(Reuters) – Here are reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Thursday limiting the federal government’s authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.

U.S. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

“Today’s decision sides with special interests that have waged a long-term campaign to strip away our right to breathe clean air. We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses. The science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – the wildfires, droughts, extreme heat, and intense storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods… I will take action.”

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

“We are reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision. EPA is committed to using the full scope of its existing authorities to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in alignment with the growing clean energy economy.”

WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL PATRICK MORRISEY

“Huge victory against federal overreach and the excesses of the administrative state. This is a HUGE win for West Virginia, our energy jobs and those who care about maintaining separation of powers in our nation.”

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM

“SCOTUS sided with the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping EPA’s basic ability to tackle climate change. CA will lead this fight with our $53.9 BILLION climate commitment. We’ll reduce pollution, protect people from extreme weather & leave the world better off than we found it.”

UNITED NATIONS SPOKESMAN STEPHANE DUJARRIC

“This is a setback in our fight against climate change, when we are already far off-track in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement…. An emergency as global in nature as climate change requires a global response, and the actions of a single nation should not and cannot make or break whether we reach our climate objectives.”

YAMIDE DAGNET, DIRECTOR FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE, OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS

“Backsliding is now the dominant trend in the climate space. To renew confidence in its leadership, the U.S. will need to swiftly pivot and keep its targets on track, while seeking to raise ambition.”

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, U.N. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE AMBITION

“This decision marks the second time in a week that the Supreme Court has turned back the clock to darker days that have dangerous implications for public health. The decision to side with polluters over the public will cost American lives and cause an enormous amount of preventable suffering, with the biggest burden falling on low-income communities and communities of color.”

JODY FREEMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR

“This is a lifeline to extending the use of coal.”

U.S. SENATOR KEVIN CRAMER, NORTH DAKOTA REPUBLICAN

“Today’s ruling reaffirms Congress never intended the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the states.”

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS

“This is an outrageous decision that will jeopardize our communities and planet in favor of polluters and their far-right allies.”

JOHANNA CHAO KREILICK, PRESIDENT, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

“The very agency that the court has recognized is tasked with the obligation to act has been significantly curtailed in so doing. It defies logic and defies common sense… EPA has no choice. It must make do with the authority it retains to quickly advance as robust a set of power plant standards as it can.”

NANCY PELOSI, U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER AND CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT

“This devastating decision is the latest in the efforts by extremist and partisan Republican-appointed Justices to take a wrecking ball to the health, liberty and security of the American people. In just two weeks, the Court has acted to erase reproductive health freedom, flood our public places with more deadly weapons and, now, to let our planet burn.”

SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL, KENTUCKY REPUBLICAN

“Even as energy prices spiral out of control and experts warn of electricity blackouts, the Biden Administration has continued the Left’s war on affordable domestic energy and proposed to saddle the electric power sector with expensive regulatory requirements.”

MATTHEW SAMUDA, JAMAICAN MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION, WHO WORKS ON CLIMATE ACTION

“Refusal to cut these emissions, by any of the individual nations or by the collective, is sentencing the developing world to continued poverty, increased instability, homelessness and potential death…. we appeal to the greatest emitters amongst us to show common humanity.”

JUTTA PAULUS, GERMAN GREEN LAWMAKER IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

“The arch-conservative U.S. Supreme Court has delivered another radical ruling. This time, however, not only citizens of the USA are affected, but the consequences affect the entire world population… Three months before the UN Climate Change Conference in Egypt, this is a serious setback.”

(Reporting by Washington bureau; Editing by Howard Goller)

(Reuters) -AstraZeneca said on Thursday a combination of its cancer drug, Imfinzi, and chemotherapy showed promise in a late-stage trial in patients with an aggressive form of lung cancer, when given before surgery.

Data showed the combination was more effective in removing cancer cells in tissue samples taken during surgery when compared with just chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, the Anglo-Swedish drugmaker said.

The interim result is a boost to the company’s oncology efforts – a major area of focus – following disappointing data for Imfinzi earlier in the year in another area of therapy. (https://reut.rs/3nq1chi)

AstraZeneca added the trial would continue as planned to assess the additional main goal of event-free survival, and the interim data would be shared with health authorities globally.

Imfinzi belongs to the immunotherapy class of treatments, which boost the body’s defences to fight cancer by using antibodies that block or bind to foreign substances in the body. The treatment generated $2.41 billion in 2021 sales.

“Engaging the immune response with Imfinzi both before and after surgery is an exciting new strategy,” said Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of oncology R&D at AstraZeneca.

Non-small cell lung cancer is the most common form of lung cancer, accounting for about 85% of the estimated 2.2 million new cases of the disease diagnosed each year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.

(Reporting by Amna Karimi and Pushkala Aripaka in Bengaluru; Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips and Anil D’Silva)

(Reuters) -Pfizer Inc said on Thursday it is seeking full U.S. approval for its oral COVID-19 antiviral treatment Paxlovid, which is currently available under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Pfizer said it submitted a New Drug Application for Paxlovid to the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19 in vaccinated and unvaccinated people at high risk of progression to severe illness.

That is basically consistent with the drug’s current EUA, which Pfizer said covers 50% to 60% of the U.S. population, citing estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A full approval could mean the company would have the option to sell Paxlovid on the open market like other drugs, depending on whether or not the U.S. government decides to stop buying the drug and providing it for free nationwide.

