ReportWire

Tag: SCOTUS

  • Justices strike down law Trump used to impose wide tariffs

    [ad_1]

    In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs on his own, blocking the primary tool he’s been using to reshape the U.S. and global economy.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that “when Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither in IEEPA.”

    Trump had justified his most far-reaching assertions of tariff power by citing IEEPA, a 1977 law that allows tariffs on all imports during an “unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

    Trump will still be able to levy tariffs using other laws, but these generally require more complicated processes. 

    “Trump cannot raise tariffs on his own, anywhere he pleases, any longer — that’s the biggest takeaway from SCOTUS this morning,” Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist who specializes in trade policy, said Feb. 20. Trump can still pursue his America First agenda, Burkhart said, but “he just has to convince more audiences of the national security threat than just himself and his advisors.”

    The court’s decision would seem to end: the minimum 10% tariff Trump levied on most trading partners during his April 2025 “Liberation Day” announcement; higher rates that Trump misleadingly described as “reciprocal” tariffs for certain trading partners; the tariffs linked to drug trafficking on Canada, Mexico and China; and many of the tariffs placed on China, experts said.

    These tariffs have been the main drivers of Trump’s second term increases in tariff revenues. ​​Since January 2025, the U.S. has seen an increase over the existing tariff baseline of $223.5 billion.

    Still in play for the administration would be other types of tariffs, including:

    • Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs when the president determines that a foreign country “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce” through violations of trade agreements;

    • Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which lets the president impose tariffs if national security is threatened. Trump and President Joe Biden used Section 232 as the basis for steel and aluminum tariffs imposed since 2018;

    • Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges, quotas, or a combination;

    • Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, which authorizes tariffs of up to 50% if a country “discriminates” against U.S. commerce.

    “Even without IEEPA, the president retains ample statutory authority to quickly recreate much of the current trade policy chaos,” wrote the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank skeptical of Trump’s tariff policy.

    Trump learned of the decision during a meeting with governors at the White House, The New York Times reported. Citing two people familiar with the proceedings, the Times reported that Trump called the decision a “disgrace” and left the meeting early.

    The Constitution says Congress holds the power to impose tariffs, not the president. However, over the years, Congress has passed multiple laws ceding some of that power to the president. 

    One of those was IEEPA, but small businesses challenged that position in court, making two key arguments. They contended that the law doesn’t explicitly let the president impose tariffs. And they argued that the tariffs didn’t rise to the level of an “unusual and extraordinary” emergency. The plaintiffs succeeded at the trial and appeals level, and now have convinced the Supreme Court as well.

    Left unclear are how and when the billions in tariffs collected will be refunded; in the dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote that this process “is likely” to be a “mess.”  

    RELATED: Year of the Lies: Farmer says some Trump tariff statements ‘as far from the truth as you can get’

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs – KXL

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is pictured, Oct. 7, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

    The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.

    It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

    The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

    Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

    “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent.

    The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up for refunds in court, and Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.

    “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.

    The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.

    The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

    The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

    Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.

    A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.

    The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

    The economic impact of Trump’s tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Jon Eric Smith

    Source link

  • Can states ban transgender athletes from school sports? Supreme Court takes up cases

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday that address whether state laws restricting transgender women and girls from participating in sports are constitutional. The first case involves 25-year-old Lindsay Hecox who transitioned from male to female and sued over Idaho’s ban to try out for the women’s track and cross country teams at Boise State University. She did not make either team and is no longer looking to do so, but competed in club-level soccer and running while she studied in Idaho. The second case centers around 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson. She has been taking puberty-blocking medication, has identified as a girl since age 8, and was issued a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female. Pepper-Jackson is the only transgender person who has attempted to compete in girls’ sports in West Virginia. The lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of the transgender athletes who challenged the state bans. More than two dozen Republican-led states, including Idaho and West Virginia, have enacted bans on transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams. Today, the mainly conservative justices are expected to focus on whether these sports bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. A decision in both cases is expected to be released by early summer. In the past year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth and allowed restrictions on transgender people to be enforced. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday that address whether state laws restricting transgender women and girls from participating in sports are constitutional.

    The first case involves 25-year-old Lindsay Hecox who transitioned from male to female and sued over Idaho’s ban to try out for the women’s track and cross country teams at Boise State University.

    She did not make either team and is no longer looking to do so, but competed in club-level soccer and running while she studied in Idaho.

    The second case centers around 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson. She has been taking puberty-blocking medication, has identified as a girl since age 8, and was issued a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female.

    Pepper-Jackson is the only transgender person who has attempted to compete in girls’ sports in West Virginia.

    The lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of the transgender athletes who challenged the state bans.

    More than two dozen Republican-led states, including Idaho and West Virginia, have enacted bans on transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams.

    Today, the mainly conservative justices are expected to focus on whether these sports bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

    A decision in both cases is expected to be released by early summer.

    In the past year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth and allowed restrictions on transgender people to be enforced.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After legal setbacks, Trump says he’s dropping National Guard push in Chicago, other cities, for now

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO — President Donald Trump said he’s dropping – for now – his push to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, a move that comes after legal roadblocks hung up the effort.

    Trump said in a social media post Wednesday that he’s removing the Guard troops for now. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” he wrote.

    Troops had already left Los Angeles after the president deployed them earlier this year as part of a broader crackdown on crime and immigration. They had been sent to Chicago and Portland but were never on the streets as legal challenges played out.

    The video in the player above is from a previous report.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    The Supreme Court earlier this month refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.

    The justices declined the Republican administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act.

    Three justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – publicly dissented.

    The high court order is not a final ruling but it could affect other lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.

    “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the decision to keep the Chicago deployment blocked, but would have left the president more latitude to deploy troops in possible future scenarios.

    “The Supreme Court essentially has said two things here. It said that the president can federalize deploy the National Guard, but only if the U.S. military has the authority to enforce the laws in question in the first place and otherwise is unable to enforce them. And the Supreme Court is saying these are not the kinds of laws that the U.S. military is generally authorized to enforce,” said ABC7 Chief Legal Analyst Gill Soffer.

    The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. The conservative-dominated court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

    Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded the decision as a win for the state and country.

    “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets,” he said.

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, on the other hand, said the president had activated the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property from “violent rioters.”

    “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public,” she said.

    Alito and Thomas said in their dissent that the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration needed the troops to enforce immigration laws. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.

    The administration had initially sought the order to allow the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas, but the Texas contingent of about 200 National Guard troops was later sent home from Chicago.

    The Trump administration has argued that the troops are needed “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    But Perry wrote that she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois and no reason to believe the protests there had gotten in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Perry had initially blocked the deployment for two weeks. But in October, she extended the order indefinitely while the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.

    Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters and said four officers were injured outside the Broadview facility. Local authorities made the arrests.

    The Illinois case is just one of several legal battles over National Guard deployments.

    “Every one of these cases, when they come down, can have an impact on other cases, even if they’re not technically binding in another jurisdiction on a different set of facts. And they’re usually not. Nevertheless, the principles behind them will apply. And since this is the Supreme Court ruling here, it’s very consequential. And other courts are going to have to follow its lead,” Soffer said.

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul says the court’s ruling could affect other lawsuits challenging the president’s attempt to deploy the military in other Democrat-led cities.

    “We went first before the Supreme Court on this. And so this is an important case not only for the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois, but for the country at large,” Raoul said.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is suing to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen in the nation’s capital. Forty-five states have entered filings in federal court in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

    More than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in Washington, although the crime emergency Trump declared in August ended a month later.

    A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there, and all 200 troops from California were being sent home from Oregon, an official said.

    A state court in Tennessee ruled in favor of Democratic officials who sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis, which Trump has called a replica of his crackdown on Washington, D.C.

