More stories

  • in

    Trump ally asks supreme court to move Georgia election case to federal court

    Attorneys for the White House chief of staff during Donald Trump’s presidency, Mark Meadows, have asked the US supreme court to move the Georgia 2020 election interference case to federal court.The petition cites the recent supreme court ruling that granted Trump immunity for any acts deemed official – which came as part of a 2020 election subversion case in Washington DC’s federal courthouse. Meadows’s attorneys claimed that a federal forum was needed to address their client’s actions as the White House chief of staff.“It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the nation,” the Meadows legal team’s petition argued.That filing is the most recent attempt by Meadows’s attorneys to move the Georgia election interference case from an Atlanta state court to US district court. In December 2023, a three-judge appeals court panel denied their effort to move the case to federal court, ruling that former federal officials are ineligible to move their charges.Meadows and his attorneys have undertaken that effort in hopes of asserting immunity from prosecution on charges related to unlawfully attempting to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in Georgia in the 2020 presidential race. If successful, they would affect Fulton county, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump, Meadows and other co-defendants.The judges on the appeals panel ruled that – even if the transfer process known as removal extended to former federal officials – Meadows did not demonstrate he was acting in his official role as White House chief of staff. The ruling blocked a path for Meadows to assert immunity and other federal defenses.And it prevented the jury pool from being broadened to areas of Georgia with lower percentages of Democrats while also getting case overseen by a member of the federal judiciary, which is appointed by presidents.Meadows is one of 19 defendants, including Trump, who were charged last August in the Georgia election racketeering case.The case’s proceedings have been televised in Georgia state court, and the plan is to do the same for the trial.“Simply put, whatever the precise contours of Meadows’s official authority, that authority did not extend to an alleged conspiracy to overturn valid election results,” the judge, William Pryor, an appointee of president George W Bush, wrote in the appellate court ruling.Attorneys for Meadows also requested the supreme court wipe away the appellate ruling and send the case back to the lower courts if they opt not to fully review his petition.Meadows faces charges that he allegedly entered a months-long conspiracy with Trump and other allies to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia during his winning presidential run in 2020.Meadows also faces a second charge alleging he sought to persuade the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to violate his oath of office. The charge references Meadows’s involvement in a phone call from Trump to Raffensperger – the top elections official in Georgia – asking him to find additional votes needed for the former president to win the state.The Georgia election interference case is halted for now as a state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in December over Trump’s efforts to remove Willis from the case.Meadows has also been charged in Arizona over his efforts to assist Trump to overturn election results, along with the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and 16 others.Meadows has pleaded not guilty in both the Arizona and Georgia cases. More

  • in

    Biden calls for supreme court reforms including 18-year justice term limits

    Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US supreme court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.“I served as a US senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today.“I have great respect for our institutions and separation of powers. What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”Biden called for a “no one is above the law” amendment to the constitution, which would make clear that no president is entitled to immunity from prosecution by virtue of having served in the White House. Biden also said justices’ terms should be limited to 18 years, under a system where a new justice would be appointed to the supreme court by the serving president every two years.The president also called for stricter, enforceable rules on conduct which would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial interest.Last week Justice Elena Kagan called for the court to strengthen the ethics code it introduced in 2023 by adding a way to enforce it. That code was introduced after a spate of scandals involving rightwing justices on the court: Clarence Thomas was found to have accepted vacations and travel from a Republican mega-donor, while Samuel Alito flew on a private jet owned by an influential billionaire on the way to a fishing trip.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLegislation would be required to impose term limits and an ethics code on the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely to pass the current divided Congress.The constitutional amendment on presidential immunity would be even more difficult to enact, requiring two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and then ratification by 38 of the 50 state legislatures.Reuters contributed to this report More

