Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Transgender Immigrant

to double down and make sure of it.

Lala Kent is sharing her reaction to that explosive  reunion bombshell.Kent sat down with Andy Cohen on  Wednesday following the conclusion of the three-part reunion, where Raquel Leviss revealed the true timeline of her months-long affair with Tom Sandoval.«I'm so confused. It's weird because she goes into a full breakdown.

 reunion was filled with tears, expletive-filled insults and a shocking bombshell that came in the last five minutes of Wednesday night's episode.If you missed the show, ET has got you covered with every word from the explosive last moments of the  reunion, which saw Tom Sandoval and Raquel Leviss reveal the timeline of their months-long affair, confirming suspicions that Sandoval had been cheating on longtime girlfriend Ariana Madix for much longer than both he and Leviss initially admitted to.News of «Scandoval» first broke in March, but this major revelation shows that the drama is far from over.  Six days later, Raquel sat down for her final interview of the season.Producer You ready? Are you OK? You seem like you're in a lot of pain. YeahProducer:Why?I think it's important to me to tell the truth. I think that I've been lying and being so deceitful this entire time that I don't want to lie anymore.

Hours before Bravo is set to air the part three of its much-anticipated Vanderpump Rules Reunion, Lifetime has released a first look image of Ariana Madix in her new Lifetime movie Buying Back My Daughter.

reunion is getting even more explosive.Ahead of the third and final part of the season 10 reunion, which airs Wednesday night, Bravo released the dramatic first seven minutes as Raquel Leviss joins Ariana Madix, Tom Sandoval and the other cast members with Andy Cohen to air out #Scandoval. When Leviss finally joins the rest of the cast onstage, Cohen asks her how she's been doing. «I'm holding up.

As season 10 of Vanderpump Rules winds down, plans for season 11 are officially underway — and might include ghosts of SURvers past.

cheating scandal that keeps on giving isn’t over yet, because the reality show’s producers are teasing another big shocking reveal.Tom Sandoval, 40, notoriously cheated on his girlfriend of nine years, Ariana Madix, 37, with her ex-friend, Raquel Leviss, 28. The news made waves when it came out in March, with the event dubbed “Scandoval.” Ever since, a steady stream of further revelations have arrived about what really happened and who knew about it.

Prince Harry had “no time in his life when he was safe” from unlawful information-gathering, the High Court has heard as part of his case against MGN. Harry is suing MGN for damages, claiming journalists at its titles – which also include the Sunday Mirror and Sunday People – were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called “blagging” or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.

Brandi Glanville is voicing her frustrations with the cast of Vanderpump Rules in an expletive-filled rant.

Raquel Leviss says she wants to come back for another season of, but the fact of the matter is she has no idea if she can stomach it, admitting that her future on the hit Bravo series hangs in the balance.Leviss made the admission in Peacock's extended version of part-two of the season 10 reunion, in which Andy Cohen has a one-on-one interview with the 28-year-old reality star. After asking her a series of questions, Cohen wonders if taking time apart and hitting the pause button is something Tom Sandoval or her parents suggested, but that there's no question it's a lonely time for her amid Scandoval.

Tom Sandoval got off easy during the highly-anticipated reunion special. Part two of the explosive Bravo event aired Wednesday night after being taped back in March. And one particular comment from Sandoval left Lala Kent enraged after the fact.On her Instagram Stories, Kent said she didn't hear the comment Sandoval muttered under his breath during the reunion about the conception of her 2-year-old daughter, Ocean, whom she shares with her ex-fiancé, movie producer Randall Emmett.

 reunion aired Wednesday night, with Andy Cohen and the cast continuing to press Tom Sandoval about his months-long affair with Raquel Leviss.While Leviss did not join the cast until the very end of the episode, she was on-hand in a nearby trailer, where she was watching a live feed of the taping. Leviss was sequestered to the trailer due to her restraining order against Scheana Shay, who she alleged punched her after finding out that Sandoval had cheated on his longtime girlfriend, Ariana Madix, following their joint  appearance in March.The episode sees the group break for lunch, an opportunity Sandoval uses to visit Leviss in her trailer and discuss what's gone down thus far.Sandoval tells Leviss that the group is making them out to be «pathological liars,» a label they both vehemently deny.«I see that, yeah,» Leviss replies.

 reunion continues, so does the drama, with part two of the three-part reunion special seeing Tom Sandoval come undone at the seams. As the cast continues to berate Sandoval for his months-long affair with Raquel Leviss, Sandoval grows increasingly frustrated and makes several attempts to talk to Leviss off-camera. While his is not the only tantrum thrown during the reunion, with James Kennedy already walking off set more than once, fans couldn't help but react to Sandoval nearly bringing filming to a halt after not getting his way.«I'm in a very delicate position right now' LMAO stop #VanderpumpRules,» one viewer tweeted, poking fun at Sandoval's outburst.“I’m in a very delicate position right now” LMAO stop #VanderpumpRules«Scandoval is spiraling out because they won’t allow him to manipulate Raquel away from the cameras.

