Several Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical Monday of a request from oil companies to preemptively block a climate change lawsuit that could hold them liable for climate damages.
Many of the justices raised questions about the court’s ability to even take up the case at this time.
“A number of the discussions that you’ve had with my colleagues make me think that we’re really early in this case – that this is sort of premature from the standpoint of this court exercising its jurisdiction,” liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Suncor Energy lawyer Kannon Shanmugam.
Prime Day
BestReviews is reader-supported and may earn an affiliate commission.

#justices #climate #justice #ketanji

What is the Supreme Court's first case about climate change?
Will the Catholic Church win the preschool case?
Why is the AR-15 ban case significant?
Full Summary
WASHINGTON – A new Supreme Court term will get off to a fast start when the justices on Oct. 5 take up a landmark case about climate change that could have broad implications for local governments to tackle national issues.

#church #summary

The Supreme Court begins its latest term on Monday with a docket full of high-stakes cases that touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics, including guns, voting and transgender rights.
This will be the second full term for the nation's highest court since President Trump returned to the White House. The previous term, which wrapped up in June, was packed with landmark rulings in a long list of major cases, including Trump's tariffs, birthright citizenship and a slate of key immigration decisions.
The justices will likely take on additional cases over the course of the term, but there are already plenty of pivotal cases for the court to consider in the coming months.
Here's a rundown of the big cases headed to the Supreme Court this term and what their eventual rulings might mean for the country.
Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that have significantly expanded gun rights. It could go even further next term when it considers whether laws banning certain semiautomatic rifles, like the AR-15, violate the Second Amendment.

#court #term #full #rights

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to review a Trump administration policy denying bond hearings for immigrants as the government carries out a sweeping crackdown.
The justices will consider whether immigrants who have been living in the U.S. have a right to a hearing to determine if they should remain detained while challenging their possible deportation.
The case will test a key pillar of the Trump administration's hard-line immigration agenda.
Most appeals courts to have considered the issue have found that it violates federal law to detain immigrants, including those living in the U.S. illegally, without a bond hearing. Those decisions conflict with rulings by the 5th and 8th circuits, which held that immigrants accused of illegally entering and remaining in the U.S. must be detained while their deportation cases are pending.
The high court agreed to hear the case of Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a citizen of Brazil. Authorities say he entered the United States illegally two decades ago and applied for asylum in 2016. He sought a bond hearing after an immigration judge determined that his detention was mandatory following his September 2025 arrest.

#Trump

WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - US President Donald Trump said he regretted nominating three Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and ‌Brett Kavanaugh — who have opposed him in recent rulings, according ‌to a Time Magazine interview.
The Republican president was asked about his recent comments regarding the three conservative justices in the interview, which was conducted on Monday.
"Do you regret nominating them?" the interviewer asked, referring to Trump's comments in a recent Truth Social post.
"Yeah. Yeah," Trump responded, according to a transcript of the ‌interview.
"What can I do? ⁠I put them in. They voted against me too often. I was very — I gave them the position of ⁠a lifetime, and they vote against me often."

#recent

By Andrew Chung
Sept 29 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown.
The court granted ‌the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy's ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's policy to remove migrants to so-called third ‌countries is unlawful. The court also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, with a formal ruling on the policy to follow.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the decision to let the deportations immediately resume pending the final outcome of the litigation.
Murphy's ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to prevent the US government from sending them to third countries without notice and a chance to **** ert the harms they could face.

#migrants #chance #harms

By Joseph Ax
Sept 7 (Reuters) - As the unofficial start of the campaign sprint kicks off on Labor Day Monday, President Donald Trump's deep unpopularity is imperiling Republican chances of maintaining their narrow majorities in Congress with just two months before November's midterm elections.
Midterm elections, above all, are a referendum on the occupant of the White House, according to election experts. That is ‌even more of a truism in the era of Trump, who has spent the better part of a decade as the country's dominant political figure and could face stiff political headwinds in his final ‌two years in office.
If Democrats win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, as appears likely, the party would be able to open damaging investigations into Trump's administration while forcing the White House to compromise on most legislation. Party leaders have already vowed to launch probes into what they describe as Trump's corruption.
The race for U.S. Senate control is much too close to call, according to ******* ysts, but a Democratic majority in that chamber could block many of Trump's nominees, including any Supreme Court justices in the event of a high court vacancy.

