that they want to buy TikTok would do with the platform if they acquired the app.

Representatives for TikTok did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Kevin O'Leary

In March, the "Shark Tank" mogul told CNBC he wanted to assemble a syndicate of investors to purchase the platform for about $20 to $30 billion — a fraction of its $220 billion valuation in its last funding round.

"It's the largest entertainment and business network in America as it stands today, so it's of great interest and great value," he told the outlet.

However, O'Leary said a sale likely wouldn't include TikTok's signature algorithms, so he or another purchaser would have to "re-emulate" the app's algorithms and act as a "steward" to transform the platform from "TikTok China to TikTok U.S.A."

It's unclear exactly how O'Leary might change TikTok's algorithms; however, similar short-form video services exist elsewhere on social media with their own proprietary algorithms, and he said a new version could be created under the existing TikTok brand.

Representatives for O'Leary did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Steven Mnuchin

The former treasury secretary in March said he was putting together an investor group to try to purchase TikTok, CNBC reported.

Mnuchin didn't specify any other potential investors involved in the bid or the dollar amount they planned to offer for the social media site. In a May interview with Bloomberg Television, he said he'd replicate the app's signature algorithm to continue the service.

"My plan, if we were to purchase, it would be to rebuild the technology under US leadership, make sure that it's all disconnected from ByteDance going forward, and that it is very robust and secure," Mnuchin said.

Representatives for Mnuchin did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Bobby Kotick

The Wall Street Journal reported in March that the former chief executive of Activision was considering bidding for TikTok. The outlet reported the exact amount of his proposal was unspecified but would likely be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Journal reported Kotick approached OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other possible investors during a dinner at an Allen & Co. conference, discussing a potential deal that could allow OpenAI to train its artificial intelligence models on the data gathered from the app.

A spokesperson for Kotick told Business Insider, "Mr. Kotick has always believed a comprehensive reciprocal trade framework is preferable to singling out an individual company, and he still does."

Frank McCourt

The former Dodgers owner and former CEO of McCourt Global has turned democratizing and improving the internet into a major philanthropic focus through his Project Liberty project. The company announced in March that McCourt had put together a bid to purchase TikTok.

McCourt, during a December 8 appearance on CBS News, said he had "circled over $20 billion" for the potential sale.

"We're very serious about raising whatever capital is required to buy the platform and to be clear, we're looking to move the 170 million users over to a new protocol where the individuals will own and control their identity and their data," McCourt said. "We're not looking to replicate the existing version."

The billionaire businessman has titled his TikTok purchase project "The People's Bid." He has secured the backing of Guggenheim Securities, an investment banking firm, and Kirkland & Ellis, one of the world's largest law firms.

McCourt told CBS that the People's Bid aims to protect user privacy and move users to "a new stack where you can't harvest without permission, so individuals will own and control their identity and their data" to promote an internet service that respects its users "as opposed to exploits them."

A spokesperson for McCourt directed Business Insider to a public statement by the billionaire following the Appeals Court decision upholding the law which could force the sale of the app.

"Now that the Court has spoken, The People's Bid is prepared to move forward with our bid for TikTok," McCourt's statement reads. "We are going to rebuild TikTok and prove that it's possible to enjoy the internet without sacrificing our privacy and safety."

Other possible investors

Other big names have previously shown interest in buying TikTok, including Microsoft, which in 2020 tried and failed to acquire the platform when, during his first administration in August 2020, President Donald Trump, citing concerns about ByteDance's ties to Beijing, issued executive orders forcing ByteDance to sell its TikTok US operations to an American company.

Walmart and the software company Oracle also assembled a bid to buy TikTok in 2020, but TikTok ultimately defeated Trump's orders in court and the acquisition plans did not materialize.

The companies have not publicly said whether they would make another offer now. Walmart, Oracle, and Microsoft representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider sent over the weekend.

• The court that upheld a law that could ban TikTok said the US showed no evidence China manipulates content.
• However, the court said TikTok has manipulated content at China's request elsewhere.
• TikTok denies content manipulation and says it expects the US Supreme Court to reverse the ban.

The appeals court that upheld a law that could ban TikTok in the United States said the government offered no evidence that China is manipulating content on the platform in the United States.

However, the panel of judges wrote in their opinion that evidence that China has compelled TikTok to manipulate content elsewhere was enough for it to uphold a federal law signed by President Joe Biden that would force TikTok's sale in the United States to an American company or ban it from app stores.

The US District Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia found on Friday in a majority opinion that the federal law is constitutional. The law, which was passed in April, requires TikTok's Chinese parent company, Bytedance, to divest from the company by January 19 or face a ban in the United States.

US officials across political lines have worried that TikTok poses a national security risk because of its Chinese ownership. Some members of Congress have said they fear that TikTok could be used as a propaganda tool to push narratives favorable to China's Communist Party.

In statements supporting the bill, Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jake Auchincloss called TikTok "a tool of censorship and propaganda" for the Chinese Communist Party, and Republican Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood said the app has "been used as a tool of propaganda in our country."

Still, the federal appeals court wrote in its majority opinion that the government did not present any evidence that China has tried to manipulate content on TikTok in the United States.

"The Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States," the opinion says, referring to the People's Republic of China. However, the government argued in court that ByteDance and TikTok have censored content at China's request in other countries.

The appeals court wrote that TikTok "never squarely denies" that it has ever manipulated content on its platform at China's request, which it says is "striking" given the intelligence community's concerns. The court concluded that Bytedance and TikTok have "a demonstrated history" of manipulating content in other countries, sometimes at the request of China.

"That conclusion rests on more than mere speculation," the judges wrote in the court opinion. "It is the Government's 'informed judgment' to which we give great weight in this context, even in the absence of 'concrete evidence' on the likelihood of PRC-directed censorship of TikTok in the United States."

TikTok argued in court that its "recommendation engine," or algorithm, is not based in China because it is stored in the Oracle cloud. The court said that while this is correct, ByteDance still controls the source code for TikTok, including the recommendation engine.

"TikTok is therefore correct to say the recommendation engine 'is stored in the Oracle cloud,' but gains nothing by flyspecking the Government's characterization of the recommendation engine still being in China," the document says.

A TikTok spokesperson said in a statement to Business Insider that the TikTok ban "was conceived and pushed through based on inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people."

"The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok said in the statement.

Like many social media networks, TikTok has faced intense scrutiny for how the app is used to influence elections. The company this week announced that it removed three "influence networks" on the app that attempted to impact an election in Romania after a probe by the country's defense council. The company said it removed at least 40 similar influence campaigns this year.