    In California, a judge in September said deployment in the Los Angeles area was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained, and the judge did not order them to leave.

    The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon rulings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    “There’s really no reason to think the government is going to throw up its hands. This is a preliminary ruling. It doesn’t dispose of the case. The government will continue to work this out, I’m sure. Or fight it out on appeal and work its way through the system,” Soffer said.

    The Defense department says outside of Illinois, the president has deployed Guard members to Tennessee, Oregon, California and the nation’s capital. But troops are only actively on the streets in Memphis, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker issued a statement on the ruling, saying, “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy. I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.

    American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets. The brave men and women of our National Guard should never be used for political theater and deserve to be with their families and communities, especially during the holidays, and ready to serve overseas or at home when called upon during times of immense need.

    While we welcome this ruling, we also are clear-eyed that the Trump Administration’s pursuit for unchecked power is continuing across the country. Illinois will remain vigilant, defend the rights of our people, and stand up to further abuses of authority by Donald Trump and his cronies.”

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson issued a statement, saying, “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a statement, saying, “We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling to block the deployment of National Guard personnel to the streets of Chicago, rebuking President Trump’s attempts to militarize and demonize our city.

    I’ve maintained that these threats are unconstitutional from the very beginning. I am encouraged that the Supreme Court shares this view.

    This decision doesn’t just protect Chicago-but protect cities around the country who have been threatened by Trump’s campaign against immigrants and Democratic-led cities.

    We moved swiftly to challenge any deployment in court the moment the president first made his threats. My administration will maintain our commitment to protecting Chicagoans from federal overreach and continue to ensure Donald Trump is held accountable before the law.”

    A Department of Justice spokesperson issued a statement, saying, “The National Guard has been instrumental in President Trump’s historic efforts to reduce crime and protect federal law enforcement as they execute their duties. This Department of Justice remains committed to enforcing our criminal laws and reversing the prior administration’s trend of crime and decline in America’s major cities.”

    Illinois state Rep. and Chairman of the Illinois Freedom Caucus Chris Miller told ABC7 in a statement, “The only people the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of today are illegal immigrants and criminals. JB Pritzker and the Democrats have allowed crime and illegal immigration to rob our citizens of their safety, and their tax dollars. The federal government should intervene by any means necessary. In light of the Christmas season, I would be glad to gift the ‘Republican’ justices in favor of this decision with a spine. I’m sure Santa can get it there by December 25th!”

    Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this story.

    ABC7’s Cate Cauguiran contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to Review Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is looking to consider the executive order that lower courts have blocked as unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court is set to meet in private on Friday with the Trump Administration’s Birthright Citizenship order on the agenda.

    The debate on Birthright Citizenship centers on children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily and how that determines the child’s citizenship status. Currently, if a child is born in the United States, then they, with rare exceptions, become an American citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. Trump wants to get rid of this rule.

    So far, the order to strike down the rule has been blocked by lower courts across the US. But if the Supreme Court decides to step in now, the case will be argued in the spring and bring a definitive ruling by early summer.

    The Birthright Citizenship order was signed by Trump on his first day of his second term in the white house. As a part of his greater plans for immigration, like increased immigration enforcement in several cities, and the first peacetime usage of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.

    It’s hard to say what the high court may say about this issue, because there has been a mixed bag of responses to Trump’s immigration related orders. They stopped the usage of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without court hearings. But they have allowed the resumption of sweeping immigration stops in and around Los Angeles. An order that was originally stopped by a lower court on the practice of stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location.

    This is the first of the Trump Administration-related immigration policies to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling. Lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. If the order passes, then it would contradict more than 125 years of how the U.S. interprets the 14th Amendment. A part of the Constitution that confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil.

    [ad_2]

    Tara Nguyen

    Source link

  • Same-Sex Marriage Precedent Faces New Supreme Court Test – LAmag

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear a case that could challenge Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide

    As people gathered outside the Supreme Court to protest today, inside the Justices reviewed a case that could threaten the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges decision that legalized same sex marriage.  Taking place in a closed-door conference, which takes place yearly at this time, the Supreme Court is determining which appeals the Court will hear in the coming months. The decisions from today could be known as soon as Monday and could be held off as long as a couple of weeks. 

    The case in question is from 2015, regarding a former county clerk, Kim Davis, in Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As the sole authority over issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government in Rowan County, she was thrown in court for several days for violating a court order. Davis made multiple requests of the court, including protection from liability and a request to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis cited her religious beliefs as justifiable reasons to withhold the marriage licenses. She was sued by David Ermold and David Moore for this decision, and the jury awarded the couple $100,000 in emotional damages as well as $260,000 in legal fees. Davis’s request specifically asks the court to overturn the lower court order for damages, as she believes the First Amendment’s religious protections should shield her from legal liability.

    Her petition stated that “anything less would leave the First Amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time”. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, explaining as Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, the judges ruled she was not entitled to First Amendment protections. The judges went further to say, “When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the Constitution must win out”. It is also important to note that three years ago, Congress passed a federal law protecting same-sex and interracial marriage with bipartisan support. 

    In regard to Obergefell v. Hodges, it is possible that the court could take up the religion question without considering overturning the case despite Davis’s request. However, the Supreme Court has undergone massive change since 2015, with a now 6-3 conservative majority leaving the case vulnerable. Justice Clarence Thomas has made his position clear as he urged his colleagues to “reconsider” Obergefell v. Hodges in his opinion on the case that overturned Roe v. Wade due to the similarities in reasoning between the two cases.

    Justices Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito were dissenters in the 2015 case and remain on the Supreme Court today. Despite Justice Alito’s belief that Obergefell is inconsistent with originalist legal philosophy, he stated, “I am not suggesting that the decision in this case should be overruled… Obergefell is a precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis”. Additionally, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh have publicly signaled that they don’t believe same-sex marriage rights should be rolled back. 

    The Supreme Court considers whether Americans have become dependent on a decision when they weigh the possibility of overturning a precedent, and unlike abortion, this is true for same-sex marriage, as this includes child custody and financial planning, as about 600,000 same-sex couples were married after 2015, and around 300,000 children are being raised in these families. A sentiment echoed in Ermold and Moore’s brief “Overruling Obergefell could call into question the constitutional status of existing same-sex marriages and disrupt the lives of those who aspire to, plan their affairs around and benefit from same-sex marriage”. However, it can be countered that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions”, a precedent put into place by the Dobb’s case which overruled Roe v Wade. 

    Although many are hopeful that the Court will not take up Davis’s request to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, it may entice other officials to break laws they do not support in an effort to take the case to the Supreme Court. Already, at least 9 states have introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or have passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity. Just last month, Texas put in place rules allowing judges statewide to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples, if it would violate their religious beliefs. 

    Scroll to continue reading

    With the Supreme Court receiving 5000-7000 requests to consider cases a term, but only hearing oral arguments from 80 and issuing orders to just another 100, it is entirely possible that this case will be denied. Justices typically consider cases at each conference and tend to consider cases at multiple conferences before ever reaching a decision, so it is undetermined when we will hear about their choice.

    [ad_2]

    Taylor Ford

    Source link

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ‘s administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

    The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

    Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

    The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

    Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

    “The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

    Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

    “This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

    Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

    In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

    While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

    But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.

    The administration is appealing two cases.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

    Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

    Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

    The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Urgent Prop 3 community town hall will feature discussion about marriage equality with local LGBTQ+ leaders 

    Urgent Prop 3 community town hall will feature discussion about marriage equality with local LGBTQ+ leaders 

    [ad_1]

    Los Angeles Council District 14 (CD-14) candidates Ysabel Jurado and Kevin de León sparred over their qualifications in what could have been their last in-person debate before the November election. 

