Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump once led chants of ‘lock her up’. Now he’s been indicted on seven counts | Lloyd Green

      by

      On Thursday night, word of the government’s indictment of Donald Trump seeped out. The 45th president is reportedly slated to be arraigned this coming Tuesday on seven separate counts. He stands accused of violating the Espionage Act, false statements and conspiracy to obstruct justice.Irony abounds. As a first-time candidate, he led chants of “lock her up”. From the White House, he sought jail for his political opponents. Now on his third bid for the presidency, Trump must contend with an array of pending federal and state prosecutions and investigations.For the first time ever, the leading contender for a major party’s presidential nomination will be running while under the cloud of indictment and possible imprisonment. In October, he faces a civil fraud trial in New York. Then in March 2024, he will be tried as a criminal defendant on charges related to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels.Imagine Trump on the receiving end of the court’s direction: “Will the defendant please rise.”Still, there is no indication that his Republican rivals will go at him full-bore. The party’s base still belongs to Trump. In that sense, the rest of the Republican field are intruders and would-be usurpers. Already, Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence, together with broad swaths of the Republican congressional leadership, have fallen into line.On cue, Florida’s mirthless governor blasted the justice department, much as he attacked Alvin Bragg, Manhattan’s district attorney, weeks earlier. “The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society,” DeSantis tweeted.To be sure, “free society” and DeSantis in the same sentence is an oxymoron. In office, he has repeatedly sought to muzzle free speech. He also signed a six-week abortion ban, and established an election police force to root out imagined incidents of fraud.This time, however, DeSantis did not couple his attack on the prosecution with a direct defense of Trump. There is only so much swill that DeSantis, now a declared candidate, can be expected to swallow.As for Trump’s hapless vice-president, he remains as wishy-washy as ever. Pence described the reported charges as “unprecedented” and “divisive”, while intoning that “no one’s above the law”. His latest bromides are akin to “thoughts and prayers” after a mass shooting.A reminder. On January 6, there were people who seemed ready to hang Pence from makeshift gallows. Yet hours later, Pence’s own brother, Greg, a congressman from Indiana, voted against certifying the election. The show must go on, apparently.Indeed, even Chris Christie hesitates to rush in. “Let’s see what the facts are when any possible indictment is released,” the former federal prosecutor and New Jersey governor tweeted. “As I have said before, no one is above the law, no matter how much they wish they were. We will have more to say when the facts are revealed.”Previously, Christie had opined that Trump’s legal woes are “all self-inflicted wounds”.At this juncture, only a precipitous drop in donations stands to upend Trump’s campaign. Faced with mounting legal bills, a never-ending parade of woes and little spare cash, the ex-reality show host feeds on other people’s money to stay in the game. For him, politics is about monetization and avoiding jail. After the Bragg indictment, Trump raised $12m.Looking at the calendar, it is highly unlikely that Trump will be tried on federal charges before the 2024 election. Between his trials in New York, the Republican convention and justice department policy, his figurative dance card is full. If re-elected, Trump would be in the perfect position to force the dismissal of any and all pending federal charges against him.We have already witnessed a variation of this movie. Back in May 2020, Bill Barr’s justice department moved to dismiss the government’s case against Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. The fact that he had entered a guilty plea in 2017 was not a deal-breaker. Flynn had not yet gone to jail and was fighting to toss his prior plea.“It looks like to me that Michael Flynn would be exonerated based on everything that I see,” Trump said more than three years ago. “I’m not the judge, but I have a different type of power.”We may yet find out how different that power actually is.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Jack Smith: veteran special counsel at the center of Trump investigations

      by

      Donald Trump has been charged on seven counts, including violating the Espionage Act and conspiring to obstruct the criminal investigation, in a decision by special prosecutor Jack Smith.Smith, a veteran prosecutor and justice department official, has been at the center of two federal investigations into Trump’s misconduct – one concerning Trump’s interference with the certification of the 2020 election, and the other over the former president’s mishandling of classified documents found at his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort.Over a seven-month investigation, Smith and his team interviewed former White House officials, Trump aides and Mar-a-Lago staff in the classified documents investigation before handing down the decision on Thursday.A registered independent, Smith was appointed by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in November 2022 to serve as special prosecutor overseeing the two investigations. The Department of Justice has yet to deliver a decision concerning Trump’s role in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.After he was appointed, Smith, then the chief prosecutor at the international criminal court, worked first from the Netherlands while he recovered from a cycling accident. Smith resigned from that role, where he investigated war crimes in Kosovo, to take up the special prosecutor post in the US.A career prosecutorSmith, whose career as a prosecutor spans three decades, spent more than a decade in New York, where he worked as an assistant US attorney from 1999 to 2008 after a stint as a prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Its current head, Alvin Bragg, filed in April a 34-count indictment against Trump for falsifying business records to conceal hush payments to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election cycle.He was an assistant US attorney in Tennessee – and served for a short time as acting US attorney. From 2010 to 2015, Smith oversaw the justice department’s public integrity section, which was created following the Watergate scandal to oversee corruption and prosecute crimes by government officials.Smith was appointed chief prosecutor of the international criminal court (ICC) in 2018.Garland’s announcement that he would appoint Jack Smith as special prosecutor overseeing the two federal criminal investigations came days after Trump announced he would again run for president.Smith’s investigation revealed Trump acknowledged he kept classified documentsEarlier this week, Smith was seen meeting with justice department lawyers and members of Trump’s defense team, in a sign he would soon hand down a decision. Smith’s team then informed Trump’s lawyers in a letter that the ex-president was a target of the documents investigation, according to multiple reports.Mark Meadows, formerly Trump’s chief of staff, testified before a Florida grand jury on Wednesday, in another sign the investigation was nearing its end.Trump, however, had maintained he was unaware of the indictment.“No one has told me I’m being indicted, and I shouldn’t be because I’ve done NOTHING wrong,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.But Smith’s investigation proves otherwise: among the evidence is an audio tape where Trump says he kept a classified document detailing a potential attack on Iran, CNN first reported.Trump is currently the top contender for the Republican nomination in 2024. More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump attempts to cut sexual abuse damages for E Jean Carroll to $1m – as it happened

