The Jim Bakker Show

Eleven U.S. states to drop suit over transgender bathroom order

An activist waves a rainbow flag during the "Queer and Trans Dance Party" in protest of U.S. President Donald Trump outside of Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 26, 2017. REUTERS/Darren Ornitz

(Reuters) – Eleven U.S. states have agreed to drop a lawsuit against an Obama administration order for transgender students to use bathrooms of their choice after the measure was revoked by President Donald Trump, a court filing showed on Thursday.

In a filing in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Justice Department said the states, led by Texas, had agreed to drop the lawsuit, and it was dropping its appeal against a federal judge’s August stay on the Obama directive.

In their suit in May, the states said Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration overstepped its authority by ordering public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms matching their gender identity, rather than their birth gender, or risk losing federal funding.

Obama officials had said that barring students from such bathrooms violated Title IX, the federal law that forbids sex discrimination in education.

But the directive enraged conservatives who say federal civil rights protections cover biological sex, not gender identity. Obama was succeeded by Trump, a Republican, when he left office in January.

Texas was joined in the lawsuit by Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Arizona Department of Education, Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage and two school districts also were parties to the suit.

A federal judge in August barred adoption of the order during the hearing of the case. The Justice Department appealed the stay, saying it should only apply to the states challenging the order.

Last week, the Trump administration rescinded the order, leaving states and school boards to decide how to accommodate transgender students.

Other lawsuits about the rights of transgender students are being heard in the courts.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 28 addressing the question of whether the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia can block a female-born transgender student from using the boys’ bathroom.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

School board in key transgender case seeks U.S. high court delay

File Photo: A bathroom sign welcomes both genders at the Cacao Cinnamon coffee shop in Durham, North Carolina, United States on May 3, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Virginia school board sued by a student over bathroom access in a major transgender rights case asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to delay the matter until at least April, when President Donald Trump’s conservative nominee could be on the bench and potentially cast the deciding vote.

Lawyers on both sides of the dispute urged the justices to decide the case even though the Trump administration on Feb. 22 rescinded Obama administration guidance to public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The Gloucester County School Board asked for the delay so the Trump administration, which is not a party in the case, can file a brief providing its views.

The court, currently one justice short, has scheduled oral arguments for March 28 on whether the school board violated a federal anti-discrimination law when it blocked Gavin Grimm, a female-born transgender high school student who identifies as male, from using the boys’ bathroom. A ruling is due by the end of June.

Trump on Jan. 31 nominated appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on the court caused by the February 2016 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate has scheduled Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings to begin on March 20 and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he hopes Gorsuch will be confirmed before the start of a Senate recess in mid-April.

The court currently has four conservatives and four liberals. Gorsuch’s confirmation would restore a long-standing conservative majority.

If the justices delay arguments until the court’s two-week session beginning April 17 or even put it over until the next court term starts in October, Gorsuch potentially could participate. If the court hears the case with eight justices, it could split 4-4, which would leave in place a lower court’s ruling favoring the student, Gavin Grimm, but set no nationwide legal precedent.

The justice asked both sides to weigh in after the Trump administration’s action.

Although Trump’s decision to roll back Obama’s May 2016 guidance effectively knocked out one of the legal questions in the case, lawyers on both sides said the justices can still decide whether a federal law, known as Title IX, that bars sex discrimination in education covers transgender students.

Trump’s move “makes resolution of that question more urgent than ever,” said Joshua Block, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents Grimm and opposed a postponement.

“Delaying resolution of that question will only lead to further harm, confusion and protracted litigation for transgender students and school districts across the country,” Block added.

The court could take a more cautious approach and send the case back to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its April 2016 ruling in favor of Grimm in light of the Trump administration’s action.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump’s transgender move puts spotlight on Supreme Court case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration’s move on Wednesday to rescind guidance allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice has raised the stakes for an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that could deliver a landmark decision on the issue.

The eight justices are due to hear oral arguments on March 28 on whether the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia can block Gavin Grimm, a female-born transgender high school student, from using the boys’ bathroom. A ruling is due by the end of June.