    Wednesday’s CD-14 debate, a district home to approximately 265,000 people, 70% of them Latin American, offered the public a chance to hear from both candidates and their stand on issues such as homelessness, public safety and affordable housing, among other things. 

    CALÓ News was one of the media outlets that were present inside Dolores Mission Catholic Church in Boyle Heights, where the debate was held. Below are our reporter’s main takeaways.  

    People showed up and showed out. More than 300 people attended the debate, which was organized by Boyle Heights Beat and Proyecto Pastoral. More than 260 people gathered inside the church and the rest watched via a livestream projected on the church’s patio. 

    The debate was bilingual, with translation services available for all, honoring the many Spanish speakers that live in the district, as Brendan P. Busse, pastor of the church, said in the opening statement. 

    As part of the event guidelines, Busse also shared that no applause or booing was to be permitted, a rule that was broken within the first ten minutes of the forum. “Where you are tonight is a sacred place. People who are in need of shelter sleep here and have for the last 40 years,” he said when referring to the church transforming into a homeless shelter at night for over 30 adults. “Power and peace can live in the same place.”

    That was the most peaceful and serene moment throughout the two-hour forum. 

    What followed was traded insults and competing visions from both candidates. 

    One of the first stabs occurred when De León accused Jurado of wanting to “abolish the police” and when Jurado reminded the public of De Leon’s “racist rhetoric,” referring to the 2022 scandal over the secretly recorded conversation with Gil Cedillo and Nury Martínez where they talked about indigenous Mexicans, Oaxacans, the Black and LGBTQ+ communities and councilman Mike Bonin’s adopted son.

    “I made a mistake, and I took responsibility. I have been apologizing for two years,” De León said. “Just as in the traditions of the Jesuits, love, reconciliation [and] peace, one must choose if we are going to be clinging to the past or move forward. I choose to move forward.” 

    When Jurado was asked about her stance on police, she said she had never said she wanted to abolish the police. “Don’t put words in my mouth,” she told De León. “I have never said that,” she said. “We put so much money into public safety into the LAPD yet street business owners and residents in these communities do not feel safer. The safest cities invest in communities, in recreation and parks, in libraries [and] youth development.”  

    De León and Jurado also discussed their plan to work with the homeless population, specifically during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles County, an estimated 75,312 people were experiencing homelessness, as stated in the 2024 homeless count. For CD-14 the issue of homelessness takes a higher level as it is home to Skid Row, which has one of the largest homeless populations in the U.S. 

    “We should continue to house our unhoused,” De León said. 

    He followed this by saying that under his leadership, CD-14 has built the most interim housing than “in any other place in the entire city of L.A.” He made a reference to the Boyle Heights Tiny Home Village and 1904 Bailey, both housing projects in CD-14. 

    “We need safety when the Olympics come,” he added. 

    Jurado said De León’s leadership has fallen short in his years in office, specifically when it comes to the homeless population and said that housing like the tiny homes is not sufficient for people in the district to live comfortably.

    “My opponent has governed this district, Skid Row, for over 20 years. Has homelessness in this district gotten better? We can all agree that it hasn’t,” she said. “County Supervisor Hilda Solís put up 200 units that are not just sheds; they have bathrooms, they have places and they have support services. Why hasn’t [CD-14] gotten something better than these tiny homes?”

    One of De León’s repeating arguments in various of his answers was the fact that Jurado has never held public office before. “I’ve dedicated my whole life to public service, to the benefit of our people. My opponent, to this day, has not done one single thing,” De León said in the first few minutes of the debate. 

    In one of the questions about low-income elders in the district, he listed some of his achievements when helping this population, including bringing free vaccines for pets of seniors of this district and food distributions, which, as De León noted, help people with basic food needs, including beans, rice and chicken. “The same chicken sold in Whole Foods,” he said.

    Jurado defended herself against the reality of never holding public office and said her work as a housing rights attorney and affordable housing activist have given her the tools and experience to lead the district in a different direction than the incumbent, De León.  “We can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results,” Jurado said. ‘We need long-term solutions,” she said. 

    Last month, The L.A. Times also reported on Jurado’s past political experience, including working on John Choi’s unsuccessful 2013 run for City Council, as well as her work as a scheduler in Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office and how she was appointed by Garcetti to the Human Relations Commission in 2021.

    She later added that she was proud to already have the support of some of the L.A. City Council members, such as Eunisses Hernández, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto-Martínez, which De León later referred to as the “socialist council members.” 

    After the debate, CALÓ News talked to both candidates and asked how they thought the debate went. 

    “It was a spirited debate, no question about it,” De León said. “Sometimes elections can take a real ugly twist that is very similar to Trump-ian characteristics. Like Donald Trump just says whatever he wants to say, no matter how outlandish [or] inaccurate it is.”

    When asked the same question, Jurado said, “ I think my opponent said a bunch of lies and said that he has plans for this district when he’s had four years to execute all of them. It’s really disappointing that only now he suddenly has all these ideas and plans for this district.”

    Both candidates told CALÓ News they will continue working until election day and making sure CD-14 residents show up to vote. 

    “But I think past the debate[s], it’s just [about] keeping your nose to [the] grindstone, working hard, and taking nothing for granted, knocking on those doors and talking directly to voters,” De León said. 

    Jurado said she still has a couple other events that she and her team are hosting before election day. “I’m out here talking to voters. We want to make sure that people know who I am and that they have other options. People are disappointed. We’re going to keep folks engaged and make sure that [they] turn out to the polls,” she said.

    Jorge Ramírez, 63, from Lincoln Heights, said he has been supporting De León since his time in the State Senate and said he will continue to vote for him because he doesn’t know much about his opponent. “He is the type of person we need. He’s done a lot for immigrants,” he said. “The other person, we don’t know much about her and she’s not very well known. She doesn’t have much experience in this field.”

    Alejandra Sánchez, whose daughter goes to school in Boyle Heights and lives in El Sereno, said she believes CD-14 has been in desperate need of new leadership and worries that many people will vote for De Leon just because he is who they have known for so long. “It’s very powerful to see a woman leader step in… It’s been an incredible year to see a woman president elected in Mexico, a woman running for president in the U.S. and a woman also running for leadership here in our community,’ she said. “That’s part of the problem… we are afraid to think about something new, about the new leadership of someone doing things differently.”

    General election day will take place on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. Early voting began on October 7. You can register to vote or check your registration status online on the California Online Voter Registration page.

    [ad_2]

    The Los Angeles Blade Editorial Board

    Source link

  • President Joe Biden proposes major reforms for Supreme Court

    President Joe Biden proposes major reforms for Supreme Court

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden is advocating for significant reforms to the United States Supreme Court, following a series of landmark decisions and controversies involving several justices and their spouses.In remarks from the LBJ Presidential Library on Monday, Biden said the court is being used to weaponize an extreme agenda, and, in recent years, extreme opinions have undermined long-established civil rights protections. “In 2022, the court overruled Roe v. Wade, and the right to choose that had been the law of the land for 50 years,” Biden said, “The following year the same court eviscerated affirmative action, which had been upheld and reaffirmed for nearly 50 years as well.”Under Biden’s proposal, each justice would be limited to one 18-year active term, with the current president appointing a new justice every two years. Biden is also asking for an enforceable code of ethics that would require justices to disclose gifts and to recuse themselves when they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. Finally, Biden is asking Congress to start work on a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity, stating that no former president is above the law. “We need these reforms to restore trust in the courts. To preserve the system of checks and balances that are vital to our democracy,” Biden said.Biden’s call comes as trust in the high court is dropping among Americans. A June poll from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that seven in 10 Americans think justices are influenced by ideology. Four in 10 say they have hardly any confidence in the people running the Supreme Court. “I think we’ll have a problem if we don’t do something about Supreme Court ethics,” said Alan Morrison, an Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School.”It would be constitutional to do it by statute, but I do not think that’s a good idea,” Morrison went on to say. “If it’s done by statute, it can be undone by statute.” Accomplishing any reforms will prove challenging, with Republicans already pushing back on the plan. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the proposal would “tilt the balance of power,” and is “dead on arrival.””Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the court’s recent decisions,” Johnson said.The party split in Congress is not the only reason Morrison believes the plan is unlikely to move forward anytime soon. “That has to go through not only two-thirds of both Houses but also three-quarters of the states. It’ll be a long time coming,” Morrison said. Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito would be the first three justices who could potentially be affected by term limits.