      by

      From 2h agoDonald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.The case went in Carroll’s favor last month when a jury decided that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her.Trump’s legal team has argued to the court that the damages awarded against him are excessive and the court should either slash them or allow a new trial.Reuters adds:
      The lawyers noted in a written submission that a Manhattan federal court jury last month rejected a rape claim made by the writer, E. Jean Carroll, concluding instead that she had been sexually abused in spring 1996 in the store’s dressing room.
      “Such abuse could have included groping of Plaintiff’s breasts through clothing, or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape,” the lawyers wrote.
      They said the $2 million granted by the jury on a sexual abuse claim was “grossly excessive” and another $2.7 million issued for compensatory defamation damages was “based upon pure speculation.”
      The award should consist of no more than $400,000 for sex abuse, no more than $100,000 for defamation and $368,000 or less for the cost of a campaign to repair Carroll‘s reputation, the lawyers wrote.
      If a judge does not grant the suggested reduction in the award, then he should permit a new trial on damages, they said.
      Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said in an emailed statement that the arguments by Trump’s lawyers were frivolous.
      She said the unanimous jury had concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her “by lying about her with hatred, ill-will, or spite.”
      “This time, Trump will not be able to escape the consequences of his actions,” Kaplan said.
      Trump may still face a second defamation trial resulting from another lawsuit Carroll filed against him. That case has been delayed with appeals as the U.S. Justice Department sought to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of Trump. Government lawyers say Trump can’t be held liable for the comments he made as president.
      Hello US politics blog readers, it’s been an eventful day in US political news. We’re closing this blog now and will start afresh on Friday. We have stand alone stories on some of the biggest news of the day, links in the bullet points below.Here’s where things stand:
      Donald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.
      The White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event. Reuters further reports that Biden said violence against LGBTQ+ people in the United States is on the rise and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric is an appeal to fear that is “unjustified” and “ugly.”
      Hardline Republicans have effectively paralyzed the chamber because they’re unhappy at speaker Kevin McCarthy over the deal with Democrats that resolved the problem with the US debt ceiling. The spat appears to have widened to envelop No 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who appears unhappy with the speaker.
      The US supreme court ruled that Alabama discriminated against Black voters when it drew its seven congressional districts last year. The ruling in Allen v Milligan means that Alabama will have to draw its congressional map afresh to include a second majority-Black district.
      Donald Trump has asked a federal court in New York to slash the $5m penalty awarded against him in the sexual assault and defamation civil case won by writer E Jean Carroll down to just $1m – or grant him a new trial.The case went in Carroll’s favor last month when a jury decided that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her.Trump’s legal team has argued to the court that the damages awarded against him are excessive and the court should either slash them or allow a new trial.Reuters adds:
      The lawyers noted in a written submission that a Manhattan federal court jury last month rejected a rape claim made by the writer, E. Jean Carroll, concluding instead that she had been sexually abused in spring 1996 in the store’s dressing room.
      “Such abuse could have included groping of Plaintiff’s breasts through clothing, or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape,” the lawyers wrote.
      They said the $2 million granted by the jury on a sexual abuse claim was “grossly excessive” and another $2.7 million issued for compensatory defamation damages was “based upon pure speculation.”
      The award should consist of no more than $400,000 for sex abuse, no more than $100,000 for defamation and $368,000 or less for the cost of a campaign to repair Carroll‘s reputation, the lawyers wrote.
      If a judge does not grant the suggested reduction in the award, then he should permit a new trial on damages, they said.
      Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said in an emailed statement that the arguments by Trump’s lawyers were frivolous.
      She said the unanimous jury had concluded that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her “by lying about her with hatred, ill-will, or spite.”
      “This time, Trump will not be able to escape the consequences of his actions,” Kaplan said.
      Trump may still face a second defamation trial resulting from another lawsuit Carroll filed against him. That case has been delayed with appeals as the U.S. Justice Department sought to substitute the United States as the defendant in place of Trump. Government lawyers say Trump can’t be held liable for the comments he made as president.
      Here’s New York civil rights campaigner and politician Al Sharpton on the supreme court decision.
      This was an unexpected decision that hopefully means the Supreme Court’s era of disenfranchising voters is coming to an end.
      Alabama’s gerrymandering policies were quintessential, modern-day Jim Crow tactics to suppress Black voters in the state. That you had two conservative-leaning judges rule against the state all but confirms that.
      This is a major step forward in the fight to protect voting rights. Let’s not forget that we’re in this mess because the Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to the Voting Rights Act a decade ago when it ruled on Shelby v. Holder.
      States essentially got the green light to recut lines, purge voter rolls, and take any other steps to keep Black and Brown Americans from showing up at the polls. Today’s ruling only goes to show why Congress has a moral imperative to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act this year.