#party #elections #majority

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal from Republicans in a dispute over campaign ad prices on Friday, clearing a legal roadblock to political parties getting cheaper TV ad time ahead of the midterm elections.
The justices halted for now a lower-court ruling in favor of Democratic candidates who argued that cheaper broadcast ads should be limited to candidates. One justice publicly dissented from the unsigned order. It's the latest election-related appeal to come before the high court ahead of the pivotal November contests.
The Trump administration supported the emergency appeal from GOP campaign arms.
The decision comes on the heels of a June Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on parties spending money in coordination with candidates. It was seen as a boon to the GOP because the national party has a sizable cash advantage, and access to cheaper ad rates could boost that edge.
Among Democrats, meanwhile, some individual candidates have sizable fundraising advantages over their Republican opponents.

#emergency

A Republican proposal to amend the Constitution to prevent expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court failed on the House floor.
Like all constitutional amendments, the measure needed a two-thirds majority of the House to pass, which it did not get: The vote was along party lines at 212-206. Democrats have never supported such an amendment, so it will be easy fodder for Republicans to accuse Democrats of looking to "pack the court" with favorable liberal justices.
Rep. Brad Knott (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he wasn't surprised the vote was along party lines, even though Democrats, in his view, knew there would be "political risk" to voting no.
"Democrats are very clear. They want to pack the court," Knott said. "We want to maintain the normalcy and stick with the process that we've done for a long time."
The Republican campaign arm wasted no time spinning the vote into midterm messaging. Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which helps support and elect Republican candidates, wrote in a statement released minutes after the vote that Democrats voted against the amendment "so they can follow through on a radical socialist agenda."

#republican #knott #committee #along

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to press on with his White House ballroom project — over a strident objection from Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing.
The justices' 5-4 ruling maintains the high court's hold on a federal appeals court ruling that called for a halt to the project after concluding it lacked approval from Congress.
In an unsigned order Monday, the Supreme Court's majority said a historic preservation group that sued over the project appeared to lack legal standing, while national security concerns favored allowing the construction to continue. The majority did not opine on whether the project is legal.
Writing for the dissenters, Roberts said the project is "likely unlawful."
"The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture," Roberts wrote, adding that it is critical to "ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People's House."

#roberts

A federal judge on Thursday halted — at least for now — attempts to implement President Donald Trump's executive order limiting mail voting.
The move stalled the directive for a second time only about a week before the first mail ballots are due to be sent out for the rapidly approaching midterm elections. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked the government from implementing the order for two weeks.
The case could soon be appealed back to the Supreme Court, days after the justices handed down a procedural decision that allowed the the administration to move ahead.
The ruling Thursday came after Democrats and voting rights groups refiled their lawsuits to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court's conservative majority did not rule on the legality of Trump's executive order, instead saying Talwani had acted too soon.
Now the administration has issued a formal rule governing whether the U.S. Postal Service will deliver states' mail ballots, effectively restarting the legal fight.

#court #order #supreme #voting

There is a question hanging over the small carrier world right now, and two of the most knowledgeable transportation attorneys in the country did not flinch from it when they sat down separately on The Long Haul. The question is whether the small carrier, the one-truck owner-operator and the five-truck fleet, still has a viable future as an independent business, or whether the forces set in motion by the Supreme Court's Montgomery decision are quietly pushing that operator toward extinction as an independent and into the arms of a larger carrier.
Neither attorney sugarcoated it. Brian Nelson, a partner at Taylor Nelson Slattery Bernard in St. Petersburg, Florida, who spent years as general counsel inside a broker, a motor carrier, and a 3PL under one roof, walked through the legal machinery now bearing down on carriers. Greg Feary, president and managing partner of Scopelitis, the firm the biggest fleets in the country call when things go wrong, went further and named the outcome he is already seeing. Together, their two conversations form the clearest picture available of where the small carrier stands, and it is a picture every independent operator needs to see.
Start with the ruling itself, because everything else flows from it. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, decided this May by a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court, the justices answered a single question: do brokers have a duty to select carriers that operate safely over the roadways? The Court said yes. As Nelson explained, that put brokers back into what he called the firing squad, meaning they can no longer get a negligent selection lawsuit dismissed early on the grounds that federal law preempts it.
Before May 14, in most of the country, a broker sued after a crash could file a motion to dismiss and often walk out of the litigation quickly on preemption grounds. Nelson described the old routine: file the answer, file the motion to dismiss, argue there is no valid claim, and get out. That door is now closed. As Nelson put it, brokers can no longer rely on that early exit, which means they now have to go through discovery and potentially all the way to summary judgment. That longer, more expensive path is why insurance companies are raising rates, because they know they will have to pay defense costs deeper into every case.
Nelson was careful to note that causation still matters. A plaintiff still has to prove that the specific thing the broker was negligent about, say, selecting a carrier with poor vehicle maintenance, actually caused the crash. But he explained how plaintiffs get around that requirement using what is called the reptile theory. The argument runs that if a carrier is bad at one thing, hours of service, for instance, a jury will believe they must be bad at everything, including whatever actually caused the wreck. The practical consequence, Nelson said, is that a carrier can no longer afford to be excellent at four things and poor at one. In his words, you have to take a hol