    AUSTIN, Texas —

    President Joe Biden is advocating for significant reforms to the United States Supreme Court, following a series of landmark decisions and controversies involving several justices and their spouses.

    In remarks from the LBJ Presidential Library on Monday, Biden said the court is being used to weaponize an extreme agenda, and, in recent years, extreme opinions have undermined long-established civil rights protections.

    “In 2022, the court overruled Roe v. Wade, and the right to choose that had been the law of the land for 50 years,” Biden said, “The following year the same court eviscerated affirmative action, which had been upheld and reaffirmed for nearly 50 years as well.”

    Under Biden’s proposal, each justice would be limited to one 18-year active term, with the current president appointing a new justice every two years. Biden is also asking for an enforceable code of ethics that would require justices to disclose gifts and to recuse themselves when they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. Finally, Biden is asking Congress to start work on a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity, stating that no former president is above the law.

    “We need these reforms to restore trust in the courts. To preserve the system of checks and balances that are vital to our democracy,” Biden said.

    Biden’s call comes as trust in the high court is dropping among Americans. A June poll from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that seven in 10 Americans think justices are influenced by ideology. Four in 10 say they have hardly any confidence in the people running the Supreme Court.

    “I think we’ll have a problem if we don’t do something about Supreme Court ethics,” said Alan Morrison, an Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School.

    “It would be constitutional to do it by statute, but I do not think that’s a good idea,” Morrison went on to say. “If it’s done by statute, it can be undone by statute.”

    Accomplishing any reforms will prove challenging, with Republicans already pushing back on the plan. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the proposal would “tilt the balance of power,” and is “dead on arrival.”

    “Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the court’s recent decisions,” Johnson said.

    The party split in Congress is not the only reason Morrison believes the plan is unlikely to move forward anytime soon.

    “That has to go through not only two-thirds of both Houses but also three-quarters of the states. It’ll be a long time coming,” Morrison said.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito would be the first three justices who could potentially be affected by term limits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    [ad_1]

    Source: The Washington Post / Getty

    Donald Trump questionably claims he’s an expert on everything else, but now he expects us to believe he has “no knowledge” of Project 2025 and its oppressive plans to give him unprecedented power as president. After the plan, directed by Trump’s former chief of staff, exploded online, that would make him the last person in the country to hear about it. 

    In his Philly campaign rally speech, Trump stated, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying, and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

    According to AP News, he posted a statement distancing himself from Project 2025 on his social media website. “Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

    Wish them luck? PLEASE.

    Project 2025: The Drastic Plan Trump “Doesn’t Know About”

    Let’s break down what Trump is desperately trying to distance himself from. Project 2025 is a 922-page plan that proposes a massive expansion of presidential power. The project includes but isn’t limited to: 

    • firing up to 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists (JUST SICK)
    • National abortions ban
    • Birth control, IVF, and STD Testing restrictions
    • Patient Data exposure
    • Eliminating the Department of Education and free school lunch programs
    • Enforcing Christian principles
    • Removing Environmental Protection Agency and protections for endangered species
    • Implementing tax policies that benefit the wealthy
    • Weaken unions and workplace safety regulations
    • End FBI efforts to combat disinformation
    • Repeal Acts for Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Fair Housing
    • End gender equality protections
    • Getting rid of DEI workers and training programs
    • Criminalizing LGBTQ+ rights and homelessness
    • Using the U.S. military against the U.S. citizens

    Yet Trump would have us believe he’s completely in the dark about it. It’s hard to swallow, especially given his past authoritarian actions and statements.

    The Social Media Firestorm

    What’s really pushed Trump into this awkward denial is the social media uproar. Project 2025 has been trending online and on television screens. As BOSSIP previously covered, celebrities such as Taraji P. Henson are taking part in the activism against it.

    Taraji didn’t hold back at the BET Awards, calling the oppressive overthrow of the government for what it is. Her bold move has put even more pressure on Trump and spread awareness of the initiative. Now, he’s backtracking and expecting us to fall for it despite his party’s track record of calling for these extremist policies.

    Trump can try to address the elephant in the room, but his response is far from convincing.

    Trump’s Ties to Project 2025 Figures

    The key players behind Project 2025 are all Trump insiders:

    • Paul Dans, the project’s director, was a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump.
    • John McEntee, a senior adviser, was the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office.
    • Russ Vought, a significant contributor, is on the Republican National Committee’s platform writing committee.

    With such close ties, Trump’s denial is more than just suspicious; it’s strategic.

    Conservative Leaders’ Radical Agenda

    Conservative leaders are openly declaring their revolutionary intentions to drag the U.S. back to the 1800s.

    AP News states that Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation President, declared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

    With over 110 conservative groups involved, they’re pushing policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. This isn’t just about Trump; it’s a full-blown attempt to reshape America.

    Trump’s Extreme Agenda

    Even if he’s trying to sidestep Project 2025, Trump’s own plans are still alarming. Research shows that he’s gearing up for a massive deportation operation and wants to potentially tariff all imports if he gets a second term.

    These proposals, when combined with Project 2025, paint a chilling picture of the future. It’s devastating enough that his SCOTUS picks have lifetime control over our laws and seemingly use it to dismantle more civil rights by the day.

    Trump’s campaign has previously warned outside allies not to speak for him, yet Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokeswoman, has been featured in Project 2025’s videos. The hypocrisy is staggering.

    It’s as if they want to distance themselves while simultaneously keeping the radical base riled up. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. 

    Democrats Sound the Alarm

    The Democratic response has been fierce. The Biden campaign has slammed Project 2025 as a “violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America.”

    AP found that Ammar Moussa from the Biden campaign described it as an “extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people.”

    On Independence Day, the Biden campaign posted a dystopian image from “The Handmaid’s Tale” on X, captioned, “Fourth of July under Trump’s Project 2025.”

    It’s a clear warning about the dangerous path ahead. 

    What’s Next?

    Trump’s comments come as the Republican Party prepares to draft its party platform, and Project 2025 is gearing up to share a 180-day agenda for the next administration privately.

    As these developments unfold, the American public must stay alert and informed. Trump’s denial might be a tactical move, but the implications of Project 2025 are too significant and dangerous to ignore. 

    This isn’t just about political maneuvering; it’s about the future of our democracy and lives.

    [ad_2]

    Lauryn Bass

    Source link

  • SCOTUS Scandal: Clarence Thomas Tops Supreme Court Gift List with $4M in Perks

    SCOTUS Scandal: Clarence Thomas Tops Supreme Court Gift List with $4M in Perks

    [ad_1]

    Source: Alex Wong / Getty

    Supreme Scandal: Unveiling The Perks Of Clarence Thomas’ Secret Gifts

    What we KNOW; SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas thinks it’s morally okay to receive millions of secret financial gifts from a reported Hitler-highlighting MAGA mega-donor…whew!

    What we JUST LEARNED; aside from defending luxurious gifts from billionaire and alleged Nazi memorabilia collector Harlan Crow, Thomas accepted the majority of the $5 million all SCOTUS Justices publicly received.

    According to The Hill, supremely sunken Thomas accepted a WHOPPING $4 million. 

    Is This An Honest Friendship To Trust?

