Elections

Donald Trump’s attorney in Georgia has asked the state’s appellate court to dismiss election interference charges against the president-elect, arguing that a sitting president “is completely immune from indictment or any criminal process, state or federal”.The filing by attorney Steve Sadow before the Georgia court of appeals asks the court to dismiss Trump’s appeal of a lower-court decision to allow Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis to remain as prosecutor on the case, because the Fulton county superior court no longer has jurisdiction, given Trump’s electoral victory.The filing cites the Department of Justice’s decision to end federal prosecutions against Trump last month, and a finding in 2000 by the Office of Legal Counsel that the president cannot be subject to local prosecutors’ criminal enforcement.“The constitution forbids ‘plac[ing] into the hands of a single prosecutor or grand jury the practical power to interfere with the ability of a popularly elected president to carry out his constitutional functions’,” Sadow wrote, quoting the OLC memo.That memo emerged in the wake of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, when perjury charges were being considered in the scandal over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The rule was to be applied to federal prosecutions, but the office concluded as a matter of law that the prohibition was categorical – that it did not matter what the charges were – as long as the president was still in office.Sadow’s filing does not ask the court to dismiss the case against the remaining co-defendants in the election interference case, who do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as a president.Trump faces eight charges in Georgia, including a racketeering charge over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result in the state, after Georgia voted for Joe Biden to become US president. Trump pleaded not guilty to the sprawling 2020 election interference case in Fulton county last year along with 18 other co-defendants. Four have since taken plea deals and agreed to testify against the other defendants.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe case has been on hold since June, when the appeals court paused proceedings to consider an appeal asking for Willis to be removed from the case. Defendants argue that Willis’s relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade created an impermissible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. More

President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea is facing proceedings that could remove him from office after his imposition of martial law plunged the country into a political crisis. Members of South Korea’s opposition submitted a motion on Wednesday to impeach Mr. Yoon. Here’s how the process could unfold. Only two previous presidents have faced […] More

Workers have begun a 48-hour walkout, the first in 50 years for the outlet, over a proposal to sell The Observer to Tortoise Media, a digital media start-up.Journalists at the Guardian and the Observer newspapers in Britain began a 48-hour strike on Wednesday over plans to sell The Observer, the country’s oldest-running Sunday publication, to a digital media start-up.Workers picketed outside their newsroom in London to protest the proposed sale to Tortoise Media, arguing it had been “rushed through” without the support of the staff.It is the first strike in more than 50 years for Guardian News & Media, which publishes both papers. The Observer has run in print since 1791. The plans to sell it came to light in September and were a surprise to journalists, who are now calling for the company to pause sale negotiations and consider alternatives.The deal is nearly done and could be announced soon, according to a person briefed on the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details were private. The Scott Trust, the owner of both publications, wanted to ensure that it would remain one of the largest shareholders with a say in The Observer’s editorial direction, an issue that was expected to be resolved shortly, the person said.“It can’t be right to go ahead with a rushed sale when journalists haven’t been consulted and we do not understand the logic for this,” said Sonia Sodha, a columnist for The Observer who was on the picket line Wednesday morning. “We think it puts both Observer and Guardian journalism at risk.”The Guardian bought The Observer in 1993. Executives have said the sale would allow the company to focus on international expansion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The house goes all out for its V.I.C.s.What do you do if you are a fashion house possessed of the most coveted open designer job in the business, the subject of manic rumors and speculation, with the world watching every move you make for a hint of announcements to come?If you are Chanel, you hold the first mega-show of a European luxury brand in Hangzhou, China, invite about 1,100 guests, including Tilda Swinton, Lupita Nyong’o, Liu Wen and about 600 local V.I.C.s — very important clients — and get on with business as usual.Meaning, in this case, you offer a bit of glamorous outreach to a customer segment that, after years of explosive growth, has been very publicly slowing down, sending the fortunes of many global fashion brands dropping. Chanel, the second largest luxury brand in the world, with 2023 revenues of almost $20 billion, has not been immune.And if the V.I.C.s — which is to say, clients who spend at least $20,000, and possibly up to $500,000, a year with the company — won’t go to the brand, the brand will go to them.“To come to China after Covid was one of our top priorities,” said Bruno Pavlovsky, Chanel’s president for fashion. “We started seriously to plan it nine months ago. It’s the right time to focus on our Chinese customers.”After all, he acknowledged: “At the moment, we have less customers in our boutiques. We have less what they call one-timers. But we are still very powerful and very successful with our V.I.C.s. And what we are doing here is trying to create a unique experience and a bond.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