The U.S. national debt has hit $40 trillion, and the Trump administration is facing questions about its budget plans as a result. The good news is, there has one: The American economy will apparently grow its way out of any fiscal crisis.

"It's been a problem for 35 years," Trump told reporters Friday. "And what we have now … is we have tremendous growth. And the way you take care of debt is with growth, and we have tremendous growth. We've never had growth like we have right now."

"There's nothing magic about the $40 trillion number," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNBC last week, "And we can grow our way out of that."
Economists would be inclined to agree with Bessent: The value of the debt, while an extraordinary milestone, doesn't hold much relative weight. What economists (and more importantly, the bond market) is watching is the debt-to-GDP ratio: This demonstrates the level of borrowing by a country against its economic capacity to repay and service it.
Currently, the U.S. ratio stands at 122%. To bring it back into a lower balance, an economy could cut its borrowing or—as Bessent suggests—increase its growth.
When the alternative is cutting borrowing and, as a result, government spending, the growth plan is a more optimistic and politically palatable route.
It's also the latest in a series of solutions proposed by the White House: Originally, President Trump had suggested that tariffs would pay down the national debt (the plan was quickly nixed by a Supreme Court ruling ordering the administration to repay approximately $100 billion in revenues that the justices deemed illegal).

#debt #Trump #economists #administration

The U.S. national debt has hit $40 trillion, and the Trump administration is facing questions about its budget plans as a result. The good news is, there has one: The American economy will apparently grow its way out of any fiscal crisis.

"It's been a problem for 35 years," Trump told reporters Friday. "And what we have now … is we have tremendous growth. And the way you take care of debt is with growth, and we have tremendous growth. We've never had growth like we have right now."

"There's nothing magic about the $40 trillion number," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNBC last week, "And we can grow our way out of that."
Economists would be inclined to agree with Bessent: The value of the debt, while an extraordinary milestone, doesn't hold much relative weight. What economists (and more importantly, the bond market) is watching is the debt-to-GDP ratio: This demonstrates the level of borrowing by a country against its economic capacity to repay and service it.
Currently, the U.S. ratio stands at 122%. To bring it back into a lower balance, an economy could cut its borrowing or—as Bessent suggests—increase its growth.
When the alternative is cutting borrowing and, as a result, government spending, the growth plan is a more optimistic and politically palatable route.
It's also the latest in a series of solutions proposed by the White House: Originally, President Trump had suggested that tariffs would pay down the national debt (the plan was quickly nixed by a Supreme Court ruling ordering the administration to repay approximately $100 billion in revenues that the justices deemed illegal).

#Trump #borrowing #trillion

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Monday in a case over President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be implemented before the fast-approaching midterm elections.
The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that the states did not have the legal right to challenge it.
"The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell," the majority wrote in an unsigned order.
The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule "lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges."