    Clearence Thomas and the U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

    Source: Alex Wong / Getty

    BOSSIP previously reported that Justice Clarence Thomas, w significant figure in the Supreme Court since his nomination by former President George H.W. Bush, defended the gifts by emphasizing his long-term friendship with Crow. Thomas further justified his actions by stating that he had sought guidance early in his tenure on the Court.

    “Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years… As friends do, we have joined them on several family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas explained.

    If these trips were “nothing more than personal hospitality from close friends,” why did it take news outlets so long to uncover what is lawfully supposed to be public record? This unethical behavior coming to the limelight years later further just exposes the gravity of this predicament. And this is only one of many contested conflicts of interest for Thomas.

    Wow… That’s Some Expensive Hospitality

    MoveOn Mobile Billboard Calling For Justice Clarence Thomas To Recuse Himself From All Cases Related To January 6 Due To His Alleged Conflicts Of Interest And Corruption

    Source: Leigh Vogel / Getty

    The unreported gifts from Crow included lavish trips on his private jet and superyacht, which is estimated to cost over $500,000 if chartered independently. The Hill states that in 2004 data collected by ‘Fix the Court’, “Thomas accepted $4,042,286, or 193 gifts.” Allegedly, there are an unconfirmed 126 more of these gifts, and we can only wonder what price tags those carry.

    Why did Thomas only report 27? 

    Thomas’ dear friend, Harlan Crow, defended his actions by asserting that his hospitality extended to the Thomases was no different from what he offered to his other friends.

    What a friendship…

    Media Coverage & Public Outcry For Justice Thomas To Resign

    House Democrats Hold A News Conference Calling On Justice Clarence Thomas To Resign

    Source: Alex Wong / Getty

    Democrats and legal experts have voiced concerns over Thomas’s ability to interpret and follow basic codes of conduct. There are growing demands for stricter judiciary oversight to prevent potential corruption.

    The Hill states that this scandal has sparked a statement by Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth.

    “Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they’ve received over the years… Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their own vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions and club memberships.”

    Roth argued that the ethics crisis at the court would not abate until stricter gift acceptance rules were adopted.

    Who wouldn’t agree more? 

    Other Justices’ Gifts: Let’s Compare

    US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

    Source: OLIVIER DOULIERY / Getty

    The watchdog group also highlighted gifts received by other justices. Fix the Court documents:

    • Justice Antonin Scalia received $210,164 in gifts from January 2004 until his death in 2016 (the second-highest recipient)
    • Justice Samuel Alito received $170,095 from January 31, 2006, to the present day (the third-most gifts)

    All these numbers and things still aren’t adding up in the US government system. Many platforms are demanding reform. BOSSIP continues to update this story. 

    [ad_2]

    Lauryn Bass

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at Duke to honor ‘pathbreaking figure’

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at Duke to honor ‘pathbreaking figure’

    [ad_1]

    Members of the U.S. Supreme Court, seated from left: Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing, from left: Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    Members of the U.S. Supreme Court, seated from left: Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. Standing, from left: Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.


    Jack Gruber

    Jack Gruber-USA TODAY

    U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts visited Duke University Thursday evening to speak at a private ceremony honoring the late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

    O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, received this year’s Bolch Prize for the Rule of Law from the Bolch Judicial Institute at the Duke School of Law. The prize has been awarded annually since 2019 “to an individual or organization who has demonstrated extraordinary dedication to the rule of law and advancing rule of law principles around the world.”

    O’Connor, who died in December, was honored for her contributions to civics education, notably through her founding of iCivics, a nonprofit that provides free civics resources and games for more than 9 million students each year. O’Connor founded the organization after she stepped down from the Supreme Court in 2006 — one of several post-retirement initiatives that contribute to her legacy of advancing civic education and civil discourse.

    Thursday’s ceremony at the Karsh Alumni and Visitors Center included remarks from Roberts and Scott O’Connor, Justice O’Connor’s son, as well as Duke Law Dean Kerry Abrams, Duke Law professor and former O’Connor clerk Lisa Griffin and retired U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute.

    Throughout the ceremony, speakers highlighted their personal connections to O’Connor, as well as her accomplishments on the Supreme Court and beyond, including her many trips to countries with fledgling democracies.

    Roberts presented archival photos of O’Connor and called attention to one that perhaps best illustrated O’Connor’s lasting legacy: O’Connor, watching as a young girl worked on a laptop computer, exploring the world that was opening to her through her studies. The late justice, who had opened doors for women and girls throughout her career, placed her hand gently on the girl’s shoulder.

    “As Justice O’Connor told her sons, our purpose in life is to help others along the way,” Roberts said, referencing the photo.

    In a December announcement that O’Connor would receive the award, Roberts called O’Connor “a pathbreaking figure.” When former President George W. Bush picked him to join the Supreme Court in 2005, Roberts was originally nominated to replace the retiring O’Connor, until William Rehnquist’s death created an opening in the position of chief justice.

    Grimm described O’Connor’s post-retirement efforts, for which she was primarily awarded the Bolch Prize, as “the capstone of a life dedicated to advancing and protecting the rule of law.”

    “Justice O’Connor realized, better than most of us, that without a civically informed public, the rule of law cannot thrive,” Grimm said. “And in order for the public to have faith in our judicial system, which itself is essential to maintaining our democratic form of government, people must first understand how the three branches of government work together.”

    O’Connor’s roots and legacy

    O’Connor, whom former President Ronald Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, was born and raised in Texas and Arizona — the latter being where she spent much of her life.

    Throughout Roberts’ remarks, he displayed photos from the duration of O’Connor’s life and career, from her time studying at the Stanford University School of Law, to preparing for her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, to high-fiving basketball player Charles Barkley and dancing with Reagan.

    Throughout her career, O’Connor held positions in all three branches of government, serving as assistant attorney general of Arizona, then in the Arizona state Senate, then in two separate courts in Arizona prior to joining the U.S. Supreme Court.

    On the Supreme Court, she was known as a moderate and frequent swing-voter who “worked to build consensus” among her fellow justices, a biography published by the Bolch Institute states. When consensus wasn’t possible, O’Connor “often wrote a narrow majority decision or carefully concurred to blunt the impact of a decision that she thought was too broad.”

    In a 2003 landmark decision on the consideration of race in college admissions, for example, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s narrow use of such policies. The precedent set forth in that case stood until last summer, when the court — in a decision written by Roberts — ruled in cases involving UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard University that such policies are unconstitutional.

    Griffin, who served as a clerk for O’Connor at the Supreme Court, said in the Bolch Institute’s December announcement that she “had an extraordinary ability to find the middle ground in the most emotional debates, including those involving reproductive rights and affirmative action.”

    Griffin said Thursday that O’Connor is “rightly celebrated for expanding what was possible for women in every profession and, of course, for the careful and pragmatic decisions that she wrote on the Supreme Court.”

    O’Connor’s post-retirement work

    Beyond O’Connor’s professional accomplishments, Griffin largely focused her remarks on O’Connor’s personality and character, noting that she “was more interesting than the icon that everyone could see from a distance, because she contained some contrast.”

    O’Connor was diligent and driven, tending to not show signs of stress, Griffin said. She was focused and calm, but not necessarily relaxed. This was evident during her annual outing with her clerks to see Washington, D.C.’s cherry blossoms, which Griffin described as “a scheduled forward march, regardless of the inclement weather.”

    Roberts’ photo presentation included another example of one of O’Connor’s outings with her clerks: a whitewater-rafting trip, with water sprayed high around the inflatable raft, which Roberts noted was beyond the “extracurricular activities” he and other justices offer their clerks.

    “Justice O’Connor knew the power of directness, and that included direct engagement with people. I certainly felt that she felt she had a responsibility as the first woman on the Supreme Court to show that she could more than keep up with the boys,” Roberts said. “I think she also felt a responsibility as the most powerful woman in America to be out there putting her best foot forward and promoting the values that help define our country.”