      We have been promised since we lost John Lewis three years ago, amid historic protests against racial injustice, and we will not wait until next year when lawmakers need our vote again. On August 26th, we will gather for the 60th Anniversary of the March on Washington to send a clear message that this legislation must pass now.”
      US attorney general Merrick Garland has issued a response to the supreme court’s decision on Alabama and also a fresh call to the US Congress to pass some of the voting rights legislation that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris campaigned on in 2020 but is growing mildew on Capitol Hill.Garland said:
      Today’s decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race.
      The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow.
      Over the past two years, the Justice Department has rededicated its resources to enforcing federal voting rights protections. We will continue to use every authority we have left to defend voting rights. But that is not enough. We urge Congress to act to provide the Department with important authorities it needs to protect the voting rights of every American.”
      Here’s Janai Nelson, president and director- counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), on the Scotus decision.There is praise to go around.On Deuel Ross, racial justice attorney at the Legal Defense Fund:More reaction now to the surprise decision by the US supreme court earlier to defend the Voting Rights Act in a case involving Alabama’s electoral map.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has released a statement thus, which includes some useful background:
      The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Allen v. Milligan in favor of Black voters who challenged Alabama’s 2021-enacted congressional map for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for diluting Black political power, affirming the district court’s order that Alabama redraw its congressional map.
      By packing and cracking the historic Black Belt community, the map passed by the state legislature allowed Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in only one of seven districts even though they make up 27 percent percent of the voting-age population. In its decision, the court also affirmed that under Section 2 of the VRA, race can be used in the redistricting process to provide equal opportunities to communities of color and ensure they are not packed and cracked in a way that impermissibly weakens their voting strength.
      The case was brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb. It was argued before the court on Oct. 4, 2022.
      “This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights,” said LDF senior counsel Deuel Ross, who argued the case before the court in October. “Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race had no place in redistricting. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented history of racial discrimination, race must be used to remedy that past and ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process. While the Voting Rights Act and other key protections against discriminatory voting laws have been weakened in recent years and states continue to pass provisions to disenfranchise Black voters, today’s decision is a recognition of Section 2’s purpose to prevent voting discrimination and the very basic right to a fair shot.”
      Davin Rosborough, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said, “The Supreme Court rejected the Orwellian idea that it’s inappropriate to consider race in determining whether racial discrimination led to the creation of illegal maps. This ruling is a huge victory for Black Alabamians.”
      It’s been a busy morning in US politics and there will be plenty more developments on subjects ranging from Trump and E Jean Carroll to the supreme court’s surprise ruling on Alabama’s biased voting maps.Here’s where things stand:
      Donald Trump has asked for a new trial in the civil case brought by author E Jean Carroll, in which a Manhattan jury last month found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $5m in damages.
      The White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event.
      Hardline Republicans have effectively paralyzed the chamber because they’re unhappy at speaker Kevin McCarthy over the deal with Democrats that resolved the problem with the US debt ceiling. The spat appears to have widened to envelop No 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who appears unhappy with the speaker.
      The US supreme court ruled that Alabama discriminated against Black voters when it drew its seven congressional districts last year. The ruling in Allen v Milligan means that Alabama will have to draw its congressional map afresh to include a second majority-Black district.
      Another quick reminder that British prime minister Rishi Sunak and US president Joe Biden are about to hold a press conference at the White House.It’s beginning any moment and our London colleagues are glued to it. There’s a live feed and all the developments as they happen, via the UK politics blog, here.No sooner had a New York jury found for E Jean Carroll than Donald Trump verbally attacked her during a live town hall-style interview on CNN (the broadcast which was probably the penultimate nail in the coffin for departing CNN chair Chris Licht before the crushing Atlantic article).Carroll promptly went back to court to to demand “very substantial” additional damages from Trump for the disparaging remarks, filing an amended lawsuit seeking an additional $10m in compensatory damages – and more in punitive damages.During the town hall in New Hampshire the day after the 9 May verdict, Trump further and repeatedly demeaned Carroll and her experiences.Trump said her account of a sexual assault, in the case which he is appealing, was “fake” and a “made-up story” and referred to it as “hanky-panky”. He repeated past claims that he’d never met Carroll and considered her a “whack job”.The filing by Carroll the following week claimed Trump’s statements at the televised town hall “show the depth of his malice toward Carroll, since it is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will or spite”.Now Trump wants a new trial.Last month a New York jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused the former advice columnist, E Jean Carroll, in one of New York City’s most upscale stores, in the changing room at Bergdorf Goodman on Fifth Avenue, 27 years ago.The verdict on 9 May, for the first