is taking aim at the show's namesake. On part one of the Bravo series' highly-anticipated reunion special, much of the cast pushed back at Lisa Vanderpump for appearing to side with Tom Sandoval.The first episode of the reunion came amid Scandoval, the fan-made name for the months-long affair Sandoval had with Raquel Leviss during his nine-year-long relationship with Ariana Madix.Vanderpump entered the «much-needed» reunion prepared to «sort it out» and get to the truth, even complimenting Madix's «revenge dress.» Later in the reunion, though, Vanderpump pushed back at a couple of comments Madix made.When host Andy Cohen asked if a lack of intimacy played a role in the deterioration of Madix and Sandoval's relationship, Madix replied, «No, I think he caused the divide in the relationship because he was f**king other people.»Vanderpump noted that «other people» implies more than just Leviss, and Madix insisted, «He's f**ked more than Raquel.»Later, Vanderpump's business relationship with Sandoval came up, and Cohen asked Madix if that continued relationship would cause her to cut off contact with the matriarch.«We just won’t be as close,» Madix said, as a shocked Vanderpump exclaimed, «Hold on a second! What do you expect me to do?»Vanderpump went on to point out her long-term support of Madix, but Madix insisted she'd have a hard time confiding in Vanderpump in the future.

Cynthia Littleton Business Editor Purpose and character. These are now solidly enshrined as the buzzwords of copyright law on the heels of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling earlier this week in the case involving the estate of Andy Warhol and photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The decision at first blush seemed to be a clear-cut win for copyright owners and artists who create original works. But the court’s majority decision, penned with verve by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is already proving divisive among experts on intellectual property rights. It demonstrates the difficulty of setting up hard and fast rules around highly subjective questions, such as when an artistic or literary work is “transformative” of an earlier work and whether its ultimate use is for commercial purposes, or not. The case has been closely watched in part because it’s sure to have implications for the tidal wave of AI-generated art and literary works that are to emerge, and the still-larger wave of litigation likely to follow.

controversial Section 230, the Court ruled that platforms themselves are not guilty simply for affording anyone the means to communicate, much like email and cell phone companies are not at fault if someone dares to send a threatening message or make an incendiary phone call.The ruling also states that “plaintiffs never allege that ISIS used defendants’ platforms to plan or coordinate the Reina attack,” further weakening the case against Twitter and co.Should the case ruling have gone the other way, there was a widespread concern that free expression on the internet would have been in jeopardy. Had the Court vacated Section 230, platforms could be held responsible for every bit of content uploaded to them (which the Supreme Court noted is a staggering amount, citing Statista when referencing that 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube, 347,000 tweets and 510,000 messages are sent on Facebook every minute).Gonzalez v.

plates.”In prior cases, Kagan wrote, the court asked if the “copier” added something new that altered the original with new expression, meaning or message, and when it did so, the work was found to be fair use.“But today’s decision—all the majority’s protestations notwithstanding—leaves our first-factor inquiry in shambles. The majority holds that because Warhol licensed his work to a magazine—as Goldsmith sometimes also did—the first factor goes against him.”The dissent called this a “doctrinal shift” that “will impede new art and music and literature.” “It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge.

Todd Spangler NY Digital Editor The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued unanimous rulings on two cases that could have upended the existing legal-liability shield internet companies have regarding user posts on social media. The decisions left untouched Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. As currently interpreted, Section 230 grants internet companies broad legal protections for user-posted content on their services. The two related cases, which had been appealed to the Supreme Court, threatened to erode the protections of Section 230. In the first case, Twitter v. Taamneh, plaintiffs claimed that Twitter was liable for allegedly “aiding and abetting” an attack in Istanbul by ISIS because Twitter failed to adequately block or remove content promoting terrorism (even though Twitter had no specific knowledge that any particular post furthered a terrorist act). In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that hosting, displaying and recommending videos, without more, is not aiding and abetting terrorism. The court noted that all content is sorted by algorithms and that using content-agnostic recommendation algorithms is insufficient to create liability.

The Supreme Court rejected an effort to hold Twitter and other platforms responsible for “aiding and abetting” terrorism because the extremist groups posted fund-raising and recruiting content on their platforms.

The Supreme Court sided with a photographer in a dispute with the Andy Warhol Foundation over the late artist’s use of her photos as the basis for his own series of portraits of Prince.