    Grimm said Thursday that the Bolch Judicial Institute is “immensely honored” to add O’Connor to its list of recipients.

    O’Connor’s son Scott noted that the Bolch Institute was founded the same year, 2018, that O’Connor’s dementia led her to withdraw from public life — but he surmised that she would have been drawn to its purpose and “happily traveled to Durham” to meet its founders and participate in its programming.

    Previous recipients of the Bolch Prize are: former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke of the South Africa Constitutional Court, retired Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the International Association of Women Judges.

    This story was originally published April 4, 2024, 6:30 PM.

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    Korie Dean covers higher education in the Triangle and North Carolina for The News & Observer. She was previously part of the paper’s service journalism team. She is a graduate of the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at UNC-Chapel Hill and a lifelong North Carolinian.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SCOTUS review of the Chevron deference is a game-changer for cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    SCOTUS review of the Chevron deference is a game-changer for cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    SCOTUS review of the Chevron deference is a game-changer for cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





























    [ad_2]

    Deb Tharp

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes up dispute over how far government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security

    Supreme Court takes up dispute over how far government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics like COVID-19 and election security

    [ad_1]

    The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing administration officials of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.

    The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.

    The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

    The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.

    “It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.

    The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can’t “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”

    The companies themselves are not involved in the case.

    Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.

    “The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech, but it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views,” Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a statement.

    A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content. The panel had previously narrowed a more sweeping order from a federal judge, who wanted to include even more government officials and prohibit mere encouragement of content changes.

    A divided Supreme Court put the 5th circuit ruling on hold in October, when it agreed to take up the case.

    Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have rejected the emergency appeal from the Biden administration.

    Alito wrote in dissent in October: “At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.”

    A decision in Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411, is expected by early summer.

    Subscribe to the new Fortune CEO Weekly Europe newsletter to get corner office insights on the biggest business stories in Europe. Sign up for free.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    The Supreme Court could decide Monday whether Trump can be barred from the 2024 ballot

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump could learn Monday whether the Supreme Court will let him appear on this year’s ballot as the leading Republican presidential candidate tries to close in on his party’s nomination.

    The justices are expected to decide at least one case Monday, with signs strongly pointing to a resolution of the case from Colorado that threatens to kick Trump off some state ballots because of his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST.

    Trump is challenging a groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that said he is disqualified from being president again and ineligible for the state’s primary, which is Tuesday.

    The resolution of the case on Monday, a day before Super Tuesday contests in 16 states, would remove uncertainty about whether votes for Trump will ultimately count. Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8.

    The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump’s favor.

    RELATED: Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    The Colorado court was the first to invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision aimed at preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Trump also has since been barred from primary ballot in Illinois and Maine, though both decisions, along with Colorado’s, are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

    The Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

    The court indicated Sunday there will be at least one case decided Monday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the Trump ballot case that will be handed down.

    Except for when the end of the term approaches in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day isn’t until March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Monday.

    ALSO SEE: Trump faces deadline to ask SCOTUS for delay in election interference trial

    Separately, the justices last week agreed to hear arguments in late April over whether Trump can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s decision to step into the politically charged case, also with little in the way of precedent to guide it, calls into question whether Trump will stand trial before the November election.

    The former president faces 91 criminal charges in four prosecutions. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems on track to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial on March 25, and the judge has signaled his determination to press ahead.

    Copyright © 2024 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    Takeaways from the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Trump 14th Amendment case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court signaled Thursday it is poised to back former President Donald Trump and fend off a blockbuster challenge to his eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot.

    During about two hours of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and the high court’s other conservative justices peppered the lawyers representing Trump’s challengers with a series of questions that suggested they were seeking a way to side with the former president – most likely based on reasoning that doesn’t address the question of whether he is or isn’t an insurrectionist.

    Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court.

    Even some members of the court’s liberal wing posed difficult questions to the lawyers opposed to the former president.

    The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Trump it would almost certainly end his campaign for another term.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    At issue is a provision in the 14th Amendment that bars certain public officials from serving in the government again if they took part in an insurrection. The voters who challenged Trump say his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol makes him ineligible under that “insurrection ban.”

    The Supreme Court often takes a few months to craft opinions – and usually hands down its biggest cases at the end of its term in June. But because the court expedited the earlier stages of the Trump ballot case, it is likely the court will want to move quickly to decide the case, potentially within a matter of weeks.

    Here’s what to know from Thursday’s hearing:

    Conservatives suggest several ways to side with Trump

    Throughout the course of the arguments, the court’s conservatives repeatedly questioned whether the insurrection ban was intended to apply to former presidents and whether the ban could be enforced without Congress first enacting a law. Others delved into more fundamental questions about whether courts removing a candidate from the ballot is democratic.

    “Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in one of the more striking exchanges with attorneys.

    If Trump is removed from the ballot in Colorado, Roberts predicted that states would eventually attempt to knock other candidates off the ballot. That, he signaled, would be inconsistent with the purpose and history of the 14th Amendment.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    “It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Roberts said. “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”

    The amendment’s key provision, Section 3, says in part: “No person shall … hold any office … under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

    Kavanaugh’s focus on a historical case

    One of the most notable line of questions came from Kavanaugh.

    A 19th Century Supreme Court case, In Re. Griffin, involved a defendant’s challenge to a criminal conviction based on the fact that the judge in the case had fought for the Confederacy. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was writing for an appeals court, ruled in 1869 that the “insurrectionist ban” could not be enforced against the judge unless Congress first passed a law.

    Trump and his allies raised the case during their written arguments to the Supreme Court.

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Kavanaugh repeatedly suggested that he believed the case offered important insight into the meaning of the insurrection ban. That would suggest that he, at least, is thinking about siding with Trump on the narrow grounds that states can’t enforce the ban without Congress first passing legislation.

    “It’s by the chief justice of the United States a year after the 14th Amendment,” Kavanaugh said in a reference to Chase. “That seems to me high probative of what the meaning or understanding of that otherwise elusive language is.”

    Jackson, liberals have tough questions for challengers

    Another sign that the court was leaning toward Trump’s position: Even some of the liberal justices posed difficult questions to the lawyers representing his challengers.

    Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden nominee, said that the 14th Amendment provision did not include the word “president,” even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trump’s attorneys have raised in the case.

    “They were listing people that were barred and ‘president’ is not there,” Jackson said. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president.”

    Justice Elena Kagan questioned the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election.

    “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?” Kagan asked.

    All three of the court’s liberal justices – Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan – asked tough questions of both sides but they generally focused on narrow provisions, avoiding broad questions about whether the president engaged in an insurrection. Heading into the arguments, many experts predicted that would suggest the arguments were moving in Trump’s direction.

    Justices didn’t focus on Trump’s January 6 actions

    The nine justices spent little time on the former president’s actions surrounding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol that sparked the ballot challenge in Colorado and elsewhere.

    There were more questions, in fact, about the Civil War and how the insurrectionist ban in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was enacted in order to grapple with confederates who fought against the Union.

    When Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell was questioned, none of the justices asked about whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection until Jackson raised it in her final question.

    “For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence,” Mitchell said when asked to explain his argument that Trump’s actions did not involve an attempt to overthrow the government.

    “So if point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?” the justice responded.

    “This was a riot, it was not an insurrection,” Mitchell responded.

    Later, during questioning of Jason Murray, the attorney representing Colorado voters, Kavanaugh questioned why Trump should be removed from the ballot when he has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection. Kavanaugh noted there was a federal statute for insurrection and that Trump had not been charged with it, although he is facing other charges from special counsel Jack Smith related to his actions after the 2020 election.

