Tag: SupremeCourt

Supreme Court Ruling Delays Trump’s Election Interference Trial Until After 2024 Election

Staff ReporterUSA 0

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case significantly decreases the likelihood of him facing trial in Washington before the November election. The court did not dismiss the indictment, as Trump had requested, which alleges that he illegally attempted to retain power after losing to President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, the ruling is a considerable win for Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, who has been aiming to delay legal proceedings until after the election.

The timing of the trial is crucial because if Trump wins the election, he could appoint an attorney general who might seek to dismiss this case and other federal prosecutions against him. Alternatively, Trump could potentially pardon himself. Trump celebrated the ruling on his social media platform, declaring, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

In contrast, President Biden criticized the court’s decision, calling it a “terrible disservice” to the American people, who he believes deserve to know the case’s outcome before voting. Biden stated, “The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior. The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on Jan. 6 makes him unfit for public office.”

The Opinion

The court’s conservative majority ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are generally immune for all official acts. They do not have immunity for private actions. This ruling restricts special counsel Jack Smith from proceeding with major allegations in the indictment or requires him to defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.

For example, the justices nullified Smith’s use of allegations that Trump tried to leverage the Justice Department’s investigative power to reverse the election results, ruling that Trump’s communications with agency officials are clearly protected from prosecution. The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which Trump would be immune.

One key issue for further examination is Trump’s persistent pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The justices stated it is “ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity” in Trump’s interactions with Pence. Additionally, the court ordered further scrutiny of Trump’s posts on X (formerly Twitter) and a speech he delivered to supporters before the Capitol riot, to determine whether they constitute official or unofficial acts.

The Fake Electors Scheme

The justices called for new fact-finding on one of the indictment’s most startling allegations—that Trump participated in a scheme by allies to enlist slates of fraudulent electors in battleground states won by Biden, falsely claiming Trump had won those states. Trump’s team argued that selecting alternate electors was consistent with his presidential interest in election integrity, citing a precedent from the disputed 1876 election. However, Smith’s team portrayed the scheme as a purely private action unrelated to presidential duties.

The conservative majority did not resolve which side was correct, noting that determining the proper characterization of the conduct requires a detailed analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. They stated, “This alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function,” requiring a fact-specific assessment of numerous interactions with state officials and private individuals.

The Dissenters

The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—sharply criticized the majority opinion. Sotomayor, in a dramatic bench dissent, argued that the conservative majority wrongly insulated the U.S. president as “a king above the law.” She stated, “Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them.”

The dissenters warned that the majority decision makes presidents immune from prosecution for actions such as ordering Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival, organizing a military coup, or accepting bribes for pardons. Sotomayor wrote, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

In a separate dissent, Jackson stated that the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground,” declaring, “The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.” The majority accused the liberal justices of “fear mongering” and maintaining a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”

What Comes Next

The case will now return to Judge Chutkan. The trial was initially set to begin in March but has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his appeal. Chutkan had previously indicated she would give the two sides at least three months to prepare for trial once the case returned to her court. This could have allowed the trial to commence before the election if the Supreme Court had ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.

However, the Supreme Court’s directive for further analysis is expected to prolong the case with legal debates over whether the actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.

Trump’s Other Cases

Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York and is scheduled for sentencing on July 11. The charges of falsifying business records carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison, though prison time is not guaranteed, with other potential outcomes including fines or probation.

Trump’s other criminal cases are also unlikely to go to trial before the election. An appeals court recently halted his Georgia 2020 election interference case while reviewing a lower court’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the case. No trial date had been set, and Trump’s lawyers have claimed presidential immunity, though no ruling has been made.

In the case regarding classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon canceled the May trial date due to legal issues. A new trial date has not been set, and Trump’s team has claimed immunity, a stance prosecutors dispute. Cannon recently agreed to revisit a ruling by another judge allowing crucial obstruction of justice evidence to be introduced, causing further delays.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate concurrence suggested that Smith’s appointment was improper, but no other justice supported this view, indicating minimal impact on the Supreme Court’s stance.

Supreme Court Rules on Trump’s Immunity in Election Interference Case

Staff ReporterUSA 0

In a landmark decision on Monday, the Supreme Court determined that former President Trump has presumptive immunity regarding his efforts to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election results by certifying slates of so-called “fake electors” on January 6, 2021.

This ruling was part of the justices’ broader opinion on presidential immunity, which established that core presidential powers are exempt from criminal prosecution. The case will now return to a lower court to determine if Trump’s actions leading up to January 6 qualify for this immunity.

Trump is accused of attempting to “enlist” Pence to “fraudulently alter the election results” in seven pivotal swing states. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that any discussions between the president and vice president about their official responsibilities constitute official conduct. Presiding over the certification of presidential election results is both a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.