time, essentially legally branded a former US president as a sexual predator. It was the result of a civil not criminal case, and the only legal sanction Trump faced was financial.At the time, my colleagues Chris McGreal and Martin Pengelly noted that: In explaining a finding of sexual abuse to the jury, the judge said it had two elements: that Trump subjected Carroll to sexual contact without consent by use of force, and that it was for the purpose of sexual gratification.The jury deliberated for less than three hours. It did not find Trump raped Carroll, but did find him liable for sexual abuse.It awarded about $5m in compensatory and punitive damages: about $2m on the sexual abuse count and close to $3m for defamation, for branding her a liar.In an interview the following day, Carroll said she was “overwhelmed with joy for the women in this country”.It would be staggering if Donald Trump succeeded in getting a new civil trial in the issues brought against him by E Jean Carroll, after she sued him for defamation and sexual abuse and won hands down after a brisk jury decision.But the former US president is having a go.Donald Trump has asked for a new trial in the civil case brought by author E Jean Carroll, in which a Manhattan jury last month found the former US president liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer and awarded her $5m in damages, Reuters reports.This according to a new court filing. More on this asap.Smoke gets in your eyes. Sadly, the White House has had to postpone a party due for this evening at the White House, where thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-plus (LGBTQ+) people were invited to a celebration and, essentially, a political defiance event at the White House.The smoky air drifting south from the Canadian wildfires that’s been causing havoc on the eastern seaboard and further inland has put paid to tonight’s party.BUT in better news, it is currently rescheduled for Saturday.NBC reports that the event was/is designed as:
      A high-profile show of support at a time when the community feels under attack like never before and the White House has little recourse to beat back a flood of state-level legislation against them.
      Biden is also announcing new initiatives to protect LGBTQ+ communities from attacks, help youth with mental health resources and homelessness and counter book bans, White House officials said.
      The event is a:
      Picnic featuring food, games, face painting and photos. Queen HD the DJ was handling the music; singer Betty Who was on tap to perform.
      Karine Jean-Pierre, the first openly gay White House press secretary, said Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their spouses are strong supporters of the LGBTQ+ community and think that having a celebration is an important way to “lift up” their accomplishments and contributions.
      She said LGBTQ+ people need to know that Biden “has their back” and “will continue to fight for them. And that’s the message that we want to make sure that gets out there.”
      FYI Harris is in the Bahamas today on business and is expected back in DC tonight. Biden’s meeting Rishi Sunak at the White House and holding a presser soon.You can follow all the latest developments on the Canadian wildfires and the smoke impact on the US in our dedicated live blog:There’s some context on the relationship between House speaker Kevin McCarthy and his chamber GOP No. 2, Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, from the Punchbowl report, prior to the hardliners’ spat now rippling out on Capitol Hill.The outlet points out that a captain having friction with his supposed wingman “is a tale as old as time in House leadership” and these two have known each other for decades.Punchbowl reports:
      The pair met as young College Republicans and their interactions have always been professional. But there’s no doubt some bad blood between the two men.
      Scalise considered running against McCarthy for Republican leader in 2019, but ultimately decided against it — something we cataloged at length in a book we wrote. And again, McCarthy tapped [Louisiana congressman Garrett] Graves and [North Carolina congressman Patrick] McHenry for the most sensitive negotiations of the last few months, leaving Scalise aside.
      Scalise said in the interview that McCarthy is still viable as speaker of the House. But the House majority leader noted repeatedly that there is “a lot of anger on a lot of sides of our conference.”
      An old article from Politico notes that McCarthy and Scalise’s “parallel rise” dates to the late 1990s. McCarthy was national chairman of the Young Republicans and Scalise was an up and coming Louisiana politician and their friendship developed from that time.British prime minister Rishi Sunak, from the Conservative Party, is in Washington DC, this week and is meeting right now with Joe Biden at the White House.The premier and the US president are due to hold a press conference at 1.30pm US east coast time. Our colleagues in London are focusing on this and will be covering it as it happens via the UK politics blog, with a live stream of the event.You can keep up with that blog here.Selma native and Alabama congresswoman Terri Sewell just hopped on the phone for a live interview with CNN on air to express her relief and delight about the supreme court decision on voting rights and the relevant district maps in her state.“This is so exciting, it’s really amazing … it’s an amazing victory for Alabama Black voters, for the Voting Rights Act, for democracy,” she said.She tweeted about a “historic victory”.Sewell said the ruling reflected the legacy of the long legacy of fighting for civil rights for Black voters in Alabama and elsewhere and she was “reeling” from the good surprise.“And to have the supreme court give us this huge win, it’s historic,” she told CNN.She noted this would have implications more widely and was a closely watched case by legislatures creating voting maps, especially in states such as North Carolina and Ohio. “Everyone is looking at this decision,” she said, adding “it will have a positive ripple effect.”She noted that the late civil rights activist, champion and congressman John Lewis “must be smiling” and that those who challenged Alabama’s discriminatory voting rights did was Lewis always encouraged people do to: “we got into some good trouble.”This is Sewell’s pinned tweet: More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Alabama discriminated against Black voters, US supreme court rules