A key question in the case is whether a federal law, known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, covers transgender students. The Education Department under Democratic President Barack Obama said in guidance to public schools last May that it does, but the Republican Trump administration withdrew that finding on Wednesday.

The high court on Thursday asked the lawyers involved to file letters by March 1 giving their views on how the Trump action should affect consideration of the case.

Lawyers for Grimm say that the definition of sex discrimination in Title IX is broad and includes gender identity. The school board maintains that the law was enacted purely to address “physiological distinctions between men and women.”

If the Supreme Court rules that Title IX protects transgender students, the decision would become the law of the land, binding the Trump administration and the states.

“This is an incredibly urgent issue for Gavin and these other kids across the country,” said Joshua Block, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who represents Grimm.

The Trump administration’s announcement “only underscores the need for the Supreme Court to bring some clarity here,” he added.

The administration on Wednesday did not offer its own interpretation of Title IX, with the Justice Department telling the court only that it plans to “consider further and more completely the legal issues involved.”

The administration is not directly involved in the case.

Lawyers for both Grimm and the Gloucester County School Board have urged the court to decide whether Title IX applies to transgender students rather than taking a narrower approach by sending the case back to a lower court.

In a court filing on Thursday, the ACLU said that, regardless of the administration’s position, the court “can – and should – resolve the underlying question of whether the Board’s policy violates Title IX.”

The school board’s lawyers made similar comments in their most recent court filing, saying that the meaning of the federal law is “plain and may be resolved as a matter of straightforward interpretation.”

But the court could take a more cautious approach and send the case back to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court’s April 2016 ruling in favor of Grimm relied on the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law.

Kyle Duncan, a lawyer representing the school board, said the court must at a minimum throw out the appeals court decision because “the entire basis for that opinion” was the no-longer extant Obama administration interpretation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: PIVOTAL VOTE?

With the eight-justice court likely to be closely divided, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, conservative appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, could end up casting the deciding vote if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate in time. Otherwise, the court, which is divided equally between liberals and conservatives, could split 4-4, which would set no nationwide legal precedent.

Clues as to how the high court could rule can be gleaned from its decision last August to temporarily block the appeals court decision in Grimm’s case from going into effect. That emergency request from the school board did not require the justices to decide the merits of the case.

The vote in favor of the school board was 5-3, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, joining the four conservative justices. Breyer made clear in a statement at the time that his vote would not dictate how he would approach the case if the court took the issue up.

That decision indicated that the court is likely to be closely divided at oral argument. Grimm’s hopes may rest in Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who voted against Grimm last summer but has sometimes sided with liberals in major cases, including several on gay rights.

But even lawyers closely following the case are not sure which way Kennedy could go.

“If I could predict that, I would be down in the casino,” said Gary McCaleb, a lawyer with conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which backs the school board.

For graphic on transgender rights and “bathroom bills”, click: http://tmsnrt.rs/2l529J9

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Noeleen Walder and Jonathan Oatis)

Rights groups challenge Israel’s new settlements law in court

view of houses in Israeli settlement in West Bank

By Maayan Lubell

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Rights groups petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court on Wednesday to annul a heavily criticized law that retroactively legalized some 4,000 settler homes built on privately owned Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

The law, approved by parliament on Monday, has drawn condemnation from Europe and the United Nations and has been described by Israel’s attorney general as unconstitutional.

Acting on behalf of 17 Palestinian villages and towns, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah), and the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center also asked the court for an injunction in order to stop any registration of the plots as under settler ownership.

The Supreme Court has in the past supported Palestinian property rights and annulled laws it deemed unconstitutional.

The legal process in some of those cases took months, though the court usually rules on injunction requests within days.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the law an aggression against the Palestinian people and threatened to suspend security cooperation with Israel if its ramp-up of Israeli settlements continued.

On Tuesday Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said that if implemented, the measure would cross a new and dangerous threshold.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the action went against international law, while French President Francois Hollande said it paved the way for the annexation of territory Palestinians want as part of a future state.

The administration of new U.S. President Donald Trump has so far signaled a softer approach toward Israeli settlement policy. Trump will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Feb 15.

Most countries consider Israeli settlements built on land captured in the 1967 Middle East War as illegal and obstacles to peace.