This personal reflection is part of a series called Turning Points, in which writers explore what critical moments from this year might mean for the year ahead. You can read more by visiting the Turning Points series page.Turning Point: More than 10,000 books were targeted for removal from school shelves in the United States in the 2023-2024 academic year.As a kid, I cataloged the books I read each year in a three-ring notebook. I read lots of books, not all of them favorites, but I was proud to read and review each one for my own pleasure, from fairy tales to books on the lives of saints. Even if I didn’t like a tome, I read it anyway. Every book will teach you something, if you let it.Now, as I near 70 years of age, I’ve made it a goal to read books that have recently been targeted for bans in South Texas public schools. In the spring, a church group approached school boards in the Rio Grande Valley and brought certain titles to their attention, saying that some of the content in the books was “extremely vulgar and offensive.” The group specified reasons for requesting each book’s expulsion, though some of the themes it cited — sexual abuse and parental violence — are also found in the pages of the Bible, which could also be labeled offensive if not read in context. The church group didn’t use the word “ban” — they preferred that officials “willingly remove” these books. This raised my curiosity.Earlier this year I thought I would make the group’s list my summer reading project, but with 676 titles to get through, I had to extend my goal beyond one season.A display featuring books that have faced bans at The Lynx bookstore in Gainesville, Fla. Lauren Groff, the best-selling author, and her husband had toyed with the idea of opening The Lynx for more than a decade and said that mounting bans and challenges to books, particularly in Florida, pushed them to do it.Dustin Miller for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The District of Columbia’s attorney general said the company deliberately outsourced Prime member deliveries in certain ZIP codes.The attorney general of the District of Columbia sued Amazon on Wednesday, accusing it of violating consumer protection laws by making slower deliveries to Prime members in historically lower-income neighborhoods.In one of the first complaints of its kind, which was filed with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb said Amazon had deliberately and secretly stopped its fastest delivery service to the nearly 50,000 Prime subscribers in certain ZIP codes that were lower-income neighborhoods.According to the lawsuit, Amazon has used third parties like United Parcel Service and the Postal Service to make Prime deliveries in those areas for the past two years. That resulted in slower deliveries than those made by Amazon’s own delivery drivers, who serve other Washington residents.Amazon “cannot covertly decide that a dollar in one ZIP code is worth less than a dollar in another,” Mr. Schwalb said in a statement. “We’re suing to stop this deceptive conduct and make sure District residents get what they’re paying for.”Amazon told Mr. Schwalb that it had made the change because of safety concerns in those neighborhoods, the attorney general said. He said the company had violated consumer protection laws by failing to disclose the change to consumers.Amazon said that it disagreed that it had deceived customers and that it had informed Prime subscribers in those areas about each stage of the delivery process. The company said it tried to work with the office of the attorney general to support crime prevention and improve safety for drivers in those areas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s announcement of a new transgender clinic in 2018 did little to draw attention to its practice. The four-paragraph news release amounted to a location, hours and the names of two senior staff members.The spotlight came four years later, when Matt Walsh, a conservative political commentator at The Daily Wire in Nashville, published a series of posts and videos about the clinic. Those posts said that a staff member there had privately characterized gender-affirming medication and surgery as “moneymakers,” and used caustic terms to describe the center’s treatments.The medical center, which is separate from Vanderbilt University, pushed back. In a statement at the time, the center said that the clinic’s mission was to serve a “high-risk population for mental and physical health issues” who “have been consistently underserved by the U.S. health system.”The medical center said that it had not provided care to children younger than 18 without the consent of a parent, and that it would not force any employee who disagreed with the care because of personal or religious beliefs to provide it.Conservatives called for an investigation into the clinic, and Republican leaders spoke at a rally Mr. Walsh organized in Nashville in October 2022 in opposition to gender-affirming care for children. When Tennessee legislators convened in January 2023, lawmakers designated a proposed ban on gender-affirming care as Senate Bill 1. The bill passed over objections from transgender people and most Democrats. More

The challenge to a Tennessee law before the Supreme Court this week traces its roots to the spring of 2021, when Arkansas became the first state to pass a law prohibiting gender-transition treatments for minors. Alabama followed in 2022. Tennessee’s was part of a coordinated deluge: Of 28 states where Republicans control the legislature, 24 now restrict doctors from providing puberty blockers, hormone therapies or surgery to transgender minors. Two more, New Hampshire and Arizona, ban only surgeries.Why the flood? In exploring the motivation behind Florida’s ban, one federal district judge, Robert Hinkle, concluded that some of the state’s lawmakers acted on “old-fashioned discriminatory animus.” But Republican lawmakers in many states have said that they are seeking to shield adolescents from a path that has become more common, with consequences they are too young to fully comprehend. Republican strategists, for their part, have said that elevating the issue was a winning strategy leading up to the 2024 election.United States v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s ban, is one of 18 filed over the last three years, with mixed results. The highest courts in two states, Texas and Nebraska, have upheld their restrictions. By contrast, two federal district judges — Judge Hinkle in Florida and Judge James M. Moody Jr. in Arkansas — struck down bans in those states. But their decisions are being appealed, and preliminary injunctions on enforcement of the bans in Alabama and Indiana, each issued by a federal district judge, were reversed by separate appeals courts. Eleven other cases are in various stages of litigation.How the Supreme Court rules on Skrmetti will almost surely affect how lower courts handle the challenges to similar statutes in states across the country. But the outcome may not be universal.“If Tennessee wins, the states will say ‘Skrmetti controls,’ and vice versa,” said Jim Campbell, chief counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group that is helping to defend Idaho’s ban on transition treatments for minors. “And then the other side, the losing side, will say, ‘No, it’s actually different, and here’s why.’” More