Also, “the company might have more control over educating the public with commercials, or however they want, to boost uptake,” said Karen Andersen, healthcare strategist at Morningstar.

The two-drug treatment taken for five days beginning shortly after onset of COVID symptoms reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 88% in non-hospitalized, high-risk adult patients in Pfizer’s clinical trial, which did not included vaccinated people.

Data from a study in Israel earlier this month showed Paxlovid reduced COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients 65 years and older, but was not found to prevent severe illness among younger adults.

More than 1.6 million courses of Paxlovid have been administered in the United States, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services.

(Reporting by Michael Erman and Manas MishraEditing by Bill Berkrot and Mark Potter)

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON -On the heels of last week’s landmark ruling expanding individual gun rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out several lower court rulings that had upheld gun restrictions including bans on assault-style rifles in Maryland and large-capacity ammunition magazines in New Jersey and California.

The actions by the justices sent these cases back to lower courts to reconsider in light of their June 23 ruling that declared for the first time a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self defense.

Last week’s 6-3 ruling, with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices in dissent, struck down New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. The court found that the law, enacted in 1913, violated a person’s right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment.

The ruling also clarified how courts must now assess whether regulations are valid under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, requiring them to be comparable with restrictions traditionally adopted throughout U.S. history. Legal experts say – and gun control advocates fear – such a standard could lead courts to invalidate more gun restrictions nationwide.

The justices’ actions on Thursday mean that lower courts that allowed gun restrictions will have to reconsider decisions including one upholding Maryland’s ban on “highly dangerous, military-style assault rifles.”

Maryland enacted its ban after a shooter used such a weapon in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Five other states also ban these weapons, Maryland said in a legal filing.

Assault-type rifles have been a recurring feature in U.S. mass shootings in recent years including the May 24 attack that killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and the May 14 attack that killed 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.

The Maryland plaintiffs sued in 2020 despite conceding that their case was doomed under a 2017 ruling by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld Maryland’s ban. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of that ruling.

Contesting the term “assault weapon” as an inaccurate “political term,” the Maryland plaintiffs said that assault weapons cannot be outright banned because they are in “common use” by millions of law abiding individuals, just like the handguns at issue in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on the firearms in the U.S. capital.

The justices sent back to lower courts other rulings upholding bans in New Jersey and California on firearm magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The challenges in those cases were filed by state affiliates of the National Rifle Association, a gun rights group closely aligned with Republicans.

The Supreme Court also threw out a lower court decision that had upheld Hawaii’s restrictions on openly carrying firearms in public as valid under the Second Amendment.

Gun rights, cherished by many Americans and promised by the country’s 18th century founders, are a contentious issue in a nation with high levels of firearms violence.

Last week’s ruling represented the court’s most important statement on gun rights in more than a decade. The court in 2008 recognized for the first time an individual’s right to keep guns at home for self-defense in a District of Columbia case, and in 2010 applied that right to the states.

President Joe Biden, two days after the court invalidated New York’s gun measure, signed into law last Saturday the first major federal gun reform in three decades.

The new law blocks gun sales to those convicted of abusing unmarried intimate partners and cracks down on gun sales to purchasers convicted of domestic violence. It also provides new federal funding to states that administer “red flag” laws intended to remove guns from people deemed dangerous to themselves and others.

It does not ban sales of assault-style rifles or high-capacity magazines, policies Biden supports. But it does take some steps on background checks by allowing access, for the first time, to information on significant crimes committed by juveniles.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that could give state legislatures far more power over federal elections by limiting the ability of state courts to review their actions, taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.

The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina’s top court to throw out a map delineating the state’s 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the boundaries for the districts were drawn by the legislature in a manner that boosted the electoral chances of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. It rejected Republican arguments seeking to shield legislature-drawn maps from legal attack in state courts.

North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore, a Republican, hailed the high court’s decision to hear the appeal.

“This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide,” Moore said.

Voting rights advocates disagreed.

“In a radical power grab, self-serving politicians want to defy our state’s highest court and impose illegal voting districts upon the people of North Carolina,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause, a voting rights group that is among the plaintiffs challenging the legislature’s map.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to “the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision due by June 2023. The ruling is not expected to come before this November’s elections but could apply to 2024 elections including the presidential race.

Two groups of plaintiffs, including Democratic voters and an environmental group, sued after North Carolina’s legislature passed its version of the congressional map last November. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated the North Carolina state constitution’s provisions concerning free elections and freedom of assembly, among others.

The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map on Feb. 4, concluding that the way the districts were crafted was intentionally biased against Democrats, diluting their “fundamental right to equal voting power.”

A lower state court on Feb. 23 rejected a redrawn map submitted by the legislature and instead adopted a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. According to some redistricting analysts, the new map includes seven Republican districts likely to be won by Republicans, six likely to be won by Democrats and one competitive seat.

NUMEROUS LEGAL BATTLES

The dispute is one of numerous legal battles in the United States over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes measured in a national census, last taken in 2020. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering. Critics have said that such gerrymandering warps democracy.

The North Carolina Republicans’ defense of the legislature’s map relies on a contentious legal theory called the “independent state legislature doctrine” that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase politicians’ control over how elections are conducted.

Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts.

The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the “times, places and manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republican lawmakers decried the “state supreme court’s usurpation of that authority.”

The state’s Department of Justice said in a legal filing that, contrary to the Republican lawmakers’ assertions, North Carolina state law specifically authorizes state courts to review redistricting efforts.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)