#supreme #court #challenges

Aug 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted a judicial decision blocking President Donald Trump's administration from implementing his executive order to restrict the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections that ‌will decide control of Congress - though another remains.
The justices granted a Justice Department emergency request to put on hold ‌an injunction that Boston-based U.S. Judge Indira Talwani's imposed in June preventing the Republican president from proceeding with his directive in a coalition of 23 mostly Democratic-governed states and Washington, D.C. that had sued to stop it.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The three liberal justices dissented from the decision.
The Supreme Court's action leaves open the door to the states suing again in the coming months as the midterm contest approaches.
Trump's executive order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of U.S. citizens eligible ‌to vote in each state, and the ⁠Justice Department to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote in federal elections.

#decision

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move ahead with his executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much his administration can implement before the fast-approaching midterm elections.
The decision appears to leave room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.
The Supreme Court's three liberal-leaning justices dissented from the unsigned order.
Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.
The case could be one of multiple voting-related challenges before the justices. The Justice Department had filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to allow work on implementing the changes before the midterms.

#order #implement #justices

Shortly after announcing his intention to run for U.S. Senate, then-candidate Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., said he would support reparations legislation — government-led efforts to make up for the social harms of slavery and other injustices against Black Americans.
In a 2019 radio interview, Ossoff said it was only a question of how much the government was obligated to give.
"There is a debt unpaid. I think it is a very, very difficult question: how to pay it," Ossoff told a local radio host.
"But see, that should be the question — not if it should be paid," the host noted.
Mamdani Won't Rule Out Cash Reparations, Says He'll Await Nyc Commission Findings

#reparations #shortly

WASHINGTON (AP) — Palestinian authorities asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to halt for now a $656 million judgment in a long-running lawsuit filed by Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel.
The emergency appeal comes after a lower court reinstated the damages in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that followed more than two decades of litigation.
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority said in court documents that paying the hefty judgment now would "destabilize critical government services Petitioners provide in the West Bank, injure innocent citizens, and jeopardize regional security."
They asked the justices to pause payment as they appeal the reinstatement of the verdict.
The lawsuit was filed by victims of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more. Families brought their lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law aimed at opening U.S. courts to victims of international terror attacks.

#wounded

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and the Justice Department are asking the Supreme Court to toss an $83 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of ****** ual ****** ault, saying he can't be sued for comments he made while he was president.
It's the second time Trump has asked the justices to nix damages awarded by a jury to Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. The Supreme Court refused in June to hear his appeal of another verdict, for $5 million, that found him liable for ****** ual abuse and defamation.
The latest case centers on comments Trump made during his first term as president. The Justice Department wants to invoke the Westfall Act, which shields government employees from being sued for doing their jobs.
"Absent this Court's intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office," federal attorneys wrote. "That alone deserves this Court's attention."
The documents were reviewed Wednesday by The ****** ociated Press and expected to be formally docketed with the court shortly.

#Trump #justice #supreme #carroll

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin appeals court on Wednesday restored a 2011 anti-union law that abolished collective bargaining rights, in a setback for unions and public workers. Unions are expected to appeal, sending the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is controlled by liberal justices.
The 2024 ruling striking down the law as unconstitutional had been on hold pending appeal, so Wednesday's reversal does not change the status quo. The law remains in effect, as it has been the past 15 years, as the legal fight continues.
Enactment of a 2011 anti-union state law, championed by Republicans, sparked weeks of protests and made Wisconsin the center of a national battle over union rights.
That law, known as Act 10, effectively ended most public employees′ ability to bargain for wage increases and other issues, and forced them to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits.
Supporters of the law say it gives local governments more control over workers and the powers needed to cut costs. They argue that repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities.

#union #court #rights #appeal

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadline passed Tuesday for the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its rejection of the president's birthright citizenship restrictions, with no new filing on the docket.
President Donald Trump vowed to seek a rehearing shortly after the opinion handed him a loss on a signature issue, but by Tuesday the 25-day window had elapsed with no new activity.
A petition would face long odds: The court has not agreed to rehear an argued case in more than 50 years.
The high court's 6-3 decision in June struck down Trump's executive order that would have denied automatic citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily.
The Republican president's restrictions on birthright citizenship had been blocked by several lower courts before reaching the justices, and they did not take effect anywhere in the U.S.

