South Korea: Lee nominates new chief of Constitutional Court
Seoul: South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on Thursday nominated a former Supreme Court justice as the new chief of the Constitutional Court, the presidential office said.
Former Supreme Court Justice Kim Sang-hwan was picked to replace then acting court chief Moon Hyung-bae, who retired in April.
Lee also tapped Oh Young-joon, the presiding judge of the Seoul High Court, to join the court's nine-member bench, presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik told reporters.
"The nominations mark the new government's first step toward restoring the Constitutional Court," Kang said.
"They aim to end the attempts that had reached a dangerous level to undermine the court, and to further enhance public trust and the independence of its rulings."
The top court was in the spotlight as it upheld the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol in April over his failed martial law bid in December, with some judges facing threats from Yoon's supporters ahead of the ruling.
In addition, Lee nominated Lim Kwang-hyun, a lawmaker from the ruling Democratic Party, as commissioner of the National Tax Service.
Lim formerly served as Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Tax Service and was elected to the National Assembly last year through a proportional representation seat slot. If appointed, Lim would become the first sitting lawmaker to lead the National Tax Service, Yonhap news agency reported.
All such nominees must undergo parliamentary confirmation hearings before they can be formally appointed by the President, but they do not need parliamentary approval to take their posts.
Earlier on June 23, Lee Jae Myung named five-term lawmaker Ahn Gyu-back as Defence Minister, the first time in 64 years that a civilian has been nominated for the post.
Lee's pick of Ahn is seen as carrying out his election pledge to reform the military, a key promise from his presidential campaign to rebuild a nation fractured by the brief imposition of martial law in December last year under his predecessor, the ousted President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The military has come under scrutiny since Yoon deployed troops to the National Assembly when he declared martial law on December 3, allegedly to block lawmakers attempting to stop his brief imposition of martial law decree. Yoon was removed from office in April over the martial law debacle.
Ahn is a veteran politician with the Democratic Party who has mostly served on the defence subcommittee of the National Assembly. If confirmed, he will be the first civilian Defence Minister since 1961, when former President Park Chung-hee seized power through a military coup.
"As the first civilian Defence Minister in 64 years, Ahn is expected to lead and oversee the transformation of the military that was mobilised during the martial law period," Kang said in a press briefing.
Lee also tapped former Vice Foreign Minister Cho Hyun as South Korea's top diplomat, as he announced his picks for 11 Cabinet positions, including ministers for the environment, science and labour, in the latest nominations since he assumed office June 4.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
35 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
First task for Madhya Pradesh minister who stirred Col Qureshi row: Tackle eviction fallout in wildlife sanctuary
In his first public assignment since triggering outrage with his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kunwar Kunwar Vijay Shah has been deputed to Dewas by CM Mohan Yadav to assess the fallout of a controversial eviction drive inside the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary. Shah, who is now being investigated by a Supreme Court-ordered SIT, comprising senior police officers from the state, has been absent from the public eye after an FIR was registered against him for his comments referring to Colonel Qureshi as 'the sister of terrorists' during a public meeting in Mhow on May 11. Later, Shah had apologised thrice and was pulled up by the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Meanwhile, there has been unrest across Khategaon tehsil after the the Forest Department cleared on June 23, what it described as 'illegal encroachments', over 82 hectares of sanctuary land, demolishing kachha dwellings and houses reportedly built by tribal families. Officials claimed due process was followed, including the issuance of notices a month in advance. Tribal rights groups and political leaders have planned protests over the issue. Chief Minister Mohan Yadav said, 'Referring to an incident involving Forest Department action in the Kheoni Wildlife Sanctuary area of Dewas, Minister for Tribal Affairs Shri Kunwar Vijay Shah has been directed to visit the site, assess the situation, and ensure every possible help is extended to the affected families.' Yadav said that the 'Forest Department has also been instructed to avoid any action that may cause inconvenience to people during the monsoon season. All welfare schemes in the state are being implemented following due procedure and ensuring that benefits reach the genuinely needy.' A demonstration had been planned on June 27, and another on June 29 by Jai Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS). According to district officials, approximately 50 families are supposed to receive `20,000 each as compensation, along with a six-month ration supply and one month of cooked meals. Apart from this, housing scheme benefits and construction of a new road in the area were also promised. While tribal communities protested what they called 'arbitrary displacement', several Eco Development Committees held a counter-rally supporting the Forest Department, saying that their livelihoods depended on forest produce like mahua and tendu leaves, which were threatened by the alleged encroachment.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
CJI Gavai Backs Article 370 Abrogation, Says Step Consistent With Ambedkar's Vision
Last Updated: Gavai noted that the Supreme Court was guided by this vision of a unified India under a single constitution when it delivered its verdict on Article 370 Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has endorsed the abrogation of Article 370, stating that the decision is consistent with the vision and ideology of Dr BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. At the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park at Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar School of Law, Nagpur University, on Saturday, CJI Gavai firmly asserted that the idea of a separate constitution for a state was never part of Ambedkar's vision for a unified India. Gavai, a member of the five-judge Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 in December 2023, elaborated on Ambedkar's foundational principles. He highlighted Ambedkar's stance during the drafting of the Constitution, emphasising that 'the country needs only one constitution. The country would be governed by one constitution. If we want to keep the country united, we need only one constitution." Gavai noted that the Supreme Court was guided by this vision of a unified India under a single constitution when it delivered its verdict on Article 370. The Chief Justice also mentioned that Dr Ambedkar had faced criticism for providing what some perceived as 'too much federalism" in the Constitution, raising concerns about the country's unity in times of crisis or war. However, Ambedkar had confidently asserted that the Constitution was designed to address all challenges and would keep the nation united. (With agency inputs) First Published: June 29, 2025, 05:41 IST