      by

      Alabama discriminated against Black voters when it drew its seven congressional districts last year, the supreme court has ruled, a decision that is a major victory for the Voting Rights Act (VRA).The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s three liberal justices in the opinion. Writing for the majority of the court, Roberts noted the court was rejecting Alabama’s effort to get it to rewrite its longstanding interpretation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. The decision means that section 2 of the law, one of its last remaining powerful provisions, will remain intact.“The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew,” Roberts wrote. “We find Alabama’s new approach to §2 compelling neither in theory nor in practice. We accordingly decline to recast our §2 case law as Alabama requests.”The decision was an unexpected outcome from Roberts and the court, both of whom have significantly hollowed out the Voting Rights Act in recent years. As a young lawyer in the justice department in the 1980s, Roberts argued for narrowing the interpretation of section 2. The court has rarely sided with voting rights litigants who allege voting discrimination.The decision in the case, Allen v Milligan, means that Alabama will have to draw its congressional map to include a second majority-Black district. Black voters currently comprise a majority of the voting age population in just one district, despite making up a quarter of the state’s population.“This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights,” Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race had no place in redistricting. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented history of racial discrimination, race must be used to remedy that past and ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process.”The ruling also is a boon to similar cases in Louisiana, Texas and Georgia, where litigants currently are suing to require the drawing of additional majority-minority districts. “This precedent also lays a foundation for fair map decisions in our other Section 2 cases,” said Marina Jenkins, the executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, a Democratic-aligned group that is involved in those cases.Alabama could have easily drawn a second majority-Black district, the challengers in the case argued. They offered several sample maps with possible configurations of how to do so. Last year, a three-judge panel unanimously agreed with that argument and ordered the state to do so. The panel, which included two judges appointed by Donald Trump, said the question of whether the state had violated the law was “not a close one”.Notably, the majority rejected an argument from Alabama that it should only be required to draw an additional majority-Black district if the plaintiffs could prove it was required without considering race. That theory would have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to show discrimination had occurred in redistricting against minority voters.“This court has long recognized – and as all members of this court today agree – the text of §2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion. “The effects test, as applied by Gingles to redistricting, requires in certain circumstances that courts account for the race of voters so as to prevent the cracking or packing – whether intentional or not – of large and geographically compact minority populations.”Joe Biden praised the court’s decision and said he and Vice-President Kamala Harris would continue to push Congress to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. The US supreme court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Roberts in 2013, gutted a key provision of the law that required states with a history of voting discrimination to get voting changes pre-cleared by the federal government before they went into effect.“The right to vote and have that vote counted is sacred and fundamental – it is the right from which all of our other rights spring. Key to that right is ensuring that voters pick their elected officials – not the other way around,” the president said in a statement. “Today’s decision confirms the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, but our work is not done.”Merrick Garland, the US attorney general, praised the decision in a statement.“Today’s decision rejects efforts to further erode fundamental voting rights protections, and preserves the principle that in the United States, all eligible voters must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote free from discrimination based on their race,” he said. “The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow.”Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined at various parts by fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. The supreme court has long misinterpreted section 2, he wrote, restating his prior view that it does not even apply to redistricting cases. He also wrote that the majority opinion required too much consideration of race in drawing district lines and urged a more race-neutral approach.“As applied here, the amended §2 thus falls on the wrong side of ‘the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law’,” Thomas wrote. “It replaces the constitutional right against intentionally discriminatory districting with an amorphous race-based right to a ‘fair’ distribution of political power, a ‘right’ that cannot be implemented without requiring the very evils the constitution forbids.”Alito, writing separately in dissent, also said that the plaintiffs advocating for an additional majority-minority district “must show at the outset that such a district can be created without making race the predominant factor in its creation”.“Today’s decision unnecessarily sets the VRA on a perilous and unfortunate path,” he wrote.The supreme court intervened in February 2022 on an emergency request and allowed Alabama’s maps to go into effect for the 2022 elections. Even though Alabama’s election was not until the end of May, the court said it was too close to the election to upend the map.Alabama had argued that the lower court had wrongly decided the case by taking race too much into account. The challengers in the case should have been required to show that they could draw a second majority-Black district without considering race at all, Edmund LaCour, the state’s solicitor general, said during oral argument last year.The case was seen as a “textbook” example of the kind of discrimination in redistricting that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent. The provision outlaws any voting practice that discriminates on the basis of race and litigants have frequently used it to challenge electoral maps that make it harder for minorities to elect the candidate of their choice. It was widely understood to be the most powerful remaining provision in the landmark civil rights law after the US supreme court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder. That decision blocked another part of the landmark civil rights law requiring states with a history of voting discrimination to get their changes approved by the federal government. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans want to join unions. The supreme court doesn’t like that | Moira Donegan