#birthright #donald

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for an executive order from President Donald Trump that could dramatically change mail-in voting ahead of November's midterm elections.
The Justice Department asked the justices to halt for now lower court decisions blocking the sweeping changes in nearly half the country.
The request comes shortly after Trump delivered a primetime address elevating his yearslong push to raise doubts about the legitimacy of elections, and could be one of several voting-related challenges before the court ahead of the high-stakes midterm contest.
Trump ordered the government in March to create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.
Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, not the president. Their attorneys have said Trump's proposed changes are ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

#Trump #asked #mail #ahead

Former White House attorney Ty Cobb warned Friday that President Trump's decision to fire the remaining Democratic members of an independent election administration commission this week is part of a "deliberate plan" to put his thumb on the scale of the upcoming midterm elections.
"You can't look at the termination of the Election ******* istance Commission (EAC) as anything other than another effort by one side to try to take over part of the referee role for the elections," Cobb said during an appearance on MS NOW.
Trump removed Democrats Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks from the commission on Thursday, with the White House citing his authority to do so under the Supreme Court's recent decision in the recent Slaughter case.
The justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that the president can fire the heads of most independent agencies at will, overturning a nearly century-old precedent that allowed Congress to insulate those bodies from political interference.
"The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America's elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted," a White House official said in a statement. "The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so."

By David Thomas
WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz's bid to revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over the network's coverage of his remarks defending Donald Trump during the president's first Senate impeachment trial ‌in 2020.
The justices turned away the retired Harvard Law professor's appeal of a lower court's ruling throwing out his case against CNN, ‌which is owned by Warner Bros Discovery. In his appeal, Dershowitz had urged the justices to roll back protections against defamation claims that the Supreme Court established in its landmark 1964 ruling in a case called New York Times v. Sullivan.
In Sullivan and subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court said that to win a libel suit, a public figure must demonstrate the offending statement was made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false.
Dershowitz in his petition argued that Sullivan has become "an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations."

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faced the wrath of conservatives on social media on Monday after she authored the majority opinion ruling in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day.
The court was split 5-4 on the ruling with Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump, writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Barrett's opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate but said that relevant laws have no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid.

Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTRA) is among the Best Healthcare Stocks.
On June 1, Reuters reported that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear CareDx's appeal in its false-advertising dispute with Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTRA). It left intact lower-court rulings that denied CareDx damages over claims involving kidney transplant tests.
Reuters said the justices declined to review whether the diagnostics company owed damages for allegedly misleading advertisements comparing its Prospera test with CareDx's AlloSure test. It offered no explanation for the decision.
The report noted that US District Judge Colm Connolly overturned a nearly $45 million jury damages award in 2023 after finding no evidence that Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTRA)'s statements actually misled customers. It still confirmed the jury's finding of false advertising. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed that ruling.
Pixabay / Public Domian

Heartbreak is to be expected at a World Cup.
For every moment of glory, there is a hard-luck story, a nation left to bemoan their misfortune and the injustices that have led to their downfall.
Yet few compare to the cruel manner that has brought Iran's tournament to an end in 2026.
Facing unprecedented challenges even before a ball was kicked, Amir Ghalenoei's side had worked themselves into a position where a place in the last 32 was in their grasp - only for it to be ******* ed away from them at the last... not once but twice.
Despite being unbeaten in the group stage, Iran came up agonisingly short and missed out on a place in the knockout stage on goal difference.

The highly unusual exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor over a dissent read from the bench was based on a "misunderstanding" by the conservative justice, the Supreme Court said Friday.
"Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor's chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench," the court spokesperson said in a statement in response to questions from CNN.
"It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito's part," the spokesperson added.
The rare statement came a day after a tense back-and-forth between the two justices when Sotomayor, the court's senior liberal, publicly read a dissent in a case involving asylum claims. Alito, a conservative who was then set to summarize the next opinion, appeared taken aback by his colleague's remarks.
"There's much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read," Alito said, an unusual break from protocol during what is normally a highly choregraphed release of opinions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump's first term.
Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters along ports of entry to await their turn for days or months. The Trump administration said it was necessary to deal with an increase in asylum seekers at the border.
The policy is not in place now, and crowds are much thinner as authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers. The Department of Homeland Security did not say if it plans to revive it, but applauded the ruling. "This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border," said James Percival, the agency's general counsel.
The administration argued that metering is a critical tool used by presidents of both parties and should remain available. Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.