Sudan’s civil war is rooted in its historical favouritism of Arab and Islamic identity 
The politics stopping the UK from opening a youth mobility scheme with Europe 
China's Commerce Minister to Advocate EV Sector in Europe Amid Subsidy, Tariff Probe 
History for sale: what does South Africa’s struggle heritage mean after 30 years of democracy? 
US election: two graphs show how young voters influence presidential results as Biden gets poll boost 
Who will Trump pick as his running mate? 
South Africa’s youth are a generation lost under democracy – study 
US Finalizes Ban List for Chinese Chipmakers; Boosts Mexico Semiconductor Ties 
Joe Biden Proposes Record 44.6% Capital Gains Tax in Latest Budget Plan That May Favor Cryptocurrencies 
US Commerce Secretary Asserts Huawei Chip Lag, Affirms Export Control Success 
Turkey’s suppression of the Kurdish political movement continues to fuel a deadly armed conflict 
The United States Supreme Court rejected a bid by Republican attorneys general in several states to revive the hardline immigration policies during the Trump administration. Such policies included barring immigrants that are likely qualified to require government benefits from gaining lawful residency.
The Conservative-majority Supreme Court Justices turned down an appeal by 14 Republican state attorneys general led by Texas GOP attorney general Ken Paxton of a ruling by the lower court against their request to mount a legal defense to former President Donald Trump’s “public charge” immigration policy after President Joe Biden’s administration stopped defending the policy eventually rescinding it. Biden ended the policy by March 2021 after it was implemented by his immediate predecessor in February 2020.
The Republican officials told the justices that they should be able to defend the Trump-era rule as it can save states an estimated $1 billion overall annually. In a 2019 rule, the Trump administration expanded the definition of “public charge” that would make an immigrant ineligible for legal permanent residency in the US.
The expanded restriction also targeted immigrants who receive government benefits, including Medicaid insurance and food stamps for over 12 months in any three-year period.
A federal judge in Illinois vacated the rule nationwide, later rejecting the GOP attempt to intervene. The judge said the request by the state officials came too late, and the Chicago 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in June last year.
The high court also heard arguments in a separate case last year by Republican state officials for a defense of the Trump-era charge, but ultimately dismissed the case.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court is seeking feedback from the Biden administration on whether the justices should determine a publicly-funded charter school in North Carolina violated the rights of female students who were deemed “fragile vessels” by the school’s founder in requiring girls to wear skirts.
The justices are considering whether to hear the appeal of the Charter Day School of a lower court’s ruling that the dress code violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The court has asked US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to file a brief on behalf of the Biden administration over the litigation and whether the Supreme Court should take up the case.