Some 550,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, which was also seized by Israel in 1967, among 2.6 million Palestinians who want those territories for a future state.

In January, Israel announced it would build about 6,000 new homes in the two areas, to which it cites biblical, historical and political connections.

(Additional reporting by Luke Baker; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and John Stonestreet)

Trump set to name U.S. high court pick as Democrats plan fight

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump was set to unveil his pick for a lifetime job on the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as Democrats, still fuming over the Republican-led Senate’s refusal to act on former President Barack Obama’s nominee last year, girded for a fight.

Trump said on Monday he would reveal his choice to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, at the White House at 8 p.m. on Tuesday (0100 GMT on Wednesday). The court is ideologically split with four conservative justices and four liberals, and Trump’s pick is expected to restore its conservative majority.

Three conservative U.S. appeals court judges appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush were among those under close consideration.

They are: Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Thomas Hardiman, who serves on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and William Pryor, a judge on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the Constitution, a president’s Supreme Court nomination requires Senate confirmation.

Democrats remain enraged over Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal last year to allow the Senate to consider Obama’s nomination of appeals court Judge Merrick Garland for the vacant seat, an action with little precedent in U.S. history.

Gambling that Republicans would win the presidency in the Nov. 8 election, McConnell argued that Obama’s successor should get to make the pick. The senator’s gamble paid off with Trump’s victory, but the court has run shorthanded for nearly a full year.

A Supreme Court justice can have influence in national affairs for years or decades after the president who made the appointment has left office. Some Democrats have said the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley vowed to pursue a procedural hurdle called a filibuster for Trump’s nominee, meaning 60 votes would be needed in the 100-seat Senate unless its long-standing rules are changed. Trump’s fellow Republicans hold a 52-48 majority, meaning some Democratic votes would be needed to confirm his pick.

“We need to fight this Constitution-shredding gambit with everything we’ve got,” Merkley said in a statement.

Trump’s appointee could be pivotal in cases involving abortion, gun, religious and transgender rights, the death penalty and other contentious matters.

McConnell on Monday warned Democrats that senators should respect Trump’s election victory and give the nominee “careful consideration followed by an up-or-down vote,” not a filibuster.

Trump, who took office on Jan. 20, said last week he would favor Senate Republicans eliminating the filibuster, a change dubbed the “nuclear option,” for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block his pick.

Gorsuch, Hardiman and Pryor possess strong conservative credentials.

Gorsuch, 49, joined an opinion in 2013 saying that owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of the Obamacare health insurance law requiring employers to provide coverage for birth control for women.

Hardiman, 51, has embraced a broad interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms and has backed the right of schools to restrict student speech.

Pryor, 54, has been an outspoken critic of the court’s 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion, calling it “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” Conservatives are hoping the high court will back restrictions imposed on the procedure by some Republican-governed states.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Chung, Ayesha Rascoe, Lawrence Hurley and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Paul Simao, Jonathan Oatis and Susan Heavey)

Trump to choose Supreme Court justice nominee on Feb. 2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he will make his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 2 as he seeks to restore the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Trump announced the date in Twitter message one day after meeting with key U.S. senators and promising to unveil his nominee to fill the vacancy left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago.

Three U.S. appeals court judges are among those under close consideration by Trump, who took office last Friday and had said he would act on a nominee next week.

Appointment as a Supreme Court justice requires Senate confirmation for the lifetime post. Trump’s fellow Republicans control the Senate with a 52-48 majority, but Democrats could potentially try to block the nomination using procedural hurdles.

On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said he told Trump in the meeting that Democrats would fight any nominee they consider to be outside the mainstream.

Trump is in position to name Scalia’s replacement because the Republican-led U.S. Senate last year refused to consider Democratic President Barack Obama’s nominee, appeals court judge Merrick Garland.

The current frontrunners include three conservative jurists who were appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush: Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Thomas Hardiman, who serves on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and William Pryor, a judge on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Frances Kerry)

Supreme Court rejects Texas appeal over voter ID law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by Texas seeking to revive the state’s strict Republican-backed voter-identification requirements that a lower court found had a discriminatory effect on black and Hispanic people.