  • in

    New Orleans woman sues after being accused of stalking the city’s mayor

    A New Orleans woman once accused of stalking by the city’s mayor, LaToya Cantrell, turned the tables on Friday with a $1m-plus federal lawsuit accusing the elected official, her chief of staff, and eight members of the city’s police department of civil rights violations and defamation.Anne W Breaud’s lawsuit says Cantrell falsely accused her of following and harassing her. It also claims Cantrell’s chief of staff and members of the police department improperly accessed state and federal information on Breaud.Cantrell earlier this year filed a state court lawsuit accusing Breaud of stalking. But after a protective order against Breaud was initially issued, the lawsuit was thrown out, and Cantrell was ordered to pay Breaud’s legal costs.Defendants in the lawsuit filed on Friday include Cantrell, her chief of staff, the city and its police department, as well as three police officers identified by name and five officers who are not identified by name in the lawsuit. The police department declined to comment on pending litigation on Friday. The city also declined to comment in a release from Cantrell’s press secretary, saying its position would be made public in court filings answering the lawsuit.Sparking all the litigation were two photographs Breaud snapped from the balcony of her French Quarter apartment in April, showing Cantrell and a police bodyguard, since retired, dining and drinking on the balcony of a restaurant across a narrow street.Breaud said she sent the images to a police watchdog group, the Metropolitan Crime Commission. The pictures fueled controversy over Cantrell’s personal relationship with the bodyguard, Jeffrey Vappie.Vappie, who is not a defendant in the lawsuit, was criminally charged in federal court last week with wire fraud involving allegedly filing false payroll documents and lying to FBI agents about his relationship with the mayor. Vappie’s attorneys have declared him innocent. His first court appearance is set for 7 August.Cantrell, according to the lawsuit, accused Breaud of not only turning her pictures over to local media, but also of following Cantrell and taking and distributing another photo, all of which Breaud denies.“While Cantrell falsely painted herself as the victim of a pattern of stalking, harassment and intimidation by Breaud, it is Cantrell who has engaged in a pattern of harassment and character assassination against Breaud, a person wrongly accused by Cantrell of stalking solely because Breaud captured a photograph of Cantrell and Vappie in a compromising position,” the lawsuit states.The lawsuit accuses the police defendants of illegally obtaining information about her on state and national databases, and she contends that Cantrell and her chief of staff made it public.The lawsuit seeks a court finding that Cantrell and the other defendants violated Breaud’s civil rights and her constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure, violated federal privacy and computer fraud laws, and defamed her. It also seeks $500,000 in actual damages, including emotional stress, litigation costs and time lost defending against Cantrell’s allegations, plus $500,000 in punitive damages and other damages in unspecified amounts for alleged violations of state law. More

  • in

    Fines for child labor violations would increase under new Democratic bill

    Democrats introduced a bill Friday proposing increased penalties for employers found guilty of child labor violations and toughening rules around minimum wage, overtime violations and breaches of health and safety rules.The Let’s Protect Workers act would also set new penalties for retaliating against workers who exercise their right to take family and medical leave, toughen oversight of workplace injury records, improve mine safety and ensure funding for workers affected by black lung.The bill comes as child labor violations have surged in the US. The Department of Labor reported an increase of 88% in such violations between 2019 and 2023 as Republican states have moved to relax child labor rules. Eight states have passed legislation to roll back child labor protections so far this year.For child labor violations, the US Department of Labor can currently fine employers up to $11,000 per employee who is the subject of a child labor violation and up to $50,000 for each violation that causes injury or death of a minor. The fines can be doubled if the violation is determined to be willful or repeated. The new bill would increase fines up to $150,000 per employee subject to a child labor violation and up to $700,000 for a violation that causes the death or injury of a minor, which still could be doubled for willful or repetitive violations.Wage and hour violations would increase from up to $1,100 per violation to $25,000 per violation, which may be doubled for willful or repetitive violations.“Every American should be fairly compensated and be able to return home safely at the end of the day,” said Robert “Bobby” Scott, Virginia representative and ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.“Unfortunately, shortcomings in our labor laws enable unethical employers to exploit workers, endanger children and suppress the right to organize – with little accountability,” Scott said. “That’s why I’m proud to introduce the Let’s Protect Workers act, which will hold bad actors accountable and strengthen penalties for labor law violations. This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers.”The bill would also introduce civil monetary penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, up to $50,000 per violation. Currently, employers do not face any civil monetary penalties aside from back pay and reinstatement of workers for unfair labor practice charges.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe legislation comes in the wake of a report published by Scott in April 2024 that outlined the ineffectiveness of low or non-existent civil monetary penalties for labor violations committed by employers. The report outlines how current fines and penalties are merely “a slap on the wrist”, with employers facing little to no deterrents to breaking labor laws.“Unfortunately, unscrupulous employers are emboldened to violate these foundational worker rights and protections because of the weak civil monetary penalties assessed in response,” the report noted. “Under some labor and employment laws, workers are worse off as employers face no monetary penalty and can break the law cost-free.” More