      by

      Their contract had expired, so the local teamsters, drivers of concrete-mixing barrel trucks for a firm called Glacier Northwest, in Washington state, decided to walk off the job. Like all strikes, the point of the work stoppage was to inflict financial consequences on a recalcitrant management side: to show the bosses that their employees were united in shared interest and mutual protection and that it would cost them less money to negotiate in good faith and agree to the workers’ demands than to continue to fight the union for less favorable, more exploitative conditions. When the teamsters began their strike, 16 of the barrel mixing trucks were full. They drove them back to the Glacier Northwest lot and left them there.But if you don’t mix concrete, it hardens, and becomes useless. If this happens in a barrel truck, sometimes that can cause damage to the truck, too. When Glacier Northwest realized that their teamster employees had gone on strike, non-union workers were able to remove the concrete over the course of five hours, averting damage to the trucks. But they lost the use of all the concrete that had been mixed in those 16 barrel trucks that day.This injury – the loss of 16 trucks’ worth of concrete to a regional construction supplier in the north-west – is the pretext that the US supreme court used this week to weaken the National Labor Relations Board and deal a blow to the right to strike.In the case, Glacier Northwest v International Brotherhood of Teamsters, eight of the court’s nine justices found that management could sue the union for the damage caused to their property during the strike. Only Justice Jackson dissented. In addition to encouraging companies to sue their workers over strikes and ensuring that unions will pre-emptively avoid strikes or adopt less effective tactics to protect themselves from liability, the ruling also opens a wide new avenue for union-busting litigators to evade the authority of the National Labor Relations Board – the federal body that was created by Congress specifically to handle such conflicts and enforce workers’ rights.The decision, then, furthers two of the supreme court’s major long-term projects: the erosion of labor protections, and the weakening of administrative agencies, whose expertise the court routinely ignores and whose authority the justices seem determined to usurp for themselves.It might risk reinforcing the dramatically low standards for the supreme court’s behavior to note that the majority opinion, authored by Amy Coney Barrett, did not represent the worst of all possible outcomes. Barrett included some limiting language in her writing that preserves the possibility of binding NLRB oversight in these lawsuits. She clarified that unions do have some right to time their strikes in order to maximize financial damage to management – a move that would protect, say, the right of Amazon workers to initiate work stoppages during the holiday shipping rush, as they did last year. The gestures toward a continued right to strike appear designed to secure the votes of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the majority, and to dilute the power of Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who wanted to gut NLRB authority over strike-related litigation entirely.But it is important to consider Glacier Northwest in context: in recent years, the court has made it easier for companies to bar their employees from bringing class-action lawsuits, made it harder for public-sector unions to collect dues and struck down a California law that allowed unions to recruit agricultural workers on farms. The new ruling, which finds that strikes are often illegal when they lead to damage to employers’ property, only furthers their long project of making it harder for workers to join a union, easier for employers to break one up, and more legally risky for workers to take the kinds of action that can actually elicit concessions from the boss.It will get worse. If they get their way – a less procedurally complicated case, a more amenable vote from Roberts, Barrett or Kavanaugh – the court’s most extreme conservatives will shape a bleak future for American labor. Their aim is to all but eliminate rights to organize and strike that are enjoyed by people in the most important, foundational and meaningful part of their public lives: the workplace.“Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. But that is the labor settlement that at least three members of the extremist conservative wing hope to enact. There is only one direction that this court’s labor jurisprudence is going.The ruling comes at a moment when the American labor movement, long dormant and defeated, is experiencing something like a small resurgence, however timid and sporadic. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unionized workers grew last year in both the public and private sectors, with the biggest increases in sectors like transportation and warehousing, arts and entertainment and durable goods manufacturing.This growth has been accompanied by highly visible, media-savvy worker organizing drives among journalists, fast-food workers and graduate student instructors, and comes on the heels of high-profile strikes by groups ranging from Oakland teachers to Hollywood writers. Since 2021, this union resurgence has been aided in no small part by the Biden NLRB, which has been unusually hospitable to labor’s claims, even for a Democratic administration.More and more workers are saying that they want to be a part of a union – and more and more of them are finding ways around the many and onerous obstacles designed to prevent them from forming one. Given the growing power of American unions, maybe the anti-worker court is right to be scared.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lawyers meet with DoJ to stave off indictment in Mar-a-Lago case

      by

      Lawyers for Donald Trump met with top US justice department officials on Thursday to complain about perceived misconduct in the criminal investigation into the former US president’s handling of national security materials and obstruction, according to two people familiar with the matter.The meeting involved Trump lawyers Jim Trusty, John Rowley and Lindsay Halligan speaking with the special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the investigation, and a senior career official to the deputy attorney general, one person said. CBS News first reported the meeting.Trump’s lawyers made a general case as to why Trump should not be charged in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and suggested that some prosecutors working under special counsel Jack Smith engaged in what they considered prosecutorial misconduct, the people said.The exact allegations are not clear but Trump’s lawyers for weeks have complained privately that Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and espionage section at the justice department, once sought to induce a witness into confirming something they declined to, one of the people said.Complaints of that nature result in an internal note to the special counsel and are unlikely to delay the criminal investigation.The meeting comes weeks after Trump’s lawyers asked the justice department for a meeting with the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to raise grievances about what they considered as unfair treatment of Trump over his handling of classified documents compared to other former presidents.“No president of the United States has ever, in the history of our country, been baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion,” said the letter written by Trusty and Rowley.While it is not unusual for lawyers to seek a meeting with prosecutors near the end of an investigation, it typically is not with the attorney general. That is especially the case in special counsel investigations, where charging decisions can only be overruled if department rules were not followed.The development comes as prosecutors have recently asked witnesses before the grand jury hearing evidence in the case in Washington whether Trump showed off national security materials, including a document concerning military action against Iran, people close to the case said.Prosecutors have seemingly been trying to identify whether that Iran document was the same document Trump referenced on an audio recording in which he said he could not discuss it because he did not declassify it while in office – though he should have, the Guardian previously reported.The investigation has also examined whether the failure by Trump to fully comply with a subpoena last year demanding the return of any classified documents was a deliberate act of obstruction, the people said.Last June, the since-recused Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran found 38 classified documents in the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and told the justice department that no further materials remained at the property – which came into question when the FBI seized 101 additional classified documents months later.The Guardian has reported that Corcoran later told associates he felt misled in the subpoena response because he had asked whether he should search elsewhere at Mar-a-Lago, like Trump’s office, but was waved off. Corcoran’s notes also showed he told Trump he had to return all classified documents in his possession. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida taxpayers pick up bill for Ron DeSantis’s culture war lawsuits

