‘Dou­ble jeop­ardy’ dis­pute:


sup­port­ing school­ing for all chil­dren.

As a teen in Pak­istan, she sur­vived an as­sas­si­na­tion at­tempt by the Tale­ban. She later founded the non­profit Malala Fund to sup­port her work. (AP)

US Supreme Court jus­tices on Thurs­day ex­pressed skep­ti­cism about putting lim­its on crim­i­nal charges be­ing brought against peo­ple for the same of­fenses by both fed­eral and state prose­cu­tors in a case in­volv­ing an Alabama man charged with il­le­gally pos­sess­ing a gun.

De­pend­ing on how the court rules, the case that could have im­pli­ca­tions for Spe­cial Coun­sel Robert Mueller’s in­ves­ti­ga­tion into po­ten­tial col­lu­sion be­tween Rus­sia and Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s 2016 elec­tion cam­paign.

The court ap­peared di­vided on non­ide­o­log­i­cal lines, but a ma­jor­ity seemed con­cerned about the prac­ti­cal im­pli­ca­tions of over­turn­ing long­stand­ing prece­dent al­low­ing for par­al­lel state and fed­eral pros­e­cu­tions.

Some of the jus­tices, in­clud­ing con­ser­va­tive Trump ap­pointee Neil Gor­such and lib­eral Ruth Bader Gins­burg, ap­peared more wor­ried about vin­di­cat­ing the in­di­vid­ual rights of de­fen­dants.

Trump’s other ap­pointee to the nine­jus­tice court, con­ser­va­tive Brett Ka­vanaugh, ques­tioned whether there were strong enough ar­gu­ments to jus­tify end­ing the prac­tice, say­ing that the lawyers for de­fen­dant Ter­ance Gam­ble would have to show the prece­dent is “griev­ously wrong.” (RTRS)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait

© PressReader. All rights reserved.