  • in

    Trump files complaint against Harris for taking over Biden’s campaign funds

    Donald Trump’s campaign on Tuesday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the vice-president Kamala Harris, accusing her 2024 campaign of violating federal campaign finance laws by replacing Joe Biden’s name with her own to take control of his campaign funds.The complaint, filed by the Trump campaign’s general counsel, David Warrington, argued that the Biden campaign could not rename its committee from “Biden for President” to “Harris for President” once Biden dropped out of the race on Sunday, and roll over $91m.“This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5m excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden’s old campaign to Kamala Harris’s new campaign. This effort makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws,” the eight-page complaint said.“Federal candidates are prohibited from keeping contributions for elections in which they do not participate,” it added. “Biden for President 2024 has shown no intention to properly refund or re-designate the general election funds it has already received. This makes them all excess contributions.”Whether the complaint generates traction with the FEC remains unclear, but the Trump campaign has been looking for any way to slow down the momentum Harris has been able to generate with voters and donors after she quickly became the presumptive Democratic nominee.The strategy, according to people familiar with the matter, has included opening new legal battles to try to prevent Harris from accessing Biden’s funds, although the complaint on Tuesday stopped short of a lawsuit.Warrington made that explicit request to the FEC in the complaint, asking the agency to enjoin the transfer. And if the FEC were to deem the transfer unlawful, the complaint said, it would ask the FEC to consider issuing a fine or making a criminal referral to the US justice department.The Harris campaign has viewed the FEC complaint as a spurious legal effort to throw sand in their gears, noting that the Biden-Harris committees have always been authorized committees for either Biden or Harris, according to a person familiar with the thinking.And in a statement, the Harris campaign noted that they had raised $100m in donations in the 36 hours since Biden withdrew from the 2024 race, adding: “Baseless legal claims – like the ones they’ve made for years to try to suppress votes and steal elections – will only distract them.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe complaint, earlier reported by the New York Times, also argued that Harris taking over Biden’s remaining campaign funds amounted to an excessive unlawful contribution given that “Biden for President” was not an authorized committee for the Harris campaign.“If Mr Biden will not seek the Democratic party’s nomination, then he will never participate in the general election and all general election contributions received by Biden for President are excessive and must be disposed of,” the complaint said. More