Roberts stated, “The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”

However, the chief justice did not definitively rule on whether Trump’s specific actions are immune from criminal prosecution, leaving this determination to the lower courts. Roberts noted, “The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances.”

The lower courts will also need to decide if other allegations against Trump fall under presidential immunity, including his interactions with state officials, private parties, and the general public. Nevertheless, the justices have already concluded that some allegations are directly related to Trump’s official duties and are thus protected by absolute immunity.

Among these allegations is Trump’s purported use of the “power and authority” of the Justice Department to “conduct sham election crime investigations.” It is alleged that he met with the acting attorney general and other senior officials in the DOJ and the White House to discuss these investigations.

Roberts explained that since the executive branch has the “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to determine which crimes to investigate and prosecute, Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for these actions. He wrote, “The President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

In his federal election subversion case, Trump faces four counts and has pleaded not guilty.

Supreme Court Allows Texas Law Targeting Illegal Immigration to Take Effect Despite Dissent

Staff ReporterImmigration, Nation, Nation USA 0

The Supreme Court issued an order on Tuesday permitting a Texas law to be enforced, granting state law enforcement the authority to detain individuals suspected of illegally entering the United States from Mexico. The statute in question, known as S.B. 4, faced dissent from the three liberal justices. Although this decision does not represent a final judgment, it paves the way for the controversial law’s implementation, with the possibility of further legal proceedings.

The Biden administration had advocated for blocking the law, labeling it as an unprecedented intrusion into federal immigration enforcement. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized the inconsistency of S.B. 4 with federal law, asserting that it is preempted in all its applications. The law, signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, criminalizes illegal immigration at the state level, granting authority to local law enforcement for apprehension and potential deportation of individuals suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border unlawfully.

In opposition to the majority’s decision, the liberal justices expressed concern regarding the potential ramifications of enforcing the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the move, citing potential chaos in immigration enforcement. Additionally, Justice Elena Kagan voiced her dissent separately.

Texas defended the law by asserting the state’s constitutional right to self-defense, arguing that the Biden administration had failed to adequately address border security concerns. The state contended that the issues raised should not be within the purview of federal courts, especially considering that state courts have yet to interpret S.B. 4’s provisions.

The White House denounced the Supreme Court’s decision, condemning the law as harmful and unconstitutional. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre highlighted concerns regarding its impact on community safety, law enforcement, and the potential for confusion at the southern border. Jean-Pierre urged congressional Republicans to support a bipartisan Senate border security bill, which has faced opposition from former President Trump and numerous GOP lawmakers.

The ruling elicited alarm from immigration advocates and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who warned of increased racial profiling and civil rights violations. Representative Joaquin Castro criticized the court’s decision, expressing concerns about potential targeting of individuals perceived as immigrants by law enforcement. Immigration groups echoed these concerns, emphasizing the risks to both undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

The legal battle over S.B. 4 now shifts back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Texas’s appeal on the law’s merits is being heard. The court has expedited its review, scheduling oral arguments for April 3, with the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court. Texas has been at the forefront of aggressive immigration enforcement measures, challenging Biden administration policies and implementing its own initiatives under Governor Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.

In previous clashes with the federal government, Texas has faced legal challenges over measures such as installing buoys in the Rio Grande and concertina wire along the border. Despite initial victories, such as the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the cutting of concertina wire, legal battles persist as Texas continues its efforts to exert control over immigration enforcement within its borders.

Trump Urges Supreme Court: Grant Immunity or Risk Future Presidents’ Vulnerability

Staff ReporterNation, Nation USA 0

Former President Donald Trump presented his case to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, warning of potential vulnerabilities for future presidents if the court did not adopt his expansive view of immunity against charges brought forth by special counsel Jack Smith regarding election subversion. Trump argued that failure to accept his stance could open the door to “de facto blackmail and extortion while in office.” However, he also proposed an alternative route to the justices, suggesting a delay in the trial until after the upcoming November election, aligning with his political objectives.

In his latest Supreme Court brief, Trump emphasized the importance of presidential immunity, drawing attention to statements made by Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his nomination to the bench, seemingly appealing to Kavanaugh’s past viewpoints. With oral arguments scheduled for April 25, Trump’s legal team is vigorously advocating for his immunity stance, aiming to avoid immediate legal proceedings.

Should the Supreme Court be unwilling to grant full immunity, Trump urged them to remand the case to lower courts for further consideration, potentially prolonging the trial for several months. This alternative route could offer a compromise for the conservative majority of the court, providing a means to delay without endorsing a blanket immunity for former presidents.