The justices let stand a July 2016 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that the 2011 Texas statute ran afoul of a federal law that bars racial discrimination in elections and directed a lower court to find a way to fix the law’s discriminatory effects against minorities.

There were no noted dissents from the high court’s decision not to hear the case from any of the eight justices, but Chief Justice John Roberts took the unusual step of issuing a statement explaining why the case was not taken up, noting that litigation on the matter is continuing in lower courts.

Roberts said that although there was “no barrier to our review,” all the legal issues can be raised on appeal at a later time.

A special 15-judge panel of the New Orleans-based appeals court ruled 9-6 that the Texas law had a discriminatory effect and violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act. The judges were divided differently on other parts of the ruling.

The appeals court directed a federal district court to examine claims by the plaintiffs that the law was actually intended to be discriminatory, rather than merely having a discriminatory effect.

A hearing on that part of the case was scheduled for Jan. 24 but has now been delayed following a request from President Donald Trump’s administration. While former President Barack Obama’s administration had backed the challenge to the Texas requirements, the Trump administration could change course.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Potentially nasty fight looms over Trump U.S. Supreme Court pick

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democrats are gearing up for a potentially ugly fight over Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court pick, with some liberal activists urging them to do everything possible to block any nominee from the Republican president-elect.

Democrats are still seething over the Republican-led Senate’s decision last year to refuse to consider outgoing President Barack Obama’s nomination of appeals court judge Merrick Garland for a lifetime post on the court. The action had little precedent in U.S. history and prompted some Democrats to accuse Republicans of stealing a Supreme Court seat.

Trump last week vowed to announce his appointment within about two weeks of taking office on Friday. He said he would pick from among 20 candidates suggested by conservative legal groups to fill the lingering vacancy caused by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia last Feb. 13.

Scalia’s replacement could tilt the ideological leaning of the court for years to come, restoring the long-standing conservative majority that disappeared with Scalia’s death just at a time when it appeared liberals would get an upper hand on the bench.

Liberal groups are gearing up for a battle, with the People For the American Way calling the judges on Trump’s list of candidates “very extreme.”

“We’re hearing from Senate Democrats and parallel concern among outside groups that this is going to be a major fight,” said Marge Baker, the group’s executive vice president. “We’ll be arguing that Democrats use every means at their disposal to defeat the nominee. This is going to be ‘all hands on deck,’ using all means at our disposal.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has said it is hard for him to imagine Trump picking a nominee who Democrats could support, and said he would “absolutely” fight to keep the seat vacant rather than let the Senate confirm a Trump nominee deemed to be outside the mainstream.

“We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice,” Schumer told MSNBC on Jan. 3, adding that if the Republicans “don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re going to oppose them tooth and nail.”

Senate Democrats may be in a position to hold up Trump’s selection indefinitely. Senate rules require 60 votes in the 100-seat chamber to overcome a procedural hurdle called a filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. There are 52 Republican senators.

Assuming all 52 back Trump’s nominee, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell either would need to lure eight Democrats to his side or change the rules and ban the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Republicans, then in the minority, complained that their rights had been trampled when Senate Democrats in 2013 voted to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch and judicial nominees beyond the Supreme Court.

‘THIS IS A FIGHT’

Baker said liberals cannot hold their fire for fear that Republicans will use this so-called nuclear option, adding, “At some point you don’t game this out. You say, ‘This is a fight.'”

Other liberal groups urged a more conciliatory approach.

“We’re not predisposed to opposition here,” said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Any nominee will be evaluated, Clarke said, adding that the group is girding for a nominee who is hostile to civil rights.

Trump’s nominee could influence the court on a wide range of issues including abortion, the death penalty, religious rights, presidential powers, gay and transgender rights, federal regulations and others.

Political considerations also hang over the confirmation fight. Democrats and the two independents aligned with them in the Senate will be defending 25 seats in the 2018 elections, while Republicans defend only eight.

Many of those Democratic seats are in Republican-leaning states Trump won in the Nov. 8 election, including West Virginia, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, Michigan and Ohio.