  • in

    US prosecutors retool January 6 plea deals after supreme court ruling – report

    US prosecutors are “beginning to offer retooled plea deals” and drop charges in cases related to the January 6 attack on Congress, CNN said, citing legal filings in the weeks since the rightwing-dominated US supreme court narrowed how prosecutors can charge rioters with obstructing an official proceeding.The report noted a Monday filing concerning five members of the far-right Proud Boys group, which said each defendant had been offered a plea deal not including the obstruction charge.Should the deal be declined, CNN said, the obstruction charge would be dropped and the men taken to trial on other charges.A rioter famously seen carrying a Confederate battle flag through Congress is also among prisoners or defendants whose cases are being reassessed.On 6 January 2021, Kevin Seefried, from Laurel, Delaware, was part of the mob that stormed the Capitol at the urging of Donald Trump, seeking to stop certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.A famous picture showed Seefried underneath portraits of the senator and vice-president John Calhoun, a champion of secession in the early 19th century, and Senator Charles Sumner, a leading voice for union and the abolition of slavery in the civil war years.In February this year, Seefried wept as he was sentenced to nearly three years in prison for obstruction of an official proceeding, as well as misdemeanour charges.But he was soon released to await a decision in Fischer v United States, a supreme court case concerning the obstruction charge.In late June, the court’s decision narrowed the grounds on which the charge could be used in January 6 cases.According to the chief justice, John Roberts, the obstruction charge should be applied to whether a “defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of [actual] records, documents, objects, or … other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so”.The opinion was sent to an appeals court for further consideration. Prosecutors were left to work out how to link the obstruction charge to threats to actual records, in particular the electoral college certificates used to formalise results, rather than to the general attempt to overturn an election.The supreme court decision prompted outrage among court observers.Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or Crew, said Roberts and the other five justices who ruled in the majority had helped “insurrectionists dodge accountability”, adding: “If attempting to block the certification of the 2020 election isn’t obstructing an official proceeding in the court’s eyes, then what is?”The US attorney general, Merrick Garland, was also disappointed, saying the court had “limit[ed] an important federal statute that the [justice] department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences”.Nonetheless, Garland said, “the vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer.”Though the department would “comply with the court’s ruling”, Garland said, it would “continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy”.Earlier this month, the US justice department released statistics showing how January 6 cases would be affected by the supreme court ruling.More than 1,472 people had been charged in relation to the attack on Congress by the time the court said it would consider Fischer, it said. Of those people, “roughly 259 … were charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so”.Of those 259 defendants, Seefried and 132 others had been sentenced. Of those 133, the department said, 76 were convicted of obstruction and other felonies while “approximately 17” were convicted on the obstruction charge but no other felonies and were then still serving prison time.“Nearly all” the other 126 defendants were on pre-trial release, the justice department said.The department said it would review “individual cases against the standards articulated in Fischer, as well as the anticipated ongoing proceedings related to Fischer in the DC circuit, to determine whether the government will proceed with the charge”.The department also noted the wide range of other charges against January 6 rioters, many concerning violent conduct.“Approximately 531 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees,” it said, “including approximately 157 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.”Fourteen convictions have been secured for seditious conspiracy, the most serious charge arising from the Capitol attack.Running for president again, Trump leads Biden in most polling.He has promised pardons to those imprisoned over January 6. More

  • in

    American rule of law is vanishing at the tips of Trump-appointed judges’ pens | Moira Donegan

    Donald Trump stole thousands of classified documents when he left the White House in 2021, according to prosecutors, and shoved them in unsecured areas around the tacky Florida golf club where he lives. He kept them in basements, bathrooms and ballrooms; they were often unlocked, accessible to anyone who happened to wander by, as dozens or hundreds of people do, every day, at Mar-a-Lago. Trump refused to return the documents when asked; he also lied about what he had.On at least one occasion in 2021, he was recorded showing off one of the classified documents to a visitor, apparently for the sake of his own aggrandizement. “It is like highly confidential. Secret,” Trump said to the man, who was not authorized to see the information. “See, as president, I could have declassified it. Now, I can’t, but this is still a secret.”Aileen Cannon, a US district court judge in Florida whom Donald Trump appointed during his last year in office, has done everything in her power to make sure Trump is never held accountable for the theft of the documents. Since the special counsel Jack Smith’s case – widely considered to be the most legally airtight of the several criminal prosecutions against the former president – was formally assigned to Cannon in June 2023, she has often acted as if she was a member of the defense team; denying routine motions from the prosecutors, antagonizing Smith and his team personally, and dragging on the proceedings in endless rounds of briefings and delays, all surely meant to postpone the case until after Trump retakes the White House.On Monday, she dismissed the case entirely, throwing out all the document-related charges against Trump. Her purported reasoning? That special counsels such as Jack Smith are unconstitutional. Smith signaled that he plans to appeal the decision.Cannon’s ruling flies in the face of decades of precedent, going back to the Watergate era, wherein courts, including the US supreme court, have repeatedly reaffirmed the constitutionality of special counsels and their appointments. But although Cannon wears a robe, she is not interested in the law, which is a mere pretext for her bald effort to advance and protect Trump’s interests. She is not a judge any more than the man who works at the mall every December is Santa Claus. She has the trappings and the power, but none of the expertise, none of the obligations and none of the shame.Cannon’s dismissal of the Trump documents case was predictable: the prosecution, widely considered to be doomed, came at the end of months of strategic moves on her part meant to provide Trump maximum leeway to message publicly about the case, and minimum threat to his electoral process. When Trump lied about the FBI raid on his home, saying that it was a plot on his life orchestrated by the Biden administration, Smith, fearing violence and public misperception, asked for a gag order. Both the sensitivity of the case and the egregious danger posed by Trump’s conduct should have made it an easy call; but Cannon denied it, allowing Trump to continue lying about the raid.At one point during preliminary proceedings, Cannon outright refused to let prosecutors see the documents that had been seized from Mar-a-Lago, a move that prompted a reversal and rare rebuke from the appeals court above her, Atlanta’s 11th circuit. That 11th circuit warning seems to have prompted the first instance in which another federal judge urged Cannon to recuse herself from the case. It would not be the last.Cannon’s single-handed nullification of the classified documents case demonstrates the core problem with what has been, until now, the dominant theory of how to hold Trump accountable for his crimes: with the law. Increasingly, it seems prosecutions in the federal courts are a futile exercise when it comes to the former president. And that’s because the courts are packed with Republican partisans, Trump appointees and personal Trump loyalists, and large numbers of other right-leaning judges who aim to use their seats to roll back the social progress of the past century, further Trump’s authoritarian agenda, and shield him permanently from consequence. To the extent that they are controlled by these actors, the federal courts will never provide a check to Trump’s power. They will only augment it.This reality was underscored on 1 July. The supreme court’s last decision of the term, Trump v United States, created, out of thin air, a vast and near-absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that the court’s conservative justices say applies to presidents – or, at least, applies to their favorite former president.That decision stemmed from another of Smith’s prosecutions, in the January 6 case; in his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, signaled that he thought that perhaps special counsels such as Smith might not be legal after all. It was less like a real, considered legal position than like a set of instructions for Cannon: throw the documents case out on these grounds. Her argument mirrors Thomas’s; she took her marching orders straight from the top.The 11th circuit is likely to reverse Cannon’s dismissal, and it’s possible that Smith will get a chance to re-file his charges – possibly in Washington, closer to the site of the original illegal conduct, which will have the benefit of permanently removing his case from Cannon’s court. But the case will not be heard before the election, and so it may never be heard at all.Even prosecuting Trump might turn out to offer little more than a delay of the inevitable: the complicity of the courts in Trump’s criminality reveals an institutional rot that even locking him up would not solve. If the courts cannot hold the president accountable – or rather, if they choose to exempt one man from their authority, and instead bend themselves to his will – what, exactly, is the check on the presidency? How can a powerful criminal be held to account? Where does the rule of law apply, and where does it vanish?We have at least one answer: the rule of law vanishes at the tip of a Trump judge’s pen.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Bob Menendez set to resign from Senate after bribery conviction – report