The brief underscored the uncharted legal territory the court faces and the significant implications its decision will have for future presidents. Trump’s attorneys argued that denying immunity could set a precedent that threatens the integrity of the presidency itself, asserting, “That would be the end of the Presidency as we know it and would irreparably damage our Republic.”

Trump’s legal strategy also includes references to Kavanaugh’s past writings, particularly regarding the impact of criminal investigations on sitting presidents. While Kavanaugh’s previous statements focused on current presidents, Trump’s lawyers contend that the logic extends to former presidents awaiting potential investigations post-office.

Trump pointed out Kavanaugh’s observations on the inherently political nature of decisions regarding presidential prosecution, emphasizing that this principle applies even more strongly to a former president who is also a leading candidate in the upcoming election. By weaving Kavanaugh’s past experiences and opinions into his arguments, Trump seeks to bolster his case for immunity before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Directs Full Disclosure on Electoral Bonds: SBI Ordered to Reveal All Details Including Alphanumeric Codes

Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Nation, Nation India 0

The Supreme Court instructed the State Bank of India (SBI) on Monday to reveal all information regarding electoral bonds purchased or redeemed after its April 12, 2019 interim order. The court, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, emphasized the necessity for comprehensive disclosure, including the disclosure of unique alphanumeric codes, to facilitate matching donors with recipients. The Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, directed SBI to submit an affidavit on compliance by March 21.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the bank’s selective disclosure practices, insisting that all pertinent details must be revealed without exception. It emphasized that disclosure encompasses the alphanumeric and serial numbers of bonds purchased and redeemed. However, the request to disclose codes of bonds transacted before the April 12, 2019 interim order was declined.

The Bench further instructed the SBI Chairman and Managing Director to affirm, by March 21, that the bank has disclosed all pertinent electoral bond details and has withheld no information. It referred to previous orders mandating the submission of purchase details, including dates, purchaser names, and bond denominations, alongside details of bonds encashed by political parties.

In light of the court’s decision to strike down the electoral bond scheme on February 15, 2024, it stressed the significance of complete disclosure by SBI, covering both purchases and contributions received by political parties.

The court also directed the Election Commission to promptly upload the information provided by SBI, reiterating the bank’s obligation to disclose all details without delay or selectivity.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed disappointment with SBI’s approach, emphasizing that the court’s directive encompassed the disclosure of all details, including bond numbers. He criticized the bank’s selective disclosure, urging it to comply fully with the court’s orders without waiting for further directives.

The Chief Justice questioned SBI’s reluctance to disclose certain details, asserting that the court’s orders were clear and inclusive. He emphasized that the bank’s compliance should be unequivocal, guided solely by its duty to adhere to the court’s directives.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing SBI, assured the court of the bank’s willingness to provide all required information. He sought to clarify the bank’s interpretation of previous court orders and judgments, emphasizing the distinction between political parties’ obligations and the bank’s responsibilities.

Salve explained that the interim order of April 2019 pertained to political parties’ disclosure obligations, not the bank’s obligation to reveal bond numbers. He emphasized the bank’s commitment to transparency while acknowledging the perception that SBI was withholding information.

Responding to concerns raised by the court, Salve affirmed the bank’s readiness to disclose all information, including bond numbers, to dispel any doubts regarding its transparency and compliance.

The court reiterated its expectation of full disclosure from SBI, emphasizing the need for clarity and finality in the matter. It urged the bank to take proactive steps to address any perceptions of non-compliance and ensure complete transparency.

Despite arguments from Advocate Prashant Bhushan to extend the disclosure timeline, the court upheld the April 12, 2019 interim order as the cutoff date for disclosure. It emphasized the need to strike a balance and maintain consistency in its decisions.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its directive for SBI to disclose all details pertaining to electoral bonds purchased or redeemed after April 12, 2019, underscoring the importance of transparency and compliance with its orders.

Medical Experts Urge Supreme Court Action to Combat Vaccine Misinformation

Staff ReporterHealth, USA 0

Vaccines play a vital role in saving lives, preventing diseases, and easing the strain on healthcare systems. Recognizing this, various medical organizations, including the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians, and American Geriatrics Society, have jointly submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Murthy v. Missouri. This document emphasizes the crucial need to counter vaccine misinformation to safeguard public health.

The brief highlights the collective experience of hundreds of thousands of medical professionals who have witnessed both the life-saving potential of vaccines and the damaging impact of misinformation. Drawing on decades of research and practice, these organizations stress the unparalleled benefits of vaccines as a cornerstone of public health.

On the legal front, Missouri and Louisiana’s attorneys general have filed suits against social media platforms, alleging coercion in censoring individuals critical of COVID-19 policies, masks, and vaccine mandates. Conversely, the Biden administration argues that its engagement with these platforms aimed to curb online misinformation, particularly by flagging content violating platform policies.

