Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Kosovo police officers patrol, in the aftermath of a shooting incident
Hard Numbers: Kosovo indicts terrorists, Huawei tries to fold up Apple, Afghan women hold summit, Malaysia rescues hundreds of abused kids, Black enrollment at Harvard falls, The Swift effect
45: Kosovo has indicted 45 ethnic Serbs on terrorism charges, stemming from a raid on a historic Serbian monastery in Kosovo last year that left three gunmen and a local police officer dead. The suspects are believed to be in Serbia, which has no extradition agreement with Kosovo. The indictments come as the EU pushes again for progress in normalization talks between the Serbian government and Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in 2008. For background on the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, see here.
2,800: Do you want a smartphone that isn’t made by Apple? Does that cellphone need to have a 10-inch folding screen? If so, then for a mere $2,800, you too can have a Huawei Mate XT, the Chinese company’s answer to the iPhone 16, which was unveiled this week. So far, there are reportedly more than 5 million pre-orders for the device.
130: More than 130 Afghan women are attending an All Afghan Women summit in Albania this week, a three-day event convened to advocate for the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan following the US withdrawal in 2021, the group has imposed what the UN has called “outrageous” restrictions on women and girls, who are largely unable to attend school and whose voices and faces have been banned in public.
400: Malaysian law enforcement on Wednesday rescued more than 400 minors suspected of being victims of sexual abuse at Islamic charity homes. The homes were all run by Global Ikhwan Services and Business, a Malaysian conglomerate that operates a range of consumer services in at least half a dozen countries. More than 170 adult authority figures at the charity homes were arrested as part of the operation.
4: The share of Black students in the first year class at Harvard this autumn fell by 4 points, to 14%. This is the first incoming class since the Supreme Court last year ruled, in effect, that colleges could no longer use race as a factor in determining admissions. The percent of Hispanic students rose two points to 16%, while Asian-American representation was unchanged at 37%. The share of students who refused to disclose their race or ethnicity doubled, to 8%.
330K+: Despite saying on Wednesday that Taylor Swift’s post-debate endorsement of Kamala Harris “was just a question of time” and that she’d “probably pay a price for it,” Donald Trump may struggle to shake it off. Why? Because the pop icon’s Tuesday night Instagram post, which lauded Harris as a “warrior” for the rights and causes she believes in, has driven over 330,000 clicks to Vote.org, a site where wannabe first-time voters learn how to register.
People celebrate the US Supreme Court ruling that universities cannot consider race in admissions.
US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions
The US Supreme Court ruled today to end affirmative action policies in college admissions, prohibiting race from being used as a factor in deciding who gets acceptance letters. The decision, powered by the court’s conservative flank, will force over 40% of US colleges to overhaul their admissions policies.
The case accused the University of North Carolina and Harvard University admissions policies of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants. UNC and Harvard argued that race is just one of many factors taken into consideration and is done so to ensure diversity and racial equity.
The majority opinion (6-3 against UNC, 6-2 against Harvard) ruled that affirmative action makes race “the touchstone of an individual’s identity” and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Military service academies were exempt from the ruling.
Mandating that universities use colorblind admissions criteria may decrease racial diversity and limit the pool of students universities draw from. But even before this ruling, US colleges – especially at selective schools – have limited their talent pool by depending on criteria that benefit applicants from wealthy backgrounds.
In the best-case scenario, forcing colleges to overhaul their admissions criteria could lead to a better, perhaps more holistic system that accepts more first-generation college students, racial minorities, and economically disadvantaged students. Worst-case scenario? This ruling decreases diversity on campuses and enables colleges to ignore that racial discrimination still permeates American society. The wider political response has fallen along predictable partisan lines – liberals lamenting and conservatives cheering.
Affirmative action withstood the Supreme Court’s scrutiny for decades, but this court hasn’t shied away from overturning precedent on cases with major societal implications. In a landmark decision last year, the court overturned Roe v. Wade – upending nationwide abortion access.
And the courts aren’t done with college students. Friday, the court is set to announce the fate of President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which, if upheld, would wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt. It will also rule on whether the First Amendment protects a web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex weddings.
Who polices the Supreme Court?
Who watches the watchmen? And who oversees the US Supreme Court? As SCOTUS, the highest court in the US, gears up to issue some blockbuster rulings this summer, ethical concerns swirl around its members, and its public support is at an all-time low.
It’s been one year since SCOTUS struck down Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after 50 years of precedent. In the months following the decision, the conservative supermajority quickly moved US law away from the political center. Multiple controversies erupted surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, and public opinion balked at a blanket refusal to address questions about the justices’ ethical standard.
Has the Supreme Court become overly politicized? Can public faith be restored in a deeply partisan America? And what major rulings are still to come this session? Ian Bremmer talks with Yale Law School legal expert, New York Times Magazine columnist and co-host of the Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, Emily Bazelon.
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023
As the 2023-2023 Supreme Court session comes to a close, a flurry of major decisions are expected by the end of the month on the EPA, affirmative action, and student loan forgiveness. Emily Bazelon, Yale Law School Senior Research Fellow and host of Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, stopped by GZERO World with Ian Bremmer to discuss some of the big cases argued before the court this term.
SCOTUS already issued a ruling in Sackett v. EPA, limiting the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect US wetlands and waterways. It’s the second ruling in a year where the justices significantly rolled back the federal government’s authority to regulate the environment.
“Millions of acres that have been regulated up till now won't be anymore,” Bazelon says, “And when you think about the record of the Clean Water Act for preserving and cleaning Americans’ waterways and rivers, now the EPA has a lot less reach to do that.
There are also two important cases in higher education––affirmative action and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Bazelon thinks that SCOTUS is ready to end race-based affirmative action in the US based on justices’ questioning in oral arguments. How the court will rule in the student loans case, however, is trickier to predict because loan forgiveness is somewhat tied to national emergency declaration for COVID, which ended in May.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Check local listings.
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
- Biden's Supreme Court reform has zero chance of becoming law - GZERO Media ›