    Murray argued that the federal insurrection statute was enacted before the 14th Amendment was adopted, and that a federal conviction was not required to remove Trump from the ballot.

    The provision does not say a conviction is necessary for disqualification, though some analysts have said a criminal conviction would help ensure that there was due process before anyone would be barred from office. After the Civil War, thousands of ex-Confederates were disqualified from office without prior criminal convictions.

    The-CNN-Wire & 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    CNNWire

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump’s 14th Amendment ballot case | LISTEN LIVE

    Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump’s 14th Amendment ballot case | LISTEN LIVE

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump‘s eligibility to appear on the ballot, thrusting the high court into a raucous election as it threatens to abruptly end the former president’s campaign for a second term.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the ballot.

    Not since the court decided Bush v. Gore after the 2000 election have the nine justices been asked to dig into a case so intertwined with an ongoing presidential election. Though the appeal is ostensibly about Colorado’s ballot, both sides acknowledge the decision later this year will have nationwide implications.

    Standing before the justices inside the ornate courtroom, a lawyer representing the six voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility will argue a post-Civil War “insurrection ban” in the 14th Amendment bars the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from serving again because of his actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    A lawyer for Trump will argue that the provision doesn’t apply to a former president.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    The court scheduled 80 minutes for the arguments that will kick off shortly after 10 a.m. ET, but the justices regularly blow past the set time on more mundane matters. It is more likely that they will press the attorneys arguing before them for hours.

    Though sometimes inconclusive, arguments often provide important insight into how the justices are thinking about the questions before them. While the debate may not decide the outcome of a case, they can shape the behind-the-curtain wrangling that unfolds as the justices stake out positions and begin drafting opinions.

    “You can definitely get a sense of what the justices care about from how the oral argument goes,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “You can’t always tell how they’re going to vote but you can get a sense of which issues they think are important.”

    Trump ballot fight pushes high court into unchartered territory

    Many of the legal theories raised in the insurrection dispute are new to the Supreme Court. Though the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the court has never before wrestled with a claim based on the insurrection clause.

    The case, Trump v. Anderson, is on appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, which in December ruled that the former president is no longer eligible to serve. In addition to Colorado, the top election official in Maine reached a similar conclusion in late December and determined Trump is constitutionally barred from office.

    Similar cases were rejected on procedural grounds in other states, where well-funded legal groups filed lawsuits on behalf of voters.

    Trump is simultaneously juggling four criminal prosecutions – including one that could reach the Supreme Court in coming days dealing with whether he can claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Not only has Trump repeatedly denied wrongdoing in those cases, he has lumped his legal woes together and tried to use them to his advantage on the campaign trail.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    While the stakes for Trump are enormous, they are also significant for the Supreme Court. Approval ratings of the court have sunk to record lows and a large portion of the country will likely be enraged by the decision in the ballot case.

    Will justices look for ways to rule without saying if Trump was an insurrectionist?

    One element to watch during arguments Thursday will be how much attention the justices pay to the narrow off-ramps Trump is offering the court to decide the case in his favor without addressing directly whether he took part in an insurrection. The six Republican and independent voters who sued Trump filled court papers with harrowing pictures from the attack on the US Capitol and striking language about the chaos that unfolded that day.

    But if the justices appear to be mostly focused on more technical points, that may be a good sign for Trump.

    “A lot of justices are going to be looking for a way to get out of this,” said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The court will be reluctant to decide the merits of this because that would then place the court in the middle of the election.”

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Trump and his allies argue the insurrection ban doesn’t apply to former presidents and, if it did, that Colorado courts have no authority to enforce it in this way. His briefs have focused less on the events of January 6 and more on his lead in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

    The first sentence of Trump’s final brief notes he won the Iowa caucuses last month and the New Hampshire primary days later. Broadly, he argues that voters, not courts, should choose the president.

    Interplay between John Roberts and Elena Kagan may be key

    Though among the least talkative on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts is always important to watch during arguments. Roberts, concerned about the court’s reputation, will likely seek to settle the politically fraught case in a narrow way that can bring together the court’s six conservatives and three liberals.

    Roberts’ questions could signal what he thinks is the best path to that outcome.

    That raises another dynamic to watch: The arguments Thursday may offer insight into the appetite within the court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – to find a compromise with Roberts. The chief justice and Kagan, who was nominated in 2010 by President Barack Obama, have found ways to work together in recent years.

    “Roberts is going to have a lot of incentive to get rid of this,” Gerhardt said. “He may have some support in trying to get rid of it, but I think that’s going to be foremost in his mind.”

    (The-CNN-Wire & 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.)

    [ad_2]

    CNNWire

    Source link

  • What to watch for as Supreme Court hears the Donald Trump 14th Amendment ballot battle

    What to watch for as Supreme Court hears the Donald Trump 14th Amendment ballot battle

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a historic challenge to Donald Trump‘s eligibility to appear on the ballot, thrusting the high court into a raucous election as it threatens to abruptly end the former president’s campaign for a second term.

    Not since the court decided Bush v. Gore after the 2000 election have the nine justices been asked to dig into a case so intertwined with an ongoing presidential election. Though the appeal is ostensibly about Colorado’s ballot, both sides acknowledge the decision later this year will have nationwide implications.

    Standing before the justices inside the ornate courtroom, a lawyer representing the six voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility will argue a post-Civil War “insurrection ban” in the 14th Amendment bars the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from serving again because of his actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    A lawyer for Trump will argue that the provision doesn’t apply to a former president.

    RELATED: Campaign finance report: Trump’s legal bills mount in new filing

    The court scheduled 80 minutes for the arguments that will kick off shortly after 10 a.m. ET, but the justices regularly blow past the set time on more mundane matters. It is more likely that they will press the attorneys arguing before them for hours.

    Though sometimes inconclusive, arguments often provide important insight into how the justices are thinking about the questions before them. While the debate may not decide the outcome of a case, they can shape the behind-the-curtain wrangling that unfolds as the justices stake out positions and begin drafting opinions.

    “You can definitely get a sense of what the justices care about from how the oral argument goes,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “You can’t always tell how they’re going to vote but you can get a sense of which issues they think are important.”

    Trump ballot fight pushes high court into unchartered territory

    Many of the legal theories raised in the insurrection dispute are new to the Supreme Court. Though the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the court has never before wrestled with a claim based on the insurrection clause.

    The case, Trump v. Anderson, is on appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court, which in December ruled that the former president is no longer eligible to serve. In addition to Colorado, the top election official in Maine reached a similar conclusion in late December and determined Trump is constitutionally barred from office.

    Similar cases were rejected on procedural grounds in other states, where well-funded legal groups filed lawsuits on behalf of voters.

    Trump is simultaneously juggling four criminal prosecutions – including one that could reach the Supreme Court in coming days dealing with whether he can claim immunity from criminal prosecution. Not only has Trump repeatedly denied wrongdoing in those cases, he has lumped his legal woes together and tried to use them to his advantage on the campaign trail.

    RELATED: Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    While the stakes for Trump are enormous, they are also significant for the Supreme Court. Approval ratings of the court have sunk to record lows and a large portion of the country will likely be enraged by the decision in the ballot case.

    Will justices look for ways to rule without saying if Trump was an insurrectionist?

    One element to watch during arguments Thursday will be how much attention the justices pay to the narrow off-ramps Trump is offering the court to decide the case in his favor without addressing directly whether he took part in an insurrection. The six Republican and independent voters who sued Trump filled court papers with harrowing pictures from the attack on the US Capitol and striking language about the chaos that unfolded that day.

    But if the justices appear to be mostly focused on more technical points, that may be a good sign for Trump.

    “A lot of justices are going to be looking for a way to get out of this,” said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The court will be reluctant to decide the merits of this because that would then place the court in the middle of the election.”