A central point of the brief is the detrimental effect of misinformation on COVID-19 vaccine uptake, which undermines the vaccines’ effectiveness in saving lives and controlling the spread of the virus. The government’s intervention, therefore, becomes imperative in combating falsehoods that endanger public health.

The brief underscores the safety of FDA-approved vaccines, emphasizing the rigorous process of clinical trials and ongoing monitoring by regulatory agencies. In contrast, it highlights baseless claims circulating widely, such as individuals becoming “magnetized” post-vaccination or being implanted with tracking microchips, which lack credible evidence.

Moreover, the decline in vaccination rates due to misinformation has led to the resurgence of diseases like measles, once on the brink of eradication. Legal proceedings surrounding the case have seen a district court ruling in July 2023 limiting governmental communication with social media companies, partially upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s intervention in October temporarily halted the district court order until its own ruling, expected in June.

In a related case, the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies has filed an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the upholding of a permanent injunction against a 2021 Montana law barring physicians from accessing vaccination status information of employees or patients who decline to disclose it.

Colorado Secretary of State Certifies 2024 Presidential Primary Ballots Amidst Supreme Court Controversy

Staff ReporterNation, Nation USA 0

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold revealed on Friday that she had officially certified the Republican and Democrat ballots for the 2024 presidential primary election. In a statement, Griswold announced, “Colorado’s 2024 Presidential primary ballot is certified. The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result.”

The certification process ensures that voters affiliated with a major party, either Republican or Democrat, by Feb. 12 will receive a ballot from the party with which they are associated. Unaffiliated voters, on the other hand, will receive ballots from both parties but are allowed to cast their vote on only one, which will be counted.

This development comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to review a contentious ruling from Colorado’s highest court. The state court had declared Trump ineligible for the presidency, intending to exclude him from the primary ballot. This legal clash holds significant implications for the 2024 presidential election, prompting the Supreme Court to set a swift schedule for filings and schedule arguments for Feb. 8, with a potential decision shortly thereafter.

At the heart of the dispute lies the Constitution’s insurrection clause, a provision dating back to the Civil War era. This clause prohibits individuals who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and subsequently engaged in insurrection from holding public office.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a divided 4-3 decision on Dec. 19, concluded that Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol disqualified him from serving as president. Consequently, they barred him from being listed on the state’s primary ballot. However, the state court temporarily halted its decision, allowing Trump and the Colorado GOP time to appeal.

Regarding the certification, Griswold stated, “The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result.” This underscores the critical role the Supreme Court’s review will play in shaping the lineup of candidates for the 2024 Colorado presidential primary.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office provided additional information about the candidates who have submitted a statement of intent and filing fee to appear on the Colorado Presidential Primary Ballot. The Democratic Party candidates, in ballot order, include Jason Michael Palmer, Gabriel Cornejo, Frankie Lozada, Dean Phillips, Stephen P Lyons, Marianne Williamson, Joseph R Biden Jr, and Armando “Mando” Perez-Serrato, along with a “Noncommitted Delegate.”

The Republican Party candidates, listed in ballot order, are Vivek Ramaswamy, Asa Hutchinson, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Ryan L Binkley, and Donald J. Trump. Additionally, there are Republican write-in candidates Rachel Hannah “Mohawk” Swift and Walter Iwachiw.

The Colorado Democratic Party has also submitted a request for a “Noncommitted Delegate” to appear on the 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot under the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes 1-4-1204(3). This allows electors with no presidential candidate preference to register a vote for a noncommitted delegate to the political party’s national convention.

As the legal battle unfolds, important dates for the 2024 Presidential Primary Election in Colorado include the deadline to send ballots to registered military and overseas voters on January 20. February 12 marks the first day ballots can be mailed to registered Colorado voters (excluding military and overseas voters) and the last day for voters to change or withdraw their party affiliation to participate in a different party’s Presidential Primary.

February 16 is the deadline for mail ballots to be sent to registered eligible voters, and by February 26, the minimum number of required Voter Service and Polling Centers (VSPCs) must be open. The same day also serves as the deadline to submit an application to register to vote through various channels, including online, to receive a mail ballot. February 26 is also the last suggested day to return ballots by mail.

On February 27, the minimum number of required drop boxes must be open to accept mail ballots statewide, and it is suggested that voters submit their ballots at Voting Centers or drop boxes rather than by mail. Finally, March 5 is Election Day, and eligible voters must have submitted their ballot or be in line to vote by 7 p.m. for their ballot to be counted.

These dates and procedures are crucial for ensuring a smooth and fair electoral process, with the Supreme Court’s decision looming large over the entire 2024 presidential primary landscape in Colorado. The outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact the list of candidates that voters will find on their ballots come March 5.

-+=