Republicans likely will target these and other Democrats in hopes of coaxing them into backing Trump’s nominee. That means Democratic senators such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Indiana’s Joe Donnelly and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill could face extra pressure not to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

The liberal groups are facing off with well-funded conservative adversaries. The Judicial Crisis Network, for instance, has said it will spend at least $10 million on advertising and grassroots efforts to pressure Senate Democrats to back Trump’s nominee.

Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel, said it would be hypocritical for Democrats to block a vote after arguing the Constitution required the Senate to act on Garland.

“A lot of them (Democrats) spent the last nine months saying there is a constitutional duty to have a vote. I’d find it shocking if they would not carry out what they think their duty is,” Severino said.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said the high level of interest the vacancy has generated among activists, lawyers, students and others makes up for the deep pockets of the other side. “I don’t think we’ll need $10 million given the outcry expressed already,” Aron said.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Illinois man sues police over flag burning arrest

By Timothy Mclaughlin

CHICAGO (Reuters) – An Illinois man is suing members of a local police department alleging his rights were violated when he was arrested last year after he posted photos of himself burning an American flag on social media and they were shared widely, according to court documents.

Bryton Mellott, 22, of Urbana, Illinois, a city around 140 miles (225 km) south of Chicago, set an American flag on fire on July 3 in a friend’s backyard to protest the conditions of many Americans’ lives. He then posted photos to Facebook along with an explanation of his actions, according to court documents filed on Wednesday.

Many states, including Illinois, continue to have flag desecration laws on the books, though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that burning of the flag is protected as an expression of free speech.

The Urbana Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

Mellott’s lawsuit alleges that four Urbana police officers violated his right to free speech and detained him without reason. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Mellott. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

“I am not proud to be an American. In this moment, being proud of my country is to ignore the atrocities committed against people of color, people living in poverty, people who identify as women, and against my own queer community on a daily basis,” Mellott wrote last year in the caption accompanying his photos, according to court documents.

He ended his post, “#ArrestMe.”

By the following morning, the post had been shared widely and attracted numerous comments. An officer from the Urbana Police Department called Mellott and told him to take the post down, according to court documents. Mellott declined to do so, saying it had already been shared many times.

Later in the day, Mellott was arrested by Urbana officers for violating the state’s flag desecration statue. He was detained for around five hours.

However, Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz declined to charge Mellott, citing the Supreme Court rulings, and Mellott was released.

President-elect Donald Trump briefly waded into the debate over flag burning last year, when he said in a message on Twitter that there “must be consequences” for burning the flag. He suggested those who do so face loss of citizenship or jail time.

(Editing by Matthew Lewis)

UK government expects to lose Brexit trigger case, making contingency plans: report

LONDON (Reuters) – The British government expects to lose its legal battle to start the Brexit process without going through parliament, and has drafted versions of a bill to put to lawmakers after the ruling, the Guardian newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next two weeks on whether the government can trigger Article 50 of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, the first formal step toward leaving the bloc, without first getting parliament’s approval.

Citing unnamed sources, the Guardian reported that ministers had privately conceded they were very likely to lose the case, and had drawn up at least two versions of a bill to be presented to parliament after the ruling. [http://bit.ly/2iiL6oP]

The report also said the government had asked the court for early sight of the ruling before it is made public, to allow for contingency planning.

During the Supreme Court hearing in December, government lawyer James Eadie said that if judges ruled parliament had to give its assent to the triggering of Article 50, the solution would be a “one-line” bill.

The Guardian said ministers were hoping the ruling would allow Prime Minister Theresa May to put forward a short bill or motion, narrowly focused on Article 50, to make it difficult for lawmakers to amend.

Those in favor of a clean break with the European Union are concerned that parliament, where a majority of members were in favor of remaining in the bloc, could seek to water down ministers’ plan in pursuit of a so-called “soft Brexit”.

The government’s opponents in the legal battle argued that triggering Article 50 would nullify the 1972 act of parliament that opened the way for Britain to join the EU, and therefore parliament had to give its assent for its act to be undone.

London’s High Court backed that argument, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court, Britain’s highest judicial body, in December.

(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Michael Holden)

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show