    Ample evidence has emerged over the last year of what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Trump and his allies argue the insurrection ban doesn’t apply to former presidents and, if it did, that Colorado courts have no authority to enforce it in this way. His briefs have focused less on the events of January 6 and more on his lead in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

    The first sentence of Trump’s final brief notes he won the Iowa caucuses last month and the New Hampshire primary days later. Broadly, he argues that voters, not courts, should choose the president.

    Interplay between John Roberts and Elena Kagan may be key

    Though among the least talkative on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts is always important to watch during arguments. Roberts, concerned about the court’s reputation, will likely seek to settle the politically fraught case in a narrow way that can bring together the court’s six conservatives and three liberals.

    Roberts’ questions could signal what he thinks is the best path to that outcome.

    That raises another dynamic to watch: The arguments Thursday may offer insight into the appetite within the court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – to find a compromise with Roberts. The chief justice and Kagan, who was nominated in 2010 by President Barack Obama, have found ways to work together in recent years.

    “Roberts is going to have a lot of incentive to get rid of this,” Gerhardt said. “He may have some support in trying to get rid of it, but I think that’s going to be foremost in his mind.”

    (The-CNN-Wire & 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.)

    [ad_2]

    CNNWire

    Source link

  • What Overturning Chevron Could Mean for Cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    What Overturning Chevron Could Mean for Cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    What Overturning Chevron Could Mean for Cannabis – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news































    [ad_2]

    Tom Hymes

    Source link

  • When Colorado removed Trump from the ballot, a Supreme Court showdown looked likely. Maine removed all doubt.

    When Colorado removed Trump from the ballot, a Supreme Court showdown looked likely. Maine removed all doubt.

    [ad_1]

    DENVER (AP) — First, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump wasn’t eligible to run for his old job in that state. Then, Maine’s secretary of state ruled the same for her state.

    Both decisions are historic. The Colorado court was the first court to apply to a presidential candidate a rarely used constitutional ban against those who “engaged in insurrection.” Maine’s secretary of state was the first top election official to unilaterally strike a presidential candidate from the ballot under that provision.

    What’s next? Can Trump be put back on the ballot?

    Both decisions are on hold while the legal process plays out. That means that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado and Maine and that his political fate is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Maine ruling will likely never take effect on its own. Its central impact is increasing pressure on the nation’s highest court to state clearly whether Trump remains eligible to run for president after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    What’s the legal issue that could keep Trump off the ballot?

    After the Civil War, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to guarantee rights to former slaves and more. It also included a two-sentence clause called Section 3, designed to keep former Confederates from regaining government power after the war.

    “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect.”

    The measure reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

    Congress did remove that disability from most Confederates in 1872, and the provision fell into disuse. But it was rediscovered after Jan. 6.

    See: Nikki Haley was asked by N.H. voter to name Civil War cause. Slavery was absent from her answer.

    How does this apply to former president Trump exactly?

    Trump is already being prosecuted for the attempt to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated with Jan. 6, but Section 3 doesn’t require a criminal conviction to take effect. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to disqualify Trump, claiming he engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 and is no longer qualified to run for office.

    All the suits failed until the Colorado ruling. And dozens of secretaries of state have been asked to remove him from the ballot. All said they didn’t have the authority to do so without a court order — until Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’s decision.

    See: As Colorado court bars Trump from ballot, poll finds 62% of GOP voters would want him as nominee even with more legal woes

    Also: Police investigating ‘incidents’ against Colorado justices after Trump removed from state’s ballot

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on Section 3. It’s likely to do so in considering appeals of the Colorado decision — the state Republican Party has already appealed, and Trump is expected to file his own shortly.

    Bellows’s ruling cannot be appealed straight to the U.S. Supreme Court — it has to be appealed up the judicial chain first, starting with a trial court in Maine.

    The Maine decision does force the high court’s hand, though. It was already highly likely the justices would hear the Colorado case, but Maine removes any doubt.

    Trump lost Colorado in 2020, and he doesn’t need to win it again to garner an Electoral College majority next year. But he won one of Maine’s four Electoral College votes in 2020 by winning the state’s 2nd Congressional District, so Bellows’s decision would have a direct impact on his odds next November.

    Until the high court rules, any state could adopt its own standard on whether Trump, or anyone else, can be on the ballot. That’s the sort of legal chaos the court is supposed to prevent.

    What is Trump’s argument?

    Trump’s lawyers have several arguments against the push to disqualify him. First, it’s not clear Section 3 applies to the president — an early draft mentioned the office, but it was taken out, and the language “an officer of the United States” elsewhere in the Constitution doesn’t mean the president, they contend.

    Second, even if it does apply to the presidency, they say, this is a “political” question best decided by voters, not unelected judges. Third, if judges do want to get involved, the lawyers assert, they’re violating Trump’s rights to a fair legal procedure by flatly ruling he’s ineligible without some sort of fact-finding process like a lengthy criminal trial. Fourth, they argue, Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection under the meaning of Section 3 — it was more like a riot. Finally, even if it was an insurrection, they say, Trump wasn’t involved in it — he was merely using his free speech rights.

    Of course, the lawyers who want to disqualify Trump have arguments, too.

    The main one is that the case is actually very simple: Jan. 6 was an insurrection, Trump incited it, and he’s disqualified.

    Why has this process taken so long?

    The attack of Jan. 6, 2021, occurred nearly three years ago, but the challenges weren’t “ripe,” to use the legal term, until Trump petitioned to get onto state ballots this fall.

    But the length of time also gets at another issue — no one has really wanted to rule on the merits of the case. Most judges have dismissed the lawsuits because of technical issues, including that courts don’t have the authority to tell parties whom to put on their primary ballots. Secretaries of state have dodged, too, usually telling those who ask them to ban Trump that they don’t have the authority to do so unless ordered by a court.

    No one can dodge anymore. Legal experts have cautioned that, if the Supreme Court doesn’t clearly resolve the issue, it could lead to chaos in November — or in January 2025, if Trump wins the election. Imagine, they say, if the high court ducks the issue or says it’s not a decision for the courts to make, and Democrats win a narrow majority in Congress. Would they seat Trump or declare he’s ineligible under Section 3?

    Why was this action taken in Maine?

    Maine has an unusual process in which a secretary of state is required to hold a public hearing on challenges to politicians’ spots on the ballot and then issue a ruling. Multiple groups of Maine voters, including a bipartisan clutch of former state lawmakers, filed such a challenge, triggering Bellows’s decision.

    Bellows is a Democrat and the former head of the Maine chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Trump’s attorneys asked her to recuse herself from the case, citing social-media posts calling Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and bemoaning Trump’s acquittal in his impeachment trial over the attack.

    She refused, saying she wasn’t ruling based on personal opinions. But the precedent she sets is notable, critics say. In theory, election officials in every state could decide a candidate is ineligible based on a novel legal theory about Section 3 and end their candidacies.

    Conservatives argue that Section 3 could apply to Vice President Kamala Harris, for example — it was used to block from office even those who donated small sums to individual Confederates. Couldn’t it be used against Harris, they say, because she raised money for those arrested in the unrest after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020?

    Is this a partisan issue?

    Bellows is a Democrat, and all the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. Six of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump himself.

    But courts don’t always split on predictable partisan lines. The Colorado ruling was 4-3 — so three Democratic appointees disagreed with barring Trump. Several prominent legal conservatives have championed the use of Section 3 against the former president.

    Now we’ll see how the high court handles it.

    Read on:

    Trump’s name can appear on ballot in Michigan, says state’s top court

    Georgia election workers sue Rudy Giuliani again, seek to bar him from repeating lies about them

    Trump’s Republican rivals rally to his defense after Colorado ballot ruling

    Supreme Court to hear case that could undermine obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants

    [ad_2]

    Source link