      by

      Since Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, took office in 2019 and embarked on his culture wars, lawsuits from various communities whose rights have been violated have been stacking up against the far-right Republican.As DeSantis fights the lawsuits with what critics have described as a blank check from the state’s supermajority Republican legislature, the mounting legal costs have come heavily at the expense of Florida’s taxpayers.In recent years, DeSantis’s ultra-conservative legislative agenda has drawn ire from a slew of marginalized communities as well as major corporations including Disney. The so-called “don’t say gay” bill, abortion bans and prohibition of African American studies are just a few of DeSantis’s many extremist policies that have been met with costly lawsuits in a state where residents are already struggling with costs of living.“The list of legal challenges precipitating from DeSantis’s unconstitutional laws is endless,” the Democratic state senator Lori Berman said.“We’ve seen Floridians rightly sue many if not all of the governor’s legislative priorities, including laws that restrict drag shows for kids, prohibit Chinese citizens from owning homes and land in Florida, suppress young and Black and brown voters, ban gender-affirming care and threaten supportive parents with state custody of their children, and of course, all the retaliatory legislation waged against Disney for coming out in support of the LGBTQ+ community,” she said.As a result of the mounting lawsuits against DeSantis, the governor’s legal costs, which the Miami Herald reported last December to cost at least $16.7m, have been soaring.In DeSantis’s legal fight against Disney following the corporation’s condemnation of his anti-LGBTQ+ laws, it is going to cost the governor and his handpicked board nearly $1,300 per hour in legal fees as they look into how the corporation discovered a loophole in DeSantis’s plan to acquire governing rights over Disney World, Insider reports.“Disney is a perfect example. It doesn’t hurt any Floridians. There is nothing. It’s creating a legal issue out of nowhere and now Disney sued so they have to respond and that is going to cost taxpayers’ money. The whole Disney case is just because of DeSantis’s ego and his hurt feelings,” the Democratic state senator Tina Polsky said.“Taxpayers are paying to foot the bills to pass unconstitutional bills and to keep up with his petty vengeance,” she said, adding: “I don’t think they’re aware at all … They’re too brainwashed at this point that they wouldn’t even care.”Meanwhile, in another case covered by the Orlando Sentinel, DeSantis’s administration has turned to the elite conservative Washington DC-based law firm Cooper & Kirk to defend the governor against his slew of “anti-woke” laws. The firm’s lawyers charge $725 hourly, according to contracts reviewed by Orlando Sentinel. As of June 2022, the state authorized nearly $2.8m for legal services from just Cooper & Kirk alone, the outlet reports.With mounting taxpayer-funded legal costs against DeSantis’s legislative agenda, critics ranging from civil rights organizations to the state’s Democratic lawmakers have lambasted DeSantis’s policies as unconstitutional and mere political stunts designed to propel him to the frontlines of the GOP primary.“DeSantis went to Harvard for his [law degree]. This is someone who should understand the constraints placed on him and the state by the United States constitution and the Florida constitution. He knows those constraints, but he doesn’t care. His goal is to intentionally pass unconstitutional laws and set up legal challenges in order for the conservative supreme court to overturn long-held protections,” Berman said.Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, echoed similar sentiments, comparing DeSantis to his main competition and current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, both of whom he said are cut “from the same cloth”.“Ron DeSantis is a Harvard law school graduate. He is a lawyer. Whereas Donald Trump at least could make the argument, ‘I’m just the layperson, I don’t know’ if … something is deemed illegal or unconstitutional … DeSantis does not have that defense,” Jarvis said.Nevertheless, DeSantis appears unfazed.“DeSantis knows very well that … what he is doing is unconstitutional and illegal … Lawyers by training are very cautious so this is quite remarkable to have a lawyer-politician who not only knows better, but does not care,” said Jarvis.To DeSantis, it does not matter whether he wins or loses the legal battles as he knows he “ultimately controls the Florida supreme court”, according to Jarvis.“He is playing a ‘heads, I win, tails, you lose’ game. If he gets one of these crazy policies passed and they’re challenged and the court upholds him … he can say to the press and to the public, ‘I was right and the proof is in the pudding because the courts agreed with me,’” he explained.“But even better for DeSantis when they rule against him … DeSantis is able to stand up and say, ‘These crazy judges want our children to watch drag shows, they want our children to be taught to be gay, they want Disney to be this terrible company. That’s why you need a strong governor and why you will benefit from having me as president because I will make sure to get rid of these judges and replace them with judges that have traditional American morals,’” Jarvis added.As DeSantis continues to fight his costly legal battles, the state’s supermajority Republican legislature appears to encourage him wholly.“We’re in a litigious society,” the state senate president, Kathleen Passidomo, told the Tallahassee Democrat while the senate budget chair, Doug Broxson, told the outlet: “We want the governor to be in a comfortable position to speak his mind.”With Republicans rushing to DeSantis’s defense, perhaps the most glaring example of the legislature’s endorsement of his legal wars is the $16m incorporated into the state’s $117bn budget to be used exclusively for his litigation expenses.Speaking to the Guardian, the state’s Democratic house leader, Fentrice Driskell, called the budget a “carte blanche” from Republicans and the result of zero accountability.“The legislature is supposed to be a check on executive power. By giving him a carte blanche to go and fight these wars in court, it’s basically just saying that there are no checks and balances when it comes to the state government in Florida,” said Driskell.“It’s a waste … They are just allowing this single person to impose his will on the state of Florida and they’re willing to waste taxpayer dollars to do it,” she said, adding: “Most Floridians can’t afford their rent and property insurance rates are through the roof. We could have redirected that money towards affordable housing.”Driskell went on to describe Medicaid iBudget Florida, a waiver that provides disabled Floridians with access to certain services and which currently has a waitlist of more than 22,000 residents.“It’s very difficult for them to get off that waitlist because the Republicans underfund Medicaid. We could put that money towards funding the waitlist and getting people off of it. I think there’s only $2m that was put in the budget for that this year. If we added the $16m that was added for these culture wars, my goodness, that’s $18m. Presumably we could help get nine times more people off of the waitlist,” said Driskell.As DeSantis remains embroiled in his legal woes at the expense of Florida taxpayers, there is perhaps a single group of people that have benefited the most out of all the legal drama, Jarvis told the Guardian.“The lawyers who got that $16.7m, that’s money from heaven. That’s money that fell into their laps … Anytime there’s a loser, and the loser here is the Florida taxpayer, there is a winner. The winners here are the lawyers who are collecting those enormous fees. The more that plaintiffs file lawsuits and the more they fight these crazy policies, you know that’s just money in the bank for these lawyers,” Jarvis said.“DeSantis has been God’s gift to lawyers,” he added. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Supermajority review: How the supreme court trumped America

