Rishi Sunak wants to cut the cost of ‘sicknote’ Britain 
How will US foreign policy affect Joe Biden’s chances of re-election in November? 
Nvidia RTX 4090D Embroiled in US-China Tech Rivalry; South Korea Navigates Chip Export Dilemma 
Sudan’s civil war is rooted in its historical favouritism of Arab and Islamic identity 
China's Commerce Minister to Advocate EV Sector in Europe Amid Subsidy, Tariff Probe 
US and Japan Boost AI, Semiconductor Alliance; EU Eyes Reduction in China Dependence 
US Finalizes Ban List for Chinese Chipmakers; Boosts Mexico Semiconductor Ties 
South Africa’s youth are a generation lost under democracy – study 
The 50th anniversary of Portugal’s Carnation Revolution 
Joe Biden Proposes Record 44.6% Capital Gains Tax in Latest Budget Plan That May Favor Cryptocurrencies 
The United States Supreme Court is set to hear the appeal of a man convicted for his involvement in a murder plot. The justices are set to determine whether the man’s constitutional rights were violated over a post-arrest statement.
The Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear the appeal of a man from North Carolina serving life in prison. The high court is set to determine whether the man, Adam Samia’s constitutional right, was breached when prosecutors introduced part of a co-defendant’s post-arrest statement that admitted to the 2012 murder. Samia was convicted in 2018 for the murder of Filipino real estate agent Catherine Lee, alongside another North Carolina resident Carl David Stillwell, and former US Army sergeant Joseph Hunter.
Prosecutors at the time said Samia killed Lee while working as a mercenary for transnational crime leader Paul Le Roux. Le Roux was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2020 after cooperating with authorities that probed his organization. Le Roux’s organization allegedly committed money laundering, drug and weapons trafficking, and murder in many countries.
During the trial, prosecutors introduced Stillwell’s post-arrest statement, where Stillwell named Samia as the one who pulled the trigger on Lee. Stillwell did not testify in Samia’s trial and thus was not questioned by Samia’s lawyers. Stillwell invoked the Sixth Amendment, so his name was redacted.
However, Samia’s lawyers said Stillwell’s confession was incriminating and that the federal lower courts are divided on how to determine whether such statements could be used at a trial.
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by Michigan State University on a lower court’s ruling in favor of the former members of the university’s women’s swimming and diving teams. The former members argue that MSU violated Title IX by not providing adequate opportunities for female athletes to take part in sports.
The issue in the lawsuit is regarding whether a school has met a benchmark in determining if it provides equal opportunities for participation under Title IX – the 50-year-old law that is credited with expanding female student-athetes’ access to sports.
The high court’s decision will result in the case going to trial.