    The Democratic US senator Bob Menendez is refuting early reports that he told allies he was considering resigning from Congress after being convicted on corruption charges.“I can tell you that I have not resigned nor have I spoken to any so-called allies … Seems to me that there is an effort to try to force me into a statement,” Menendez told CBS News late Wednesday evening.Menendez has represented New Jersey in Congress for more than 30 years, as a representative in the House from 1993 to 2006 and since then in the Senate.NBC News reported early on Wednesday Menendez was preparing to resign.A jury in New York on Monday found the 70-year-old former chair of the Senate foreign relations committee guilty of 16 federal charges, including accepting bribes of cash, gold and a luxury car from three New Jersey businessmen, and acting as an overseas agent for Egypt.Shortly after the verdicts were read, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader; Cory Booker, Menendez’s fellow New Jersey senator; and Phil Murphy, the state’s Democratic governor, had urged him to stand down.Despite months of defiance from Menendez, NBC reported he is ready to relinquish his seat, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the senator’s intentions.“In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said in a statement.Murphy, who was among the first Democrats to call for Menendez to resign, will appoint a senator to temporarily complete Menendez’s term, which ends in January 2025.After the guilty verdict, Menendez told reporters: “I have never violated my public oath. I have never been anything but a patriot of my country and for my country.”It was a familiar refrain from Menendez, who has taken a defiant stand ever since he was first indicted in September last year.The senator was on trial with New Jersey businessmen Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, who were also convicted of all the charges they faced. All three pleaded not guilty.Another businessman pleaded guilty before trial and testified against Menendez and the other defendants.Menendez’s wife, Nadine, was also charged, although Stein announced Tuesday that her trial had been postponed indefinitely. Menendez said in May she was being treated for advanced-stage breast cancer.This article was amended on 17 July 2024. An earlier version stated that Menendez was going to resignReuters contributed reporting More