      by

      Michael Waldman ran the speechwriting department in Bill Clinton’s White House. His new book about the conservative supermajority which dominates the supreme court is written with the verve of great campaign oratory.Waldman is also a learned lawyer, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, and a talented popular historian. His new book focuses on three horrendous decisions the court rendered at the end of its term one year ago, but it includes a brisk history the court of the last 200 years, from the disastrous lows of Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896) to the highs of Brown v Board of Education (1954) and Obergefell v Hodges (2015).But the longest analysis is devoted to those three days in June 2022 when the court “crammed decades of social change into three days”.Waldman writes: “It overturned Roe v Wade [on abortion] … putting at risk all other privacy rights. It radically loosened curbs on guns, amid an epidemic of mass shootings. And it hobbled the ability of government agencies to protect public health and safety and stop climate change.”These decisions were the work “of a little group of willful men and women, ripping up long-settled aspects of American life for no reason beyond the fact that they can”.Waldman describes how earlier extreme decisions of the court provoked gigantic national backlashes.The civil war started just four years after the court held in Dred Scott that African Americans could not sue in federal court because they could not be citizens of the United States.In May 1935, the “Black Monday decisions” obliterated key parts of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, including striking down the National Recovery Administration. Those rulings led to Roosevelt’s unsuccessful plan to expand the size of the court, which in turn led the court to reverse its position on the New Deal, suddenly upholding Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act. Referring to the number of justices on the court, one newspaper humorist called it “the switch in time that saved nine”.Waldman describes the current make-up of the court as the ultimate outcome of the longest backlash of all – the one to the court led by Earl Warren, who crafted the unanimous opinion in Brown, outlawing segregation in public schools.Equally important were decisions requiring legislative districts to have equal populations. Before Reynolds v Sims in 1964, nearly 40% of the population of California lived in Los Angeles but the state constitution awarded that county just one of 40 state senators. Proclaiming the revolutionary doctrine of “one person, one vote”, the court said: “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” By 1968, 93 of 99 state legislatures had redrawn their districts to comply.But these vital building blocks of modern American democracy coincided with the dramatic social changes of the 1960s, including the fight for racial equality and the explosion of sexual freedom.“The backlash to the 1960s lasted much longer than the 1960s did,” Waldman observes. “Most of us have spent most of our lives living in it.”Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign was the first to capitalize on this backlash. A young campaign aide, Kevin Phillips, explained the plan to the journalist Garry Wills: “The whole secret of politics” was “knowing who hates who”, a theory that reached its apotheosis 50 years later with the ascendance of Donald Trump.The problem for America was that most of the energy on the left dissipated after the election of Nixon. At the same time, the right began a decades-long battle to turn back the clock. For 50 years, the right has had overwhelming organizational energy: it built a huge infrastructure of think tanks and political action committees that culminated with the election of Trump and his appointment of the three justices who cemented the rightwing supermajority.Recent reports have highlighted the enormous amounts of money that have directly benefitted justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas (never mind Thomas’s own gifts from Harlan Crow) through payments to their wives. Waldman reminds us how long this has been going on. Way back in 2012, Common Cause charged that Thomas failed to disclose nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation to his wife, forcing him amend 20 years of filings.Waldman is particularly good at explaining how earlier rulings have accelerated the infusion of gigantic sums that have corrupted American politics. Most important of course was Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, in 2010, when five justices including Roberts “undid a century of campaign finance law”.Citizens United made it possible for corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums in federal elections as long as they plausibly pretended they were independent of the candidates they backed. As Waldman writes, quickly “that proved illusory, as presidential contenders … raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their campaigns, all of it supposedly independent”.This was the beginning of the Roberts majority’s use of the first amendment guarantee of free speech “to undermine democracy, a constitutional contradiction”. Two years after Citizens United, the court eliminated “a long-standing cap on the amount” individuals could give to federal candidates.These rulings “remade American politics”, Waldman writes. “In the new Gilded Age of fantastically concentrated wealth, billionaires again dominated the electoral system.”The shift was dramatic “and largely unremarked”. In 2010, billionaires spent about $31m in federal races. A decade later they spent $2.2bn. Last year, Peter Thiel provided nearly $30m in “independent funds” to support JD Vance in Ohio and Blake Masters in Arizona.Waldman concludes that the court has become a serious threat to American democracy. He suggests our only hope is that Democratic successes in last year’s midterms – many based on fury over the fall of Roe v Wade – mark the beginning of a backlash against the rightwing revolution the court now shamelessly promotes.
      The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America is published in the